An excerpt from Kruse Kronicles reviewing the book “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy”.
Chapter 15 – The Nature of Authority in the New Testament. Walter L. Liefield.
The authority of Jesus – Jesus said that “’all authority in heaven and on earth, had been given to him.” At issue for us is what dimension of his unique authority, if any, was passed on to his followers.” (257)
The authority of the Twelve – The only mention of exousia (authority) with relation to the disciples refers to authority over demons. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom and an implied authority to “bind” and “loose” is given, but in neither mention of this story is it linked to teaching or preaching. There is a wide variety of interpretations as to what the keys mean. Bottom line, Liefield concludes authority over the evil powers was the only authority given to the twelve.
Paul’s Apostolic Authority – “First, he exercised authority over his coworkers … and churches he himself founded. Second, he primarily uses exousia (“authority”) language in a struggle with the Corinthians over “rights” (1 Cor 8:9; 9:1-18). Third, with the exception of urgent and emotional cases, he was usually gentle in his authority, “urging” rather than commanding Timothy and Titus … and not issuing a “command” to the Corinthians (2 cor 8:8).” (258)
The Question of Authority and “Church Government” – Liefield writes, “While there is clear evidence for the fact of early church governance, there is no express teaching on the subject in the New Testament.” (258) From here Liefield moves into an examination of verses like Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to them.” The key word is peitho “obey” and Liefield suggest it is quite fluid in meaning. The TNIV reads “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority.” This verse challenges the idea that there was no authority but the wording is “…clearly temperate in comparison to stronger terms in the same semantic domain. (259)
A second word he examines is proistemi which he says can mean “‘to show concern/ care for / devote oneself to’ and ‘to be at the head of’ (thus to exercise leadership.)” (259-260) It appears eight times in Paul’s writings and in four cases it tends to convey the idea of leader giving devoted care. Four other cases are found in the Pastoral epistles.
read the rest of the post here.
It is my estimation that one cannot divorce submission from leadership and authority. To do so encourages a lack of care for those one leads. I think Liefield demonstrates this well in his chapter in the book.
TL,
You need to define what you mean by submission. Here are three ways I can see submission being defined.
1) Submission means that someone else has the right to overturn your will, and require that you do their will instead.
2) Submission can mean voluntarily doing the will of someone else.
3) Submission means you voluntarily yield to the best interests of another person. In other words, you put aside your self interest in order to put another’s interests first.
I think the way submission is used in the New Testament is definition 3. It’s a voluntarily yielding of one’s own best interests in order to put someone else’s interests first.
But before we can discuss this issue, we need to know how you define the way submission is used in the New Testament. Unless you give us your definition, we won’t know how to respond to you.
Say, where has Charis been? I’ve missed her.
Excellent point JLP
First, the primary meaning of the word translated submit/submission (hupotassomai) in the NT is to voluntarily arrange oneself under. The ending ‘mai’ carries a strong sense of ’self instigation’ meaning voluntary. The word does not indicate to what, such as authority, leadership, orders or what. The context tells us that. Their are other words which can be used to specify those things. But hupotassomai does not.
The generalness of this word is important. It is not about an arranging under which indicate superior/inferior, nor of rank (although it could be used contextually that way). Because of the generalness of the word, it can mean such general things as honor, respect, support, being part of, attaching oneself to, fitting in.
In that sense we can see that we do this in our lives everyday with our children, our loved one, our pets, our friends, etc. Every time we yield way to another’s wishes for whatever reasons, we are arranging ourselves under their wishes, their desires, and supporting them in some way.
Thus you can see that anyone in any kind of leadership responsibility also needs to have an attitude of arranging themselves as the less important part in order to support and serve the needs of those they wish to minister to. Any ministry not born out of a heart to serve is not serving God’s heart.
Mat 16:19 (Jesus speaking with Simon) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Mat 18:18 (Jesus speaking with his disciples (which included women the 12 and more)) Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Bind and loose are rabbinic terms meaning to forbid and allow, in regards to interpreting Torah, God’s instructions, what we would call the Bible. An example of this happening was in Acts 15.
On keys of the kingdom, see Luk 11:52 How terrible it will be for you experts in the law! For you have taken away the key to knowledge. You didn’t go in yourselves, and you kept out those who were trying to go in.” Here is an insight into “keys of the kingdom” given to Peter. In Luke here we see Jesus talking about someone taking away the “key” so someone is hindered from entering the Kingdom of God and the key consists of knowledge about something. “Taking away a key” is figurative for “hindering those entering the Kingdom of God.” So the opposite “giving a key” would be figurative for “aiding those entering the Kingdom of God” which is EXACTLY what Peter can be seen as doing in Acts.
Phillipians 2
3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Here Jesus submits himself to the cross as a servant for our sake. And yet we also submit ourselves to him. It seems like the relationship between Christ and the church both contain elements of submission.
“Here Jesus submits himself to the cross as a servant for our sake. And yet we also submit ourselves to him. It seems like the relationship between Christ and the church both contain elements of submission.”
I agree JLP. IMO the kingdom of God is built upon humility, serving one another, helping one another.
Another excerpt from the Kruse Kronicles regarding Liefield’s chapter on authority.
I agree with Liefield and Kruse on this point. In many places the sixteenth century desire to honor the King’s rule has tainted our Bibles with an idea the pastors’, elders and church leaders are to rule over the congregations. This has led many translations to translate such words as proistemi as ‘rule’ when ‘lead’, ‘guide’, and even ‘care for’ in some instances are more accurate.
TL
Excellent point JLP
First, the primary meaning of the word translated submit/submission (hupotassomai) in the NT is to voluntarily arrange oneself under. The ending ‘mai’ carries a strong sense of ’self instigation’ meaning voluntary. The word does not indicate to what, such as authority, leadership, orders or what. The context tells us that. Their are other words which can be used to specify those things. But hupotassomai does not.
?????
You lost me on that one, TL.
AFAIK, “mai” is simply the present middle/passive indicative 1st-person singular ending. The endings, in order (1,2,3 person, singular and then plural), are:
Singular
1 -omai
2 -esai (contracted to eta with iota subscript)
3 -etai
Plural
1 -ometha
2 -esthe
3 -ontai
E.g.:
luomai (I am being loosed)
luêi (you are being loosed – i is supposed to be a iota subscript here, which I can’t represent in English)
luetai (he/she/it is being loosed)
luometha (we are being loosed)
luesthe (y’all are being loosed)
luontai (they are being loosed)
As to whether hupotassomai has a voluntary meaning, that would somewhat depend on whether one regards it as being a middle (in which case the subject in some manner participates in the action – the Greek middle voice is not quite the same as our “reflexive,” i.e., do to one’s self) or a passive (in which case the subject is the recipient of the action). From what I understand, there are very few true middles in the NT; i.e., if a verb has a middle/passive form, it is most likely a passive, though not always.
It may be true that all the instances in the NT of hupotassomai are of voluntary submission or self-instigation, but I don’t think one can say that the “mai” ending carries that connotation, esp. since by NT times it was more likely indicating a passive verb form, not a middle; the sense of self-instigation would more have to do with context and other factors, I would think.
Yes, all the instances I’ve run across of words with the ‘mai’ ending are instances of voluntary and self instigated actions.
The reading that I have done on it tells me that it is a tense that we do not have in English. This makes it more difficult to explain.
Offhand, John Temple Bristow talks a little about it in his book
What Paul Really Said About Women. I’ve read elsewhere but can’t think of it offhand.
Yes, all the instances I’ve run across of words with the ‘mai’ ending are instances of voluntary and self instigated actions.
Can you refer me to a Greek grammar that says the -mai ending means voluntary and self-instigated action? I don’t mean the so-called “deponent” verbs, which only occur with the middle/passive endings; I mean instances of -mai endings in the NT for non-deponent verbs.
Which reminds me that some day I need to read in detail Carl Conrad’s essay on Greek verb voice, which addresses the issues of “deponency” and the “middle/passive” verb forms:
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/docs/NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf
Studying it will no doubt change or at least nuance my understanding and explanation of Greek verb endings, perhaps even supporting what you are saying, though I don’t know (and won’t know till I read it thoroughly) if it addresses and/or supports and/or refutes what you are claiming.
Thanks!
Regarding hupotassomai, I think its the present middle/passive nominative. This means that it is the recipient of it’s own action – thus self instigated and of course voluntary. Even though it involves things we need to do such as submitting to government, it is usually regarding things we must exercise discernment on. Otherwise, obedience would be commanded.
Not being a Greek scholar, I think that’s the best I can do. Perhaps, if Sue McCarthy is listening in, she can do much better at fleshing it out for us. She can probably point us to a good online Greek grammar source.
TL:
hupotassomai is the (tense, voice, mood, person, number) present middle/passive indicative 1st-person singular of hupotassô – there are no cases (e.g., nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative) with verbs, only with nouns, pronouns, participles, articles, and adjectives (i.e., noun modifiers).
Again, I ask – what Greek grammar can you point me to that defines the middle/passive form as indicating “the recipient of its own action” and/or where did you read the statement you’re making about the meaning of -mai when it comes to hupotassô? The passive voice by definition means it’s the recipient of someone or something else’s action. The middle voice can mean the subject is involved in the action in some way, but since the middle and passive forms in the present indicative are identical, one needs other information besides the mai/sai/tai/metha/esthe/ontai ending to be able to say that a particular verb is a “middle” (versus a “passive”) and hence “may” be said to be “the recipient of its own action.”
FWIW, you don’t have to be a Greek scholar to know these things; I’m certainly no Greek scholar, just a person who’s familiar with what Greek grammars teach after taking a couple years of NT Greek and doing some of my own study.
OK let me try to sort this out. I feel like you’re trying to get me to say something I can’t or that you’re claiming I said something I didn’t really.
I wrote: “First, the primary meaning of the word translated submit/submission (hupotassomai) in the NT is to voluntarily arrange oneself under. The ending ‘mai’ carries a strong sense of ’self instigation’ meaning voluntary.”>
To which you responded with alarm as if I were giving a new definition of the passive/middle voice. I was not and do not know enough to claim what the passive voice does in all cases. My only area of understanding has to do with usages in the NT. And I think I can stand on that that in the NT most if not all of the usages of the passive that I have come across are used in such a way as to require some voluntary (which IMU voluntary is more self instigated rather than response driven) response. We have voluntary submission to the government in Romans. In Hebrews 13 we are admonished to be willing to be persuaded, again voluntary discernment. And then we have in Ephesians the admonishment to be subject to one another where again voluntary discernment is required in order to carry that out.
You wrote: “It may be true that all the instances in the NT of hupotassomai are of voluntary submission or self-instigation, but I don’t think one can say that the “mai” ending carries that connotation”
Yes, that is basically what I said. And I responded with “Yes, all the instances I’ve run across of words with the ‘mai’ ending are instances of voluntary and self instigated actions.”.
I don’t think voice endings go so far as to include that kind of description. But as I said, perhaps Sue, who is a linguist and Greek scholar can give some clarity.
I suspect the problem arose when you separated my two sentences into two stand alones. Both of them were meant to convey one linked thought. They were not two separate stand alone thoughts. And I can see that I could have been more precise in how I wrote it.
Also, it sounded like the idea of self instigation bothered you. If you will look up the dictionary meaning of voluntary, it describes self instigation….
VOLUNTARY: done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one’s own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution.
I hope this allays our confusion.
To continue with Bristow. Bristow says that in writing in the middle/passive Paul was emphasizing the voluntary nature of being “subject to”. And also that this effected the subject of the verb acting in a way that affects the subject – “a voluntary action by the subject of the verb upon the subject of the verb”.
That is discussed in his his book “What Paul Really Said About Women”, on pg. 39-41.
FWIW, there are no instances of hupotassomai in the Greek New Testament. (There are instances of hupotassô with other middle and/or passive endings, but no instances of hupotassô in the present middle/passive indicative 1st-person singular – i.e., the -mai ending.)
I’ll have to look for Bristow’s book and read what he says. But I wonder if the idea of voluntary/self-instigation is more carried by the root meaning of huptassein than by or in the -mai (i.e., middle/passive) ending? If the former is the case, then most instances of hupotassein would carry this voluntary idea because that’s the inherent meaning of the word, regardless of the form or ending.
Thanks!
Of course, if hupotassô, either by itself or in the middle/passive voice, means voluntary self-instigated subjugation, then that means the demons voluntary subjected themselves to Jesus in, e.g., Luke 10:17. (FWIW, in NT Greek plural neuter nouns normally take a singular verb, which is why you see hupotassetai and not hupotassontai in Luke 10:17.)
Which might be indicative of the recognition of His authority and the power of His name even in and by the demonic realm.
Re: Ephesians 5:24 and the middle/passive form of hupotassô there – Does the church voluntarily submit itself/herself to Christ as an act of self-instigation? I.e., can the church choose not to submit herself to Christ? Or is Paul stating something about the nature of the church – i.e., the church, being His body, by its very nature is subject to Christ, just as our limbs are subject to what we with our minds tell our hands, legs, feet, etc., to do – rather than saying that the church can choose whether or not to subject itself to its head?
“FWIW, there are no instances of hupotassomai”
Mai is singular, menoi is plural. You will find it in the plural. This still makes it voluntary.
As to the church, do you think that as a Christian we cannot say no to God? Personally, my experience is that Christians say no to God several times a day. Does God punish us for saying no or not listening and responding in ways that are best for us? I don’t think so. Because God is well God, what He desires for us is always tuned to our needs and what will cause us the greatest good. He desires for us to mature into the likeness of Christ. Therefore, when we do not choose to listen or follow God’s callings to our hearts, then we suffer because we then choose the lesser things. We are to trust the Lord because He died for us. He did not die for Himself or to benefit Himself, but He suffered for our sakes.
But husbands are not gods to wives. Husbands do not always frame their requests and advice in ways that are best or for the greater good of their wives. They should according to the admonition in Ephesians 5. Husbands are admonished to lay down their selfish desires and be toward their wives only for the good of the wife. They are to use their strength, their skills, influences and powers for the benefit of the wife. But because they don’t and it is not possible to demand that they do, they are after all human and prone to error, then the wife must choose to what she submits herself, when and how.
However, in the ideal picture a husband loves his wife and desires to do good for her. In that sense then the wife should trust her husband’s love for her (unless he proves otherwise) and be willing to arrange herself in ways that are responsive to and supportive of her husband. It is the “unless he proves otherwise” that is troubling.
In the comp frame of thinking it is troubling to them to think that a wife has a choice. They want her to have no choice but to obey. Perhaps, in some women’s minds having no choice means not making any mistakes. And in some men’s minds, perhaps a wife having no choice means less work in communication. For most people either of those pictures is detrimental to a deep unity IMO .
Paul’s picture is one of husbandly sacrificial love in provision, protection, care and nurturing. This fits well with voluntary submission and support from the wife. Take away the voluntary from the wife and the husband gains power and control.
P.S. Luke 10:17 is a different ending.
Check the differences here:
http://www.scripture4all.org
Mai is singular, menoi is plural. You will find it in the plural. This still makes it voluntary.
mai is a finite verb ending, menoi is a participle ending.
Re: Luke 10:17 – what I was trying to explain is that:
1. There are no instances of hupotassomai in the Greek NT.
2. The word that occurs in Luke 10:17 – hupotassetai – is the exact same word and form as hupotassomai, the only difference being that it’s the third person (he/she/it), not the first person (I). I.e., whatever claims one wishes to make about hupotassomai based on its morphology must also be true for hupotassetai, and hence for Luke 10:17. One cannot say that the -mai ending on hupotassô means something without also having to say that the -tai ending on hupotassô means/implies the same thing.
For example, in English I can’t say that “I eat” is semantically different from “he eats” by arguing that the lack of an “s” in “I eat” means it’s something I do voluntarily. The reason “I eat” has no “s” and “he eats” has an “s” is simply because English forms the third person singular of verbs by adding an “s.” Similarly, the only difference in Greek between hupotassomai (I subject myself/am subjected to) and hupotassetai (he subjects himself/is subjected to) is that Greek uses -mai for first person singulars and uses -tai for third person singulars. Thus, Luke 10:17 is the same thing as hupotassomai.
Ephesians 5:24:
αλλα ως η εκκλησια υποτασσεται τω Χριστω, ουτως και αι γυναικες τοις ανδρασιν εν παντι.
(Literal: But as the church submits/is-submitted to-the Christ, thus also the wives to-the/their husbands in all.)
My fairly literal translation:
But (in the same manner) as the church
a. middle: submits-itself
OR
b. passive: is-submitted [by God? by Christ? - i.e., who is the agent that causes the submission?]
to Christ,
thus also the wives
a. middle: [are to submit themselves]
OR
b. passive: [are submitted] [by God? by Christ? by their husbands? - i.e., who is the agent that causes the submission]
to their husbands in everything.
So, my questions are:
1. Do you agree with this translation of Ephesians 5:24, whether with the translation of hupotassetai as a middle (option a.) or with its translation as a passive (option b.)? If you disagree with any of this translation or with these translation options, please state what you think is a more correct translation and what other options for hupotassetai there might be, and why.
2. Do you think the verse should be translated according to option a., or do you think it should be translated according to option b.?
3. If you think one clause should be translated with one option, and the other clause should be translated with the other option, on what basis do you argue that the author meant two different meanings of hupotassetai in the same verse?
4. If you don’t think that hupotassetai (or, rather, a third-person plural form to agree in number with “wives”) is the implied verb of the second clause, what other verb do you suggest and/or how do you think the verse should read instead?
5. If you choose option b. or otherwise view hupotassetai as being a passive, who or what do you think is the agent (i.e., who or what makes the subjects – the church, the wives – submit)?
Both with option a.
Eric,
Can I clear something up with you? Do you believe that God ever requires humans to do something that is against their will?
The reason I ask is because it seems to me that option B is talking about God forcing obedience.
This also gets into how you define “submit”. Do you see it as a voluntary yielding, or as obedience? And if you see it as obedience, do you see it as obedience by choice, or obedience against one’s will?
I am afraid that I cannot read all of the comments here. However, let me address a couple,
“FWIW, there are no instances of hupotassomai in the Greek New Testament. (There are instances of hupotassô with other middle and/or passive endings, but no instances of hupotassô in the present middle/passive indicative 1st-person singular – i.e., the -mai ending.)”
This disregards the fact that Greek scholars typically treat the middle/passive as distinct from the active forms and do, in fact, refer to the verb hupotassomai. In fact, in a recent thread on Mike Aubrey’s blog, Carl Conrad made the point that mid/passive verbs should have their own entry in lexicons.
Second, a cursory glance at Conrad’s article will verify that he believes that many verbs which have been translated as passives could be middle in voice. He writes,
“While a “head-count” of verb-forms in either morphoparadigm in a particular literary corpus might well show that a majority of the verb-forms bear passive meaning, I personally doubt this very much and I would argue that Greek-speakers (at least in the Hellenistic and Roman Koine periods) felt that either one of these paradigms was inclusive enough to cover the range from intransitive to middle to passive semantics). ”
In fact, I believe the focus is wrongly put onto the verb hupotassomai in the first place. The issue is whether the other person has authority. In Eph. 5:21, no authority is mentioned, in Luke 10 authority is an important issue. The verb hupotassomai does not give us the relevant information regarding authority.
Option b. is simply the way hupotassomai would be translated if it were to be regarded as a passive. I.e., if a verb is in the passive voice, that means that another person or thing does the action to them, sometimes in accordance with their will and sometimes against their will and sometimes regardless of, or irrelevant to, their will.
Does God ever require humans to do something that is against their will? I tend not to think so. But what if God leaves you in or with a situation where both or all options are against your will (e.g., Sophie’s choice, or seemingly hopeless medical situations)? Would his act of doing nothing or not telling/leading/guiding you be the same as requiring you to do something against your will, when even not to decide is to decide – i.e., you can’t do nothing by simply doing nothing? Or does the fact that you make a choice when you are forced to make a choice thus make your choice = your will, and hence God doesn’t make you or leave you to do something that is against your will?
Rather than define “submit,” which is an English word (and which we know can be used for both voluntary and involuntary obedience), I think a better thing to do would be to determine whether hupotassein means “to yield voluntarily” or “to be obedient involuntarily” or “to be obedient, whether voluntary or not,” etc. Depending on the uses and semantic range of hupotassein, then one could determine if it is ever right to translate it as “submit,” and if so, if that means voluntary submission or forced submission or obedience regardless of whether its voluntary or not, etc., and if it can mean more than one type of submission, when is it proper to translate it as meaning voluntary submission, involuntary obedience, etc.
Perhaps, you can continue some of this discussion here:
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-6-trampling-or-loving-one.html
Check the latest comments.
TL/believer333:
I looked at the latest comments and I responded there to Suzanne re: her response to what you posted of what I wrote here. Check my response.
Here is what I quoted for Sue.
Bristow talked about it for a few pages. Here is one paragraph that is relevant to our discussion.
”It is difficult for English-speaking persons to grasp the subtle yet important distinction between middle and passive voice in Greek verbs just by reading the definition, and yet we think in ways that the Grk verb forms express. For example, a person may teach _ an active verb. And, one may be taught _ a passive verb. But a person may also teach himself or herself by careful listening, discovering, reasoning, learning. In that sense, the person is both subject and object of the action. That is what the Grk middle voice expresses, a voluntary action by the subject of the verb upon the subject of the verb.”
TL:
Since you asked Suzanne for a definition of the middle voice, here is what Daniel Wallace’s grammar says:
II . Middle Voice
Definition
Defining the function of the middle voice is not an easy task because it encompasses a large and amorphous group of nuances. But in general, in the middle voice the subject performs or experiences the action expressed by the verb in such a way that emphasizes the subject’s participation.
It may be said that the subject acts“with a vested interest.” “The middle voice shows that the action is performed with special reference to the subject.” Perhaps the best definition is this: “The middle calls special attention to the subject . . . the subject is acting in relation to himself somehow.”
The difference between the active and middle is one of emphasis. The active voice emphasizes the action of the verb; the middle emphasizes the actor [subject] of the verb. “It, in some way, relates the action more intimately to the subject.” This difference can be expressed, to some degree, in English translation. For many middle voices(especially the indirect middle), putting the subject in italics would communicate this emphasis.
Clarification
A few points of clarification are in order before we proceed:
• For Koine Greek, the term middle has become a misnomer, because it inherently describes that voice that stands halfway between the active and the passive. Only the direct middle truly does this (in that the subject is both the agent and receiver of the action). Since the direct middle is phasing out in Hellenistic Greek, the term is hardly descriptive of the voice as a whole.
• Not infrequently the difference between the active and middle of the same verb is more lexical than grammatical. Sometimes the shift is between transitive and intransitive, between causative and non-causative, or some other similar alteration. Though not always predictable, such changes in meaning from active to middle usually make good sense and are true to the genius of the voices.
ALSO:
(II . Middle Voice) Middle (414-30)
Subject performs or experiences the action expressed by the verb in such a way that emphasizes the subject’s participation; subject acts with a vested interest
A . Direct Middle (a.k.a. Reflexive or Direct Reflexive): verb + self (as direct object); subject acts on himself or herself(416-18)
B . Redundant Middle: the use of the middle voice in a reflexive manner with a reflexive pronoun (418-19)
C . Indirect Middle (a.k.a. Indirect Reflexive, Benefactive, Intensive, Dynamic): subject acts for (or sometimes by) himself or herself, or in his or her own interest; key: like active verb + reflexive pronoun in dative (419-23)
D . Causative Middle: subject has something done for or to himself or herself (423-25)
E . Permissive Middle: subject allows something to be done for or to himself or herself (425-27)
F . Reciprocal Middle: verb with plural subject to represent interaction among themselves (427)
G . Deponent Middle: generally, no active form but active meaning; specifically, no active form for a particular principal part in Hellenistic Greek, and one whose force in that principal part is evidently active (428-30)
It’s the same thing that Bristow said only with a lot more words.
It still comes out that if you are going to cause yourself to learn, then you are in control of the how, when, where, etc.
This still does not address the issues of this topic though. A person can cause him/herself to learn or whatever regardless of whether it is involving an authority figure. Thus, what authority a another person may or may not have must be stated elsewhere in the equation. It is obvious that governments have authority. It is not obvious that leaders, teachers, husbands, etc. have positional authoritative control over others in the same way that governments do. There is a type of authority to perform their responsibilities. So, perhaps the discussion should include what precisely are those responsibilities.
Note that Sue has a comment at 21/11:15.
I didn’t know that Sue also posted that here. I responded to that comment on her blog, i.e.:
Suzanne:
My comment to TL about there being no instances of hupotassomai in the Greek NT was simply that – i.e., there are no instances in the NT text of hupotassein in the present middle/passive indicative first-person singular.
My comment wasn’t intended, intentionally or unintentionally, to “disregard” anything about Greek grammar and verb voice. It was simply a statement of fact, not an argument for a position or a meaning of hupotassein.
Where my discussion with TL could be construed as an argument for something was where I then suggested – perhaps insisted – that if one wants to claim an inherent meaning (i.e., one divorced from context or any other words or any other aspect of the context in which the word was found) for the -mai/-omai ending of hupotassein (or of any other verb, for that matter), one would also have to apply that meaning to hupotassein (or any other verb) with the -tai/-etai ending.
That’s why and where I brought in Luke 10:17 – i.e., if one claims or insists that hupotassomai (again, by itself, regardless of the context) MUST mean a certain thing SIMPLY BECAUSE IT ENDS IN -MAI, then hupotassetai ALSO MUST MEAN THE SAME THING SIMPLY BECAUSE IT ENDS IN -TAI, because both hupotassomai and hupotassetai are the present middle/passive indicative singular of hupotassein, the only difference being that one is a 1st-person singular and the other is a 3rd-person singular.
Sue and our responses are here if anyone wants to follow along….
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-6-trampling-or-loving-one.html