In a previous post, I discussed Wayne Grudem’s first question from the opening portion of his “An open letter to egalitarians” regarding the word “kephale.”
In this post, I’d like to look at the second question:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for "be subject to" (hypotasso-, passive) is used to refer to one person in relation to another and does not include the idea of one -directional submission to the other person's authority?
Where the Bible says that wives are to "be subject to" to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and implied in Eph. 5:22, 24), you tell us that the verb "be subject to" (hypotasso-, passive) is a requirement for both husbands and wives -- that just as wives are to be subject to their husbands, so husbands are to be subject to their wives, and that there is no unique authority that belongs to the husband. Rather, the biblical ideal is "mutual submission" according to Eph. 5:21, "be subject to one another," and therefore there is no idea of one-directional submission to the husband's authority in these other verses (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and Eph. 5:22, 24).But we doubt that this is a correct interpretation of Ephesians 5:21, because we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature where hypotasso- (passive) refers to a person or persons being "subject to" another person, and where the idea of submission to that person's authority is absent. In every example we can find, when person A is said to "be subject to" person B, person B has a unique authority which person A does not have. In other words, hypotasso- always implies a one-directional submission to someone in authority.
My question is, why do we need an example of non-“one-directional submission”? It would be more accurate, I think, to speak of mutual one-directional submission. And to merely speak of “one-directional submission” (i.e., what the wife is to do) on its own without presenting it along with its complement, giving up one’s life (i.e., what the husband is to do), is to make an academic exercise that is not relevant to the meaning of the passage being argued.
In addition, why must being subject to, or in submission to, someone imply being subject or submissive to that person’s authority? As before, he appeals to secular examples. But, as it seems that Belleville was arguing, where in secular literature are we going to find examples of directives that husbands give up their lives for their wives, or masters treat their slaves well, or parents be compassionate to their children?
How does subjection to a person imply subjection to their authority? We are to be subject to one another in God's authority. We are subject to His authority, which tells us to be subject to those who govern us in law or job or other human organization, and also subject to those with whom we are otherwise in relationship, as their servant, in whatever way is appropriate to the relationship.
(Besides, being “considerate, kind, and thoughtful” is being subject to the authority of another – their inherent value itself carries authority.)
Grudem suggests that there is unique authority that belongs to the husband. I’ll give that a husband has a form of authority, but he certainly doesn’t own it. His authority is God’s, vested Him in Christ. It is not something for him to use; it is something for him to be, in Christ.
What is Grudem's argument, then, regarding the word "hypotasso"? That it means "submission to authority"? To follow this argument, we would have to set up “only the wife is to submit to her husband’s authority” (or the slave to his master's, and the child to his parent's) against Eph. 5:21 – “be subject to the authority of one another.” Is this possible? Can the latter be possible?
I find Grudem’s arguments in this section very hard to follow. What is he saying about Ephesians 5:21? It seems he’s trying to say that this verse is not saying that husbands must also submit to their wives, as if the remainder of the chapter (and chapter 6) is a qualification of v. 21. But what if it is an explanation? Can’t “hypotasso” and “allelois” mean that we each each one-directionally submit to one another? That each Christian is to submit to others in the appropriate ways?
