By Angus Harley

I was in a discussion with an evangelical feminist/egalitarian very recently. Her biggest gripe was that ‘Complementarianism’ imposed the unbiblical notion of having authority ‘over’ someone else. She went to Matthew 20:20-27 as her prooftext. To her, any ‘authority’ that anyone has is purely a form of service. Authority does not denote or imply ‘power over’, therefore. To say someone has authority is to mean that someone has a service-job to do for the sake of others, they have liberty to perform certain tasks on their behalf, by using their ‘authority’ or right to perform certain actions. She then extends this definition to say that regarding marriage, or elders in an assembly, a two-way form of subjection to, and service of, is always in play. Husbands are subject to their wives (cf., Eph.5:21), in the sense that they are to serve them. Wives are subject to husbands, for they are to serve their husbands. No one is in authority ‘over’ the other. Same for elders. Their authority is merely a form of service to the assembly, and they have a certain right from God to do things for the assembly; and in return, the assembly serves the elders.  

Matthew 20:20-27

20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. 21 And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She *said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” 22 But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They *said to Him, “We are able.” 23 He *said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”

24 And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Jesus is contrasting two models: the use of authority that is domineering, contrasted to the slave. Two disciples wanted to attain positions of power and majesty, “ “sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” ” This is not what characterized Jesus, nor were his disciples to follow this model.  Jesus is saying that both he and his followers are not to domineer, but to become slaves. This implies the cross as our service as slaves.  

But you will note, too, that sitting at Jesus right hand and left is a thing, “ “to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.” ” Glory, preeminence, authority, etc., was waiting for certain favored disciples (in the world to come).

The very next narrative displays how Jesus uses his own Lordship and authority ‘over’ (Matt.20:29-34). It shows how his ministry and its compassion, and by extension the cross, channels this authority and kingship, “ “ “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” ” Jesus’ authority over sin, sinners, the world, demons, etc., has not diminished one whit. Rather, it is what Jesus does with this authority that is the key. He musters all his power and authority, his Kingly rule and Lordship authority over all creation, to bring mercy and compassion to those bound in sin and sickness.

It is not, therefore, that Jesus has a problem with being in authority “over” someone else, but that the “gentile lords” and “great men” lorded it over others, and did not serve them with this authority that they had over them. Thus, the two Greek terms are parallel compounds: katakurieuousin (“exercise lordship”) and katexousiazousian (“exercise authority”). There is no ‘over’ in the actual Greek text. The translators have added it in explanation of kata, for it intensifies the idea of control: ‘lording against/down on” and “having authority down on/against”. These lords are self-seeking, subduing and bossing those under their authority. A perfect example of this bullying action is found in Acts 19:16. Referring to a demon, “And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued (katakurieuo) all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.” Similarly, the pastors (poimaino) who were “overseeing” (episkopountes) the flock were not to oppress and bully them as lords (katakurieuo) (1 Pet.5:2-3).

Ephesians 5:21

I have always been puzzled by John MacArthur’s exegesis of this text that insists that every Christian is mutually submissive to other Christians. The context is concerned with wives being subject to their husbands (5:22-24), but nothing is said of husbands being subject to wives (5:25-33). Then, 6:1-9 details how those under authority are to submit to it, but those in authority must not abuse it.

Nor is there any notion of the Complementarian model of team work, in which, on the male side of things, the husband is the ‘leader by example’. This model eviscerates the need for the wife to be subject to her husband’s authority and headship, and instead puts the concept of headship into the mold of a generic leadership. This interpretation, rather ironically, allows even some brazen egalitarians to say that, woman are just as equally leaders of men, since they clearly have aspects of ‘power’ in their lives that they exercise for the male sex. Thus, egalitarians are perfectly happy with mutuality and a form of ‘complementarianism’. Furthermore, whenever the NT refers to the husband-wife relationship, it is always to the end of underscoring the husband’s authority and the need of the wife to submit to it; and for the husband to serve his wife by using his authority in a godly and sacrificial way, and for his wife not, therefore, to interfere in this process. Both the Complementarian and Egalitarian ideas of ‘teamwork’ are not present here. The man has his job; the woman has hers. In that sense alone do they ‘complement’ one another, and perhaps, with huge qualifications, can we say that there is ‘teamwork’.

This has to be so when we consider the model laid down by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He gave himself for his bride. Contextually, his wife did not give herself for him. He mustered together all of his rule and authority to sacrificially serve his wife, even to the point of dying on the cross for her. Just look at the Gospels: they are riddled with the Son of Man using his power and authority for the sake of sinners, for his people. And lest anyone think that the cross was not about a show of divine power by Jesus, his rule and lordship, understand this, that Jesus’ fight with Satan was conducted all the way to the cross, and into death itself. But he overcome them in power, showing that as the true Son of David, he was the rightful heir to the throne of God in heaven.

During the Falklands War, British paratroopers had contact with the Argentinian soldiers at Goose Green. It was a tense engagement and could have gone either way. For the longest time, the Brits were pinned down in a small heather gully and were taking a pounding. Lieutenant-Colonel Herbert ‘H’ Jones decided a breakthrough was necessary. ‘H’ knew he had to burst out of the gully. He organized his troops. Then he personally charged up the gully at the Argentinian position, but was shot down and killed. He not only sacrificed himself for others, but he used his authority in giving his life for his soldiers: for he chose himself, as the nearest and most able soldier, to attack the Argentinians! For his bravery, he was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest honor in the British kingdom. The great ‘H’ did not consult his fellow soldiers; he knew what needed to be done, gave himself the right to do so, and made the valiant charge. ‘H’ acted unilaterally as head, as one in authority. The British won the engagement and went on to win the war.