|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 5, 2009 8:00:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Oct 5, 2009 10:21:11 GMT -5
WOW! This is so special! Thanks a ton, KR! Makes everything so plain and simple! Is it OK now if we call you Kristen? I love that name!
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Oct 5, 2009 10:26:20 GMT -5
It's an interesting thing, these rules for living might have been very pragmatic in the times that Paul wrote them. I've just always scratched my head at why some things were missed in Jewish law, for example they consider the health of the mother paramount, so if the doctor says "Wait two years in between pregnancies" Many believing Jewish women will use BC with a very clear conscience.
I suppose it's me though, wondering why family planning would be left solely to "God" when God (or Goddess) has clearly handed us tools and knowledge with which to plan our families.
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on Oct 5, 2009 16:35:59 GMT -5
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!
That is rockin'!
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Oct 5, 2009 17:11:44 GMT -5
Wonderful post, KR. Great job.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 5, 2009 17:40:13 GMT -5
Wow, thanks everybody (blushes) As you may have noticed, the FAQ is written with an audience in mind of Q/F women, using the King James Bible for quotes, and focusing on the Bible as authority for its own exegesis. For another audience, I might have spoken in terms of scholarly methods or something, but I took Vyckie's advice that such things might be suspect, even for a woman beginning to ask questions or thinking about leaving the Q/F lifestyle. Lectio-- you may have noticed that I borrowed liberally from this FAQ in some of the comments I posted on your blog over the last few days. Grandmalou-- sure, you can call me Kristen.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Oct 5, 2009 22:24:48 GMT -5
Thank you, Kristen! That was excellent .
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Oct 6, 2009 20:53:36 GMT -5
KR, that was excellent. I especially liked how you explained how Paul worked within each cultural context to get the message of Jesus across, and that it's the message and not the cultural references to which we need to attend. As I grow older, I'm able to appreciate Paul more. From what I've been led to understand, some of his more gender-biased statements regarding women were written by his students rather than by Paul himself. I also appreciate that if Paul himself did write those words that there is a strong likelihood that they were written more to make certain the Christians in the area were being a good witness within their cultural frame of reference than to actively promote the subjugation of women. Again, very well done
|
|
|
Post by charis on Oct 8, 2009 12:53:44 GMT -5
KR, Thank you for your hard work and concern. I hate to nitpick but one thing particularly bothered me. Therefore, Paul said in Titus 2:5 that young wives were to be taught to be “obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” This was the purpose– that the message of the gospel not be hindered by Christians going against the cultural norms. But does it help the gospel today to insist that the husband-wife relationship is to stay within that first-century cultural norm? What principle was Paul really teaching? I know you deliberately stuck with the King James version to avoid unnecessarily offending anyone, and I like the KJV: its a beautiful version. But the Bible wasn't originally written in English. The original language of the NT was Koine Greek and the OT was Hebrew. I think most christian women are capable of understanding this fact. I am a formerly QF woman, mother of 8 living children (plus 3 in heaven) who has kept my faith and my husband (so far) while discarding the bad doctrine. Personally for me, a veil came off of scripture when I started looking at the Greek words of the NT which is very easy to do nowadays online. Mostly, I use www.blueletterbible.org. “The aged women teach the young women to be obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2:3-5 excerpts As "an aged woman" (relatively) I feel a responsibility to set the record straight about Titus 2: to be obedient In order to accurately teach others “to be _____”, one must first establish exactly what ____ means. In this case, it is necessary to look back into the Greek words of the original autographs of scriptures, lest one be led astray by a fatal misunderstanding of the meaning of this passage (as I was for many years). The word translated “obedient” is the Greek Word “hupotasso” < 5293> which means “submission”. There is another Greek word which means “obedient”. That is the word < 5219> ” hupakouo” ( the linked Strong’s numbers go to the BLB concordance which contains the definition and all the occurances of the word in the Bible) One of the most significant lessons I have learned is that “submission” is NOT the same thing as “obedience”. Walking in “obedience” was death to me. Walking in godly submission is LIFE! When I believed that my husband was “in charge” of me and I attempted to walk in obedience to him, I was committing the sin of idolatry. I was rendering lordship and masterhood to my husband instead of God. I confused obedience and submission. I thought obedience to my husband = submission. So I obeyed my husband and in so doing -sinned against God -enabled husband’s sin -lied to the Holy Spirit Ultimately, in my attempt to “ serve two masters” I came to despise my husband. Lu 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. I find that genuine submission “ as unto the Lord” is incredibly freeing and powerful! Because I am looking to the LORD for my guidance and instructions, not to my husband. The Lord has entrusted me with gifts, talents, abilities, and responsibilities and HE has given me wisdom, a conscience, and HIS Holy Spirit as counselor. Allowing myself to be run like an appliance from the outside was an affront to the God who made me and gave me good gifts. Not only that, I really know far more about running the household than my husband does and his micromanagement wasted many many hours of my and my children’s time on less efficient routes. Woman can never be matured as a useful instrument in God’s hands, or an efficient servant of His Church, until she comes to understand that “she is not her own; she is bought with a price,” and it is neither her duty nor her privilege to give herself away to any human being, in marriage or in any other way….There is no social redemption for woman until…she maintains the inviolability of free will, as her sustained attitude towards every human being, including her husband. There is no method of moral improvement remaining, after the loss of a free will” In giving myself away to be treated in marriage as a child or a slave (who MUST OBEY), I gave up my free will, and I remained immature. It took me quite awhile-years- to untangle my mind from the idea that “husband is master”. When I believed that way, and confused the concept of “submission” and “obedience”, I would “obey” my husband’s every whim, but I was very unhappy about it! I was resentful and bitter. Which it turns out, is not submission at all! Submission preserves my right to say “no” (or “yes”). Submission is an attitude of humble cooperation and will operate in his best interests even if it means defying his will. For example: Abigail in 1 Sam 25 is a submissive wife who disobeys. Esther is a submissive wife who disobeys. Sapphira (Acts 5) is a wife who should have submissively told her husband “no” but instead goes along with him agreeing to “lie to the Holy Spirit”.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 8, 2009 15:07:21 GMT -5
Charis, you know me. You know I'm the same KR Wordgazer who posts on Equality Central. I agree with what you have said-- that FAQ is by no means the last word I intend to write on the subject. That FAQ was written specifically to QuiverFull women, who (Vyckie tells me) are usually KJV-only believers. I don't use the KJV myself; it is far from the most accurate translation, and it uses archaic words that are easy to misunderstand. But-- baby steps, right? I'm not going to start out by telling Q/F women who might be reading that FAQ (it's also going to be published in written form for distribution), that the first thing they've got to do is throw out their King James Bible-- because, let's face it, the matter is peripheral. The point of that FAQ post is to try to get QF women to think differently about the way they read the Bible. What translation they are using-- that can come later. You will notice that I do mention, in the essay, the importance of learning what the Bible words mean in their original languages. Believe me, I have every intention, in another FAQ, of talking about what that word translated "obedience"in the KJV, means in the Koine Greek-- and a whole bunch of other words, too! You're pointing in the same direction I'm already headed, my friend. We'll get there. For everyone else who sent kind words-- thanks so much.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Oct 9, 2009 1:00:52 GMT -5
Charis, you know me. You know I'm the same KR Wordgazer who posts on Equality Central. Sure, and I don't mean to sound critical nor disrespectful. Its just that when I came out, I had such an intense distrust of anyone who appeared dismissive of Biblical teachings as "cultural" and no longer valid for today. To this day, I still believe that the teachings for wives are relevant for me, for today (Titus 2, 1 Timothy, Ephesians 5, 2 Peter 3, etc) though I see them as routinely twisted, misunderstood, and abused in a way that reflects so poorly upon the heart of God However, throughout my journey out- from being in bondage to spirit killing doctrine-> freedom, peace, and joy in Christ- I always did and still do trust in the "God-breathed" words of the Bible, that they still speak to me today. Perhaps younger women from different sub-cultures have a different perspective? I'm not sure... Just my perspective. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I do appreciate your effort and concern. And I do see some of the cultural things now after several years, but I had to see the truth in the actual Words of the Bible before I was ready to acknowledge those aspects.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 9, 2009 12:52:24 GMT -5
Charis, I thought my essay makes it clear that I think those passages do speak for today. It's just that we need to look for the principles being taught. The principles being taught to the 1st-century church at Ephesus still apply today-- it's just the cultural specifics that do not.
The trick is to learn to recognize the difference. Viewing the Bible as one great Story, and seeing everything in it as fitting into that somewhere, is part of what helps us discern. For instance, Christ came to set us free from yokes of bondage, not to impose new ones-- so that can't be what Paul's words to husbands and wives are about.
See what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by charis on Oct 9, 2009 20:31:00 GMT -5
Thank you, and I agree with a great deal of your essay. I really liked what you said about wrestling with the text. It resonated with me the same way as a passage I just read from "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell about that. If you like, you can read part of it in the preview at google books ( click here) Its chapter 2, page 42ff is visible in the preview. He also points out how the church, together with the Holy Spirit makes interpretation decisions about the Word of God right from Acts onward to this very day (he gives examples of this). The Bible is alive and active, and revelation is progressive- even Biblical revelation (the Christian view of slavery for example, the passage of time slowly removes the veil from our eyes regarding God's heart and intentions) Anyway, here is another passage from your essay which just didn't sit quite right with me (again, no disrespect intended) Or again, the first verse of Philippeans: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi. . . ” These statements are there for a reason. They make it plain that the Word of God was first of all God’s word to the specific people mentioned, in a specific location and culture, at a certain point in time. Those people, those places, times and cultures, need to be taken into account. Only after we understood how the message was intended to be understood by those people at those times, can we turn to the question of what it might mean to us today.
I don't think we need to understand it to that level before it is applicable to me here and now today. According to the apostle Peter, even Paul's contemporaries did not understand his writings. How can we be called to a higher standard in that regard than them? as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness
-Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:15b-17a
Paul was hard to understand then. People twisted his words "to their own destruction" then. Paul is still hard to understand. Anyone who claims there is simple "plain reading" is failing to acknowledge this truth, beware of them! Personally, I enjoy Paul's depth. Rob Bell says that rabbis compared scripture with a gem. They would turn it over and over seeing new and brilliant facets. Paul fits that description well IMO. My experience is that its in the process of wrestling with God to hear what He is really saying in this or that passage of Scripture that He teaches me and shows me how it applies to my life. Its not through "history classes" about how wives or slaves lived back then. Its through devotional interaction with Scripture, which- for me- has included lots of biblical word studies; I am hungry to see if I can get just a little closer to understanding what God is saying if I look at the Greek word. But don't hear me saying the ability or desire to do Word studies is necessary to understanding scripture. I am just as bothered by intellectual elitism which assumes a simple person with little education cannot understand Scripture as I am by male elitism which assumes a woman is more subject to deception and cannot be trusted to understand scripture and hear God for herself.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 11, 2009 1:02:56 GMT -5
Charis, I am not advocating intellectual elitism. But to look again at the passage you quoted from 2 Peter, with a slightly different emphasis than the one you gave it:
as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
Peter is clearly saying that part of the problem with the "twisting" of Paul's writings is that "untaught" people are misreading them. Surely, then, one of the solutions Peter is implying is that people should be taught, given information which will help them understand? Since the Bible itself makes it clear that its messages were originally intended for certain people, at certain times and places in history, how can it be anything but useful if we try to understand those people, places and times in history for which the messages were originally intended?
That said, I do hear what you're saying about the Bible being for everyone, not just those who have the education to try to address the "hard to understand" passages. Not all of the Bible is hard to understand-- not at all. And it's main message (contained in what I refer to in my essay as "the great Story," as both Gordon Fee's book and Scot McKnight's books that I mention there do) is timeless and simple.
The very most important thing is that we remember the simplicity of this: “He has told you what is good, and what does the Lord require of you? Just to do justice, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” And also “whatever you want others to do for you, so do for them, for this is the law and the prophets.” And “God desires mercy, and not sacrifice.”
This is the heart of the faith– and you don’t have to study Greek or Hebrew or biblical history to get there. In fact, I heartily agree that sometimes that may get in the way.
Jesus said to have eternal life we must remember the simplicity of a child. The only commandment is love. And I would say it’s the same for the Christian Scriptures that I read that a Jewish rabbi said about the Jewish ones: “All the rest is commentary.”
But the fact is that there are parts of the Bible that are indeed hard to understand, as Peter said about some of Paul's writings. And I agree that if some of the meanings were obscure even to Peter, who lived at the time and place where the message was first given, then it can be the height of arrogance for us to claim we have or can reach the definitive interpretation of some of these passages. But surely one of the worst things we can do with those hard-to-understand passages is claim that they aren't hard to understand at all-- to insist that the "plain meaning" as it reads to us 2000 years or more later and half the globe away, is the definitive interpretation. And this, I think, is what the Q/F position often does.
The point of my FAQ essay was not to raise every possible scenario and answer every possible objection. These FAQ essays need to be as short as possible while still adequately addressing the question raised, so that readers don't get overwhelmed and decide not to finish.
I am thinking, based on your points, that it might be a very good idea to add a few sentences clarifying that the point of the cultural argument is not to render the passages invalid or say they don't apply to us today-- it's to show that there is a principle we should be looking for, and that it is the principles, not the cultural assumptions, that apply to us today. But I'm not sure how much more needs to be added about the simplicity of the message conveyed through the great Story.
Do you think that is unclear? Does anyone else?
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on Oct 11, 2009 2:11:38 GMT -5
I like my charis, of course, of course, but in this area I see things very similarly to the way KR does, and would prefer the document not be changed much, if at all. Saying that a 2,000 year old (plus!) book is not necessarily "easy" to understand is not intellectual elitism. It's just realism.
The book was written centuries upon centuries ago, in other languages. Shakespeare is hard enough to figure out---no light reading, there----and he wrote in our language, in a culture not entirely foreign to most of us, and not 2,000 years plus. Saying Shakespeare takes work to read and understand is not intellectual elitism. It's just being honest. Likewise, admitting that the Bible is an ancient text, written in ancient languages (some of which, like koine Greek, are dead) is not elitism. It's just saying what's what.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 11, 2009 13:08:10 GMT -5
I've been meaing to comment on this thread ~ but have been pretty "out of it" the past few days ~ so now I'm really behind ~ sorry.
Charis ~ I have read your post a few times and still don't get the relevence of the distinction you're making between "submission" and "obedience."
You say: I find that genuine submission “as unto the Lord” is incredibly freeing and powerful! Because I am looking to the LORD for my guidance and instructions, not to my husband.
This sounds just like my way of thinking when I was doing the QF/P thing ~ I never thought of myself as being "obedient" to my husband ~ I was "submitting" to him "as unto the Lord." That's the quiverfull brand of patriarchy. So my question is, how does the "genuine submission" which you are advocating differ from the typical QF teachings?
And this: Submission preserves my right to say “no” (or “yes”). Submission is an attitude of humble cooperation and will operate in his best interests even if it means defying his will.
How does a woman humbly cooperate with her husband while defying his will?
Please don't take this as me picking your stuff apart just to argue with you ~ I'm seeking clarification because I honestly don't see any difference between what you're advocating and what I believed and practiced for years to the detriment and ultimate destruction of my marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 11, 2009 14:04:49 GMT -5
Charis, you know me. You know I'm the same KR Wordgazer who posts on Equality Central. Sure, and I don't mean to sound critical nor disrespectful. Its just that when I came out, I had such an intense distrust of anyone who appeared dismissive of Biblical teachings as "cultural" and no longer valid for today. This is a point which I've tried to emphasize as I've been working with Kristen and jlp on these FAQs for Christian women who are questioning QF/P but are not interested in "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." In fact, I believe suggesting that certain teachings be dismissed as "cultural" will backfire because, the QFer will argue that, "Yes ~ it IS cultural ~ and that ancient culture was BIBLICAL ~ therefore, it still applies today." So ~ after reading Charis' criticism here, I went back and read through the FAQ again ~ and I agree with Kristen's emphasis of focusing on the overall message and general point of the "great story." Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders for straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel ~ and I believe the arguement made in the FAQ is that this is exactly what the QF/P "literalist" approach to bible interpretation does ~ it misses the whole point of what Jesus / Christianity is all about. Keep in mind, this is difficult for me even to discuss because, IMO, Jesus' message ~ the point of Christianity ~ all of it is rather twisted and a set up for mental problems. That's because I have been seriously burned as a result of my sincere and wholehearted devotion to Jesus and the Word of God ~ and I'm to the point that I see enough potential for abuse and serious lifelong damage to women that I am unwilling to lend legitimacy to those teachings by refocusing attention on the less offensive interpretations. Which is why I asked those NLQ members who still have a reverence for the Bible to write these FAQs as I do want to provide a way out for QF women by whatever means. I could do a similar FAQ and I think that I could do an adequate job of explaining why QF/P should be dismissed on biblical grounds ~ but I'm afraid that my attitude of contempt for the "Word of God" would come through despite any attempts I might make to disguise it. I really appreciate all the work which Kristen and others have put into this FAQ ~ and I think it's an admirable piece with potential to break through the QF woman's conditioning ~ especially when combined with the other FAQs which will be added to this series. All that being said, I would like to hear from other ex-QFers (philosophia?) ~ do you see this FAQ as dismissing the partriarchal passages as "cultural" ~ would your formerly convinced QF mindset have dismissed this FAQ as not taking the bible seriously?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 11, 2009 16:53:11 GMT -5
Vyckie -- of course, part of the point that I make is that QF'ers, like all other Christians, already do consider certain parts of the Bible cultural, and don't follow them literally-- like the "holy kiss" Paul says to greet one another with. If they think they never "dismiss" the literal application of a text on cultural grounds, they are mistaken. The key is that they need to recognize why and when they do it, the criteria that they use-- and then to start applying the criteria consistently, rather than piecemeal or according to long-standing church traditions (the result of which is usually that any passage that references women is read in the most restrictive way possible, while other passages-- the ones that affect men-- are read with more latitude).
I think QFers, who (I would imagine) are part of the Protestant branches that reject many traditional teachings of the Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, etc-- would be shocked if they really opened their eyes to how much they let long-standing tradition dictate the way they read the passages on women.
But I do think, based on Charis' points, that I need to rewrite it slightly to emphasize that none of the Bible's teachings are actually being dismissed in this way of reading it-- it's simply the cultural assumptions that are being accounted for as assumptions (like the employer in the parable, who assumed his employees were using horses), so that the Bible writer's intended principle can be identified and followed.
|
|
|
Post by africaturtle on Feb 26, 2010 8:29:42 GMT -5
since you're looking for input from people who would be influenced by your article, i decided to offer my two cents. A little of my background (i'm new here) that might be pertinent: raised evangelical christian, introduced to QF ideas during my teens through lots of reading my mom was doing. Married 5 yrs ago with the intention of implementing QF philosophy and equipped (thanks to my mom) with all the "right" books on how to be a godly wife. We had 3 kids in 4 yrs and i am now pregnant with the fourth (we were using NFP this time to space a little more but i "missed" the signals somewhere . We started questioning the "do-ability" of this lifestyle for us after the first 2 births. (we live in France so the cultural element is totally different...i'm American, my husband French). We have both come to questioning the "core" of our beliefs, Not because of the kids, but because of "each-other". We don't get along at all. My husband is extremely controlling ("command man", per Debbi pearl) and i have now (thanks to lots of reading via Internet) labeled our "issues" as verbal abuse. He has prayed and fasted asking God fro "help" to overcome his "destructive habits". I feel totally trapped, but still hopeful somehow it will all change. I too (like vyckie) seem to observe that the more i read my "books" and talk about this family "model" the worse he acts! so i just don't know what to do/think about God right now (and i think my husband feels the same way). Anywho.... to the point. I was definitely "on edge" reading all this "cultural" talk in this FAQ. I understood the point and find it legit. My objection is that then using culture as an argument we can pretty much dismiss or support ANY lifestyle we choose and still call ourselves "Christian". That's way too liberal/ new-agey for my religious "comfort zone" Also my understanding of Christ/Paul's teachings is that as Christians we are to go AGAINST cultural trends and not "follow" them. We are to be light and salt, not the same. And this should reflect in how our family relationships function. Yes Paul said he "became all things to all men," but we are always reminded that we are "not of this world" we are called to be separate/different. So the whole culturally relevant argument really feels weak to me. I think i'm almost more like vyckie (if i've understood her correctly) that it's "all or none". I'm kinda at a crises right now, because of this point. I don't see how i can submit to my husband when he treats me like crap and i don't see how i can call myself a christian and NOT submit (after all Jesus never opened his mouth in the face of severe mistreatment/abuse, and he's our example!) Somehow i hope we can still save our marriage (there are so many good times, and our kids are so young, and beautiful) plus divorce is not allowed in my "christian" vocabulary... but I guess i've hit more on the submission issue here than the QF theology, because for that i've always labeled it a "conviction" and not a direct biblical doctrine. To me it's always been clear that you can't take a couple of verses from Psalms and make a hard and fast doctrine for all Christians to follow ...somehow i still see it as an "ideal" though. well, i don't know if that helps you any, but for me i'm happy to post as i've been "devouring" this site since i found it 4 days ago, so thanks for listening. I am not saying my thinking is "right" i'm just saying that if i talk from my "biblical world view" ...that'd be my argument.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 26, 2010 10:12:02 GMT -5
wow, africaturtle, your situation sounds pretty tough. I hope that the future works out well no matter where you land And do not worry even if you fear you will lose your faith, while it is very scary to be in the middle of that loss, the "other side" is emotionally and psychologically safe once you get here-- but if you never do, I hope you can find an emotionally and psychologically safe environment in the context of your religious beliefs as well. As for culture, I'm not sure there ever was a command to reactionarily be against *whatever* the main culture was so that one would stick out, be visible, different, noticeable etc. And I don't think it's fair to really look at Jesus as an example of never speaking of one's own suffering-- maybe he did not actually "speak", but hugely popular books were written all about his suffering, that are believed to be inspired within the Christian mindset ,by god, who Jesus was, that really sounds like talking about your suffering widely to me. Jesus was not ignored and did not suffer in silence like QF women are expected to do-- with nobody ever supposed to learn their stories. Anyway, I hope you enjoy it here!
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Feb 26, 2010 11:53:27 GMT -5
Biblical figures besides Jesus also spoke when they were persecuted.
|
|
|
Post by WanderingOne on Mar 1, 2010 14:13:00 GMT -5
re: the distinction between submission and obedience.
I am writing this as a student of ancient greek. I know koine. I know attic. I know homeric. I can read practically any dialect of greek you put in front of me. I've read the New Testament in Greek. I've read The Odyssey in Greek. I've read Plato, Sappho, and Aristophanes. I also have access to far better dictionaries and sources than Strong's and BLB, when it comes to greek words and their nuances of meaning. I say this only to establish that I know what I'm talking about, not to brag.
Now. 'upokasso means in the active voice "to place under" ('upo or "hupo" if you prefer, means under...). In the passive voice it used to mean to be obedient to, to be submissive to, to be placed under the authority of. It doesn't matter what dialect is being used--all three "shades of meaning" are present in koine and attic, at least. I don't know if 'upokasso is used in the passive voice in any other dialect--I can easily find out,but that's really irrelavent to this discussion.
Now, 'upakouo. It's basic meaning is to listen, harken, give ear. (literally, it might be, to hear under) In later texts, it used to mean to "answer when called;" then it is used of dependents and subjects--to mean to submit or comply. This is what it means in the New testament.
There is no real difference in meaning of the two words in the New testament. Attempts to create one are manufactured by people who fail to appreciate the way the Greek language works... It's silly. the words are synonymous. they are used interchangeably throughout Greek literature--including the New Testament. If you wanted to draw a distinction, the distinction *might* be that one is passive and one is active, and thus the emphasize different perspectives of the SAME action...(
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Mar 1, 2010 15:26:55 GMT -5
A couple thoughts: WanderingOne, there are scholars of koine Greek who disagree with you. Here's one that shows that among Christians in 1st-Century AD, speaking koine Greek, the word "submit to" was seen to admit to reciprocity. powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/mutual-submission-in-clement.htmlIn any event, in the earliest manuscripts of the NT, the word "submit" as used for wives in Eph. 5:22 took the verb from verse 21 above it-- verse 22 does not actually contain the word submit. The actual wording is something along the lines of: "submitting to one another in reverence for Christ; wives to your husbands as to the Lord." The meaning of the word "submit" as used for wives in this passage, cannot mean anything different than it meant in "submit to one another" part just above, where the verb actually appears. Christians are to be subject to one another. Even if the words were used interchangeably at times, the way "submit" is used can convey that one of superior rank in that society can also "place himself under" those of inferior rank. No New Testament scholar I have ever read has said that the word "obey" was ever used in this "mutuality" way. Here's another example of this "mutuality" type of use, from the same scholar: powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/06/response-open-letter.htmlAfricaturtle, I appreciate your input, and I see the need for a change in emphasis in this FAQ. The emphasis needs to be more on finding and following the principles conveyed by the Scriptures, in order to not convey the idea that I am trying to dismiss any teaching of the Bible as being "only cultural." Paul himself advocated the find-the-principle method of Bible interpretation when he spoke in 1 Cor. 9:8-11 of how the OT passage "Do not muzzle the ox when it is treading out the grain" should not be interpreted as being literally about oxen. The NT there shows that the idea in reading the Scriptures is to find the principle being conveyed by the passage-- in the one about the ox, the principle is, "a worker should not be denied just compensation." Paul, in a sense, does "dismiss" the strict literal interpretation that would say, "this verse is about what to do when your ox is threshing grain." But what he's really doing isn't a dismissal at all-- it's finding the principle being conveyed, and following that. I believe I need to make this more clear. The point is not to dismiss any teaching in the Bible-- the point is to figure out what the teaching actually is. Scripture interprets Scripture-- and a method of interpretation endorsed by Scripture, is one means by which it interprets itself.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Mar 8, 2010 15:17:34 GMT -5
|
|