![\"grudem11](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/07\/grudem11.jpg?resize=175%2C319\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In my last post<\/a><\/strong> I copied Wayne Grudem\u2019s \u201cOpen letter to Egalitarians\u201d and I listed the first question of his \u201cSix\u00a0Questions That Have Never Been Satisfactorily Answered\u201d. \u00a0Today I am posting his second question, Suzanne McCarthy\u2019s expert Greek answer, and my own challenge after that.<\/p>\n 2. hypotasso: Where the Bible says that wives are to \u201cbe subject to\u2019\u2019 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 \u201cbe subject to\u2019\u2019 (hypotasso, passive) is a requirement for both husbands and wives\u2014that 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 \u201cmutual submission\u2019\u2019 according to Ephesians 5:21, \u201cbe subject to one another,\u2019\u2019 and therefore there is no idea of one-directional submission to the husband\u2019s authority in these other verses (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and Eph. 5:22, 24). But we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature where hypotasso (passive) refers to a person or persons being \u201csubject to\u2019\u2019 another person, and where the idea of submission to that person\u2019s authority is absent. In every example we can find, when person A is said to \u201cbe subject to\u2019\u2019 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. So our question is this:<\/p>\n Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for \u201cbe subject to\u2019\u2019 (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\u2019s authority?<\/p>\n If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of these key verses, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Wayne Grudem is answered by Suzanne McCarthy. \u00a0Unfortunately I was not able to copy the Greek fonts in my blog, but the original is here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n 2. Hupotasso \u2013 [to submit, yield]<\/strong><\/p>\n Dr. Grudem writes,<\/p>\n Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for \u201cbe subject to\u2019\u2019 (hypotass?, 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\u2019s authority?<\/em><\/p>\n Here are two clear examples,<\/p>\n 1 Clement 38.1:<\/p>\n \u201cSo in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject<\/strong><\/em> to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2 Macc 13.23,<\/p>\n \u201d[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded<\/em><\/strong> and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the first case, Christians are to be subject to their neighbour, and in the second, the king is subject to his subjects. We can rightly say that\u00a0(hypotasso, passive<\/em>) is used to refer to a Christian in relation to his or her neighbour and it does not include the idea of one-directional submission to that other person\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n __________________________________<\/p>\n Question #2 for Complementarians by Cheryl Schatz<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. \u00a0Complementarians tell us that the verb \u201cbe subject to\u2019\u2019 (hypotasso, passive) is not reciprocal with the term in Ephesians 5:21 however can you explain why all the lexicons say that it is a reciprocal pronoun meaning one another? \u00a0Why would complementarians deny for males what is clearly to be a Christian attitude? \u00a0If the submission was not to be reciprocal, then why did the Holy Spirit inspire the Greek word that means mutually, one another (reciprocal)? \u00a0If God had meant that husbands were to be exempt from the Christian attitude of submission, wouldn\u2019t he have clearly stated their exemption?<\/p>\n Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament<\/span><\/strong>: \u00a0genitive of the reciprocal pronoun;\u00a0one another, each other, mutually<\/em>, applicable to first-, second-, or third-person referents<\/p>\n The complete word study dictionary : New Testament<\/span><\/strong> by Zodhiates:\u00a0of a reciprocal pron. one another<\/p>\n Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek<\/span><\/strong> (New Testament)<\/span><\/strong>each other one, another; a pronoun which marks reciprocation between two persons or groups<\/p>\n Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament<\/span><\/strong>: 1. The reciprocal pron. (attested from the beginnings of Greek literature) is formed by the doubling of the stem. It originally means one to the other(s)\u2026 2. The understanding of (Greek G240) in the NT is unproblematic; the translation each other or mutually is sufficient for every instance\u2026Of theological relevance here is the use of (Greek G240) primarily in the description of the (obligatory) conduct of Christians in the community toward each other, with emphasis on mutuality and culminating in the love commandment<\/p>\n A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature<\/span><\/strong> (Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W.) (BDAG<\/strong>): of the reciprocal pron.each other, one another, mutually,<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Links to more posts on Answering Wayne Grudem\u2019s \u201cOpen letter to Egalitarians\u201d<\/span> part 1<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0part 2<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0part 3<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0part 4<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0part 5<\/a><\/strong>,\u00a0part 6<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/strong> In my last post I copied Wayne Grudem\u2019s \u201cOpen letter to Egalitarians\u201d and I listed the first question of his \u201cSix\u00a0Questions That Have Never Been Satisfactorily Answered\u201d. \u00a0Today I am posting his second question, Suzanne McCarthy\u2019s expert Greek answer, and my own challenge after that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[11,24,31,33,40,52,63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-answering-complementarian-arguments","category-complementarian-errors","category-egalitarian-vs-complementarian","category-ephesians-5","category-headshipsubmission","category-opposing-viewpoints","category-submission"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n<\/p>\n<\/body>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"