Susanna at 552 said, “One of you, I think it was NN, but it could also have been you, told me that since the Bible does not explicitly say the husband should submit to his wife, mutual submission does not exist. Why is it that you demand explicit verses from us when you cannot provide such yourself?”

Good call! But why, Mark, do you think that Paul never saying directly to husbands specifically, “submit to your wives” means that husbands have authority? To do this you have to IGNORE verse 21 where we are told to submit to one another, but also, without explicit information you are assuming something because of a lack of information. To return to your trinity argument, can you prove to me there is not a ‘quadinity’ rather than a trinity? Where is your verse that says God is NOT four in one?

So, if you are claiming something is BIblically mandated YOU should show the evidence.
Egals are saying husbands are not in authority because the Bible does NOT say they are – the absence proves our point.
Egals are saying that we should submit to one another because the Bible explicitly says WE should – the explicit instruction proves our point.

My spam word was “noun”. This proves it, authority must be a noun…

Thanks for finally responding to something I have said to you NN! I am delighted!

Your comment in full which includes my comment,

“To Dave (508)

“the concept of control is essentially anti love as a concept” (Dave)

I shall leave it to you to reconcile the following two verses (of very, very many that come to mind):

Matt 28:18 ~ And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

and

Eph 3:19 ~ and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”

1 – I do not deny authority exists. It is often given by cultures.
2 – I am not denying that love cannot exist where authority exists.
3 – I am not denying that Jesus has authority and that he is loving.
4 – I am not denying that authority can be exercised with love in many cases.
5 – I AM denying that authority and love is the same thing. Nurture is love. Control is not. This has little to do with reconciling the two verses you have given me.

You are blurring what authority is to try and reconcile your theology. What you have not done is interact with ANY of my previous comments which suggest the need to look at Eph as a whole and look at why Paul is saying what he is saying.

If I viewed Acts 17:23-31 the way you view Ephesians 5, I would conclude that Paul is saying there is more than one God. BUT Paul is speaking (in Acts) to a culture where if he comes in on the premise that there is only one God he will not be heard. In Eph Paul is not starting with the premise that a man should submit to his wife explicitly because the culture would not listen to him.

BUT we see in Acts 17:29 a very subtle dig at the fact that the Athenian gods are not really Gods. We also see in Eph 5 that there is a subtle suggestion that we should submit to one another and that the “authority” (which society has dictated as Genesis 3 said it would) should in fact be replaced with love in Christ!

Note the passage never mentions authority. This is assumed within the culture. Love, however, is.

I cannot see how you reconcile your view of marriage in Ephesians 5 with what Paul says about slavery in Eph 6, unless of course you believe in slavery…as long as masters nurture their slaves!

First, thanks for all the love regarding my night time antics! I should say that I do not think what I did was out of the ordinary for anyone who loves their kids and their wife. Thanks Charis for the “May your tribe increase”, but we feel we have enough for the moment!

NN – I am glad someone finally defined authority, I had the dictionary out to do it but you beat me to it! There are two issues I have with your comment about authority in the Christian life. By definition, authority is a right. My dictionary suggests that this right can be based on power, mental superiority, dominion etc.

Now society and situation sometimes give authority. In Paul’s day I do not think anyone will dispute, men had authority over their wives. It was given to them expressly by society.

BUT – has Paul said that this authority is God given? This, of course, takes us back to Genesis where many of us feel we have not recieved answers that suggest this authority is God given. Is this authority even an issue in a society where marriages are viewed more egalitarian?

Next, your definition of authroity I feel needs drawing out. I am using Webster’s, and it does not make any suggestion that authority can be used to love, nurture, care for etc. In fact it says that authrity has the ability to; command, act, control, exercise power, have credability, exercise dominion, etc.

Although I agree that some of these things can be done in more and less loving ways, the concept of control is essentially anti love as a concept. I hope I do not need to explain why! I feel that what you want to say is that husbands should love their wives, but you think it is Biblical to say husbands should have authority over their wives.

Thanks heaps for the interaction at 460 Charis. I think I am understanding you better with regards to the difference not being hierarchy but just that there is a difference. I agree that there is a difference between husbands and wives!

If I can comment on one of your thoughts, I had an interesting time with all three of our kids. My wife wanted to breast feed, but at night she refused on the first night home with our first child to get up to feed him! It was not because she was not a great mum, but rather that she was hearing impaired and could not hear him! As a result, for all three of our kids I got up every time they needed feeding at night and brought them to her. I was unable to breast feed myself – though once my youngest tried to attach to me on a hot night when I was not wearing a shirt and was carrying her to her mum – it made my eyes water!.

I am not a mother, and so do not have a ‘mother’s instinct’, but I did this joyfully (except for that one painful time!) because they were my kids. Perhaps I am out of the ordinary(!), but it causes me to ask questions of some of your thoughts. Your thoughts?

Sorry Charis, I did not get your other comments. My internet has slown down and it take 10 minutes to load the page! Thanks for attempting to explain for me CHaris. Another time perhaps?

I am off to church…

🙂

Thanks for the reply Charis. You were not completely unclear! I am sorry if I have made assumptions or accusations. I have not meant to.

Perhaps we have different understandings of eros? I understand you would like to bow out, but if you had time I would appreciate you explaining what you feel eros actually is. Please note that I have not denied eros is a part of marriage and that Paul is talking about marriage. I am more interested as to why you think it contains hierarchy in a redeemed relationship.

Also, I was going to ask you earlier, and you brought it up again, you seem to understand the “one flesh” as a baby. I would love to clarify, are the husband and wife one flesh, or do they always remain two? The reason I ask is that the picture of the church being joined to Christ would appear to be a barren relationship, as there is no ‘baby’ or ‘one flesh’, unless of course the ‘one flesh’ refers to the union between husband and wife.

Thanks for the reply Charis!

I am still a bit confused (sorry!) which might just be because my American is not very good (Australian is my first language).

I understand that Eve’s condition post fall is not a command but prescriptive etc. This is why I believe some cultures/societies do result in women being more vulnerable. The thing is that in Ephesians Paul is speaking of God’s plan for all things to be brought into harmony with Christ as the head (Eph 1:10) and explains how this should happen in God’s church now. Effectively Paul is describing in Ephesians 5 what redeemed life is like – not fallen life. The same in 1 Cor 11:11-12.

I think it is important to remember that eros is still love. This means that it still functions as love with a desire for what is best for the other. I believe the difference is that it contains a very strong desire to be connected – to be one with the other party (as indeed God does with us through his Holy Spirit). As I mentioned earlier I feel eros is, “a desire to possess and be possessed”. Sadly the world has twisted eros and our understanding of eros is often confused. So, for example, people think porn is erotic…but it is not eros. You can certainly possess porn, but images cannot possess you. True eros and the two way nature of eros are missed. Rape is an extreme example, where the desire of one party to possess the other overrides the others desires/wishes. Eros gone wrong is VERY ugly.

I believe that although eros is not mentioned in Eph 5 the concept is found in marriage, but because Paul is talking about redeemed relationships hierarchy is not relevant. If you look at how you described the fallen relationship from Genesis you will see that what is described (she will desire her husband and he will rule over her) is NOT a properly functioning ‘eros’, but a distortion due to sin.
So, for me (and perhaps we do not agree?) I am not seeing Eph 5 as containing hierarchy, or if we want to search out eros in the passage, I am not seeing it as hierarchical. I think real eros cannot be hierarchical – it is extremely two way in its very nature. I hope I am being clear. It is early in the morning here!

Could you perhaps give me an example of how in redeemed relationships eros is going to contain hierarchy?
I hope I am understanding you correctly!

Dave

Thanks for the reply Charis.

In 379 you said that wives were vulnerable to their husbands.
In 380 I asked how eros makes the wife vulnerable.
In 388 you respond to me by referring to asymetry in relationships because they get pregnant.

I cannot understand how the wife being the one who gets pregnant makes her vulnerable. Please understand, I am not saying some societies and cultures do not prey on pregnant women or that being a single mum is not more difficult than being a single man. But how, in an eros relationship (i.e. a LOVE relationship) can one be more vulnerable? You have not answered this. Your link in your next comment to me did not answer this question either.

1 Cor 11:11 suggests that we are interdependant – even in marriage!

Charis,

I ama bit confused by your comment 379, “Wives are vulnerable to their husbands in a way which does not go vice versa. To me, eros seems to be a kind of object lesson of this.”

How odes eros reflect a vulnerability that only goes one way, if that is what you are saying? I woud have thought that eros was designed to operate in an environment where BOTH parties are vulnerable.

NN, your logic chain is fundamentally flawed (illogical!). Why do you still insist people interact with it? If you want to start there to get some base for communication you need to interact with the criticism of it. There are more options than you give with your three. You have not even allowed for combinations of the three. I said this earlier, though I should not complain about having to repeat one thing once I guess!!

I would argue that Paul is saying fundamentally the same thing to both husbands and wives, but allows for the cultural differences of the time that reflected a difference between husbands and wives.

* Verse 21. We are all told to place ourselves in a position of service to one another. Why? Fundamentally because of Christ (what he did and who he is – love).

* Verses 22-24. Wives are to do this also – remembering Christ’s relationship with the church (who he is and what he did – love).

*Verses 25-31. Husbands are to do this also – being like Christ who put himself in a position of service for His body (being and doing Jesus – love).

As I said earlier, Calvin saw the connection in this passage between submission and love. Love is the motive, submission is love being worked out. It has nothing to do with authority, but in ANY cultural context love is worked out through submission – placing ourselves in a position of service.

Please note that submission does not = subordination, where there is no choice, but due to hierarchy one is below another. That is NOT at play in this passage. It is not even inferred!

NN, your example from 352 –

“Premise: The Bible is inspired & authoritative as the Word of God
Premise: The Bible says to “love your neighbor”
Inference: “I should love my neighbor””

When the Bible says, “love your neighbour” it is not an inference that “I should love my neighbour”. It is a direct instruction. That is logic!

I can feel the heat coming off my computer monitor…

“And this is why he is not “head” of the world, but only his “body” the church!”

Amen to that pinklight! This is why the big plan in Ephesians 1:10 is that all things (all of creation) will be brought into harmony with Christ as the head…and we see this in the church now, but wait for Jesus’ return to see it with all things.

ps – I prayed for you!

NN – you said, “+ There are three possibilities regarding the differences” (239)

True, but we are not restricted to these three or the combinations of these three that are possible. In fact you have not taken into account my reading of Ephesians that I offered as an alternative. Paul is addressing people in a particular culture about issues that stand above cultures, but he does so in a way relevant to their culture.

I am glad you mention Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Peter because when we look at all three I think it helps us see that the Holy SPirit is trying to communicate something other than something distinct about marriage relationships, but rather something distinct about being in Christ and how this influences marriage AND parent/children AND slaves/masters.

Finally, I find it interesting that people want to distinguish between a wife submitting, and a husband loving (like CHrist). For all you Calvinists out there (not trying to rekindle old discussions!) Calvin in his commentary on Eph 5:21 draws the connection with submission to love (as does Phil 2 of course, and John 3:16 etc etc). It is Paul in Romans 13 who says we have only one debt outstanding to one another – to love. Perhaps we do not want to say flat out that submission = love, and yet it would appear that for Paul it was a culturally sensitive way of expressing an ongoing truth about Christian marriage (and other Christian relationships).

I would love your thoughts NN.

I hear you question SM (200). It is a good one.

How could egals assume that authority = evil? We assume that all authority comes from God and we do not see him as the source of all evil! 😉

I’ve missed you Mark!

I would be hesitant placing any ‘type’ of love over and above another. After all, they are all related. I believe it was Stanley Grenz in his book “Sexual Ethics” who presented a very strong case as to why eros also applies to God and His love for us. Sounds warped? Hear him out!

Grenz says that at the heart of eros is “the desire to possess and be possessed”. This is NOT limited purely to what we know as either “romance” or “sexual intercourse”. What does Grenz have to back up where he is coming from? Among other things the OT that is very rich in imagery presenting Israel as the people that God desires to possess and be possessed by. This is highlighted through the prophets in no greater way than when Israel is compared to a harlot, an adulterous wife and one prophet even being commanded by God to marry an adulterous woman.

I guess my point is that I think it does not reflect an accurate understanding of eros to limit it in the way it has been limited in this conversation. It should also be noted that Grenz’s definition (to possess and be possessed) is very symetrical!

Thanks for the warm welcome back peeps!!

This is just a brief(?) flyby comment. I have no time left after reading through all the comments! But I am just about to finish preaching through Ephesians and I felt that Paul’s purpose was that God’s big plan (Ephesians 1:10 – that all of creation be brought into harmony with Christ as the head) might be lived out NOW within the people of God. This meant in all our relationships we should live lives ruled by love (Eph 5:2) through the POWER that comes through Christ’s love in us (Eph 3:14-21).

So, Paul appears to tell the people in the Ephesian Church what this looks like in relationships where society accepts authority over another; in marriage, parents/children and slaves/masters. All three of these relationship types, in Paul’s time were similar. VERY similar. In all three one had authority over the other and it was socially accepted. Paul, however, shows that all three of these relationships should be mutual. Because, in our society today, we have a generally more egal view towards marriage and raising spoilt brats (ahem…I mean children) we probably best see Paul’s point when adressing master regarding slaves. Paul says slaves should obey their masters from their heart, serving the LORD NOT MEN (remember we are submitting to one another out of reverance for Christ). Then Paul tells the masters…”TREAT YOUR SLAVES IN THE SAME WAY”.

Ephesians was meant to be read in one sitting.

Egals are not suggesting that wives should not submit to their husbands. We are saying that Paul’s intention was NOT that husbands should rule over their wives. Rather, that the big plan is that all of creation will be in harmony with Christ as the head, not hubby! How will this big plan happen? Only if we are like Christ to one another (Eph 4:15-16, 5:21)

Sorry for the length of my comment 🙂

I find it interesting that when Adam did name Eve it was AFTER the fall and after Eve has been told that her husband would rule over her. If naming does indeed imply some type of authority over (a debatable point) this hardly helps the comp argument in regards to the prefall created order.

As Pinklight points out, calling her ‘woman’ was more identification than naming. Actually it sounds like simple male logic at work…”she shall be called woman for she was taken out of man…” Go Adam!

I might add that Christmas day has finished here in Sydney town 🙁

So I am not so obsessed with blogging that I am doing it on Christmas day…just the day after Christmas!

Thanks for your comments Frank!

I want to stress that I agree with everything that you and Cheryl have said regarding this topic of the place of scripture. I confess that I am confused at this point by both your comments as they have included lots of ‘additional’ clarifying type information. I am sensing that warning bells are going off in people’s kephales, so I will try to clarify because I percieve a need to do so! Perhaps I am wrong in this and therefore run the risk of appearing overly defensive! Perhaps we are just not quite on the same page? If you think I am saying something wrong, please tell me – I love the truth!

I think I have been clear in my interaction on this blog that I hold scriptural truth in the highest regard! It contains all the truth necessary to lead one to salvation. Whenever I have not been joking around(!), I have been presenting arguments from scripture and interacting with them. I love the truth of scripture! 🙂

There are, however, some things that I believe scripture was not designed to do. One is to be the means for salvation, and the other is to be the deep, personal, loving relationship I should have with Jesus. I have heard it held up as both, on numerous occasions.

Frank, I do not know exactly what words the person who accused you of being a Bibliolater said, but I believe my stance is in line with what you said in reply to him. My words might remind you of his words, they might even have been the same – perhaps I would also agree with him, I do not know. I do not know what you said that caused him to say what he said to you! I have found that this topic is very hard to get people to hear what exactly is being said, especially when people have bad experiences with liberal theologians. This is NOT where I am going!

I am not suggesting anyone should throw out their BIbles (not that you have said I am suggesting that). The opposite in fact. The only way that I came to the conclusion that my relationship should be with Jesus and not scripture is because of what scripture told me. I could have been told this by a person, not scripture, but scripture, as has been said before, is the perfect rule of truth by which we can check and confirm what is being said as the truth or not. If somebody told me, I would want to check scripture before I accepted it as truth.

So, all I was trying to say was that to suggest a woman cannot have full access to the written word is silly when she has complete access to the Word that was there in the beginning through whom all things were created.

I apologise if I have stressed anybody out. If you are praying for me…please continue, I need it. 😉

You have been very clear Cheryl, thanks!

I agree also on the importance of understanding that the Holy Spirit and the Word work together. After all, even if the written word is not as full a revelation as Christ, it is still a revelation of God. God does not disagree with himself!

I had to nut this out myself at Bible College where I was told that it was the BIble that sanctifies us (John 17:17), and that Christian Worship was gathering around the Bible, and that all of scripture was required for a believer to be made perfect etc. This was because every NT reference to the Word was considered as a direct reference to scripture alone. Realising that Jesus was the greatest revelation of the Word of God opened up so much more meaning and understanding for me in the written word! I guess you could say it is one of my hobby horses 😉

I love it when we agree with each other and disagree with the opposition!

33 – I fully agree Cheryl. I am not sure if I was clear with my point and if you followed it (sorry if you have understood and I am just going on…!), but I believe that; in the Word who becomes flesh we have relational and revelational experience. After all, if you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Jesus is the deep meaning of the scriptures, because the scriptures point to him.

I realise that these men are referring to scripture and meaning scripture, but I think it important to stress that God chose to reveal His word to each of us in a personal way through a “human interpretor or mediator” – Jesus. In only referring to and meaning scripture, they have sold short what the Word of God is (although the BIble is true and accurate it is not a complete revelation like Christ). If they were to consider WHO the Word of God is, they would realise how wrong their comments are.

Yes, we know Jesus to some degree through Scripture, but if that is the purpose of scripture – to give testimony to Jesus – and Jesus revealed himself directly to women and men, then to suggest that the lesser revelation is only revealed to men is ridiculous!

I hope I have not gone on. Perhaps you got my point from the beginning? 😉

Thank you for your blog Cheryl.

Merry Christmas!

Sadly this thinking, “God cannot connect with a woman like He connects with a man because God’s understanding in His Word comes only through man” does not display much understanding of God’s Word.

Although I believe that the Bible is God’s written word, it is not the ultimate revelation of God’s Word. This ultimate revelation we see in Jesus. Jesus points out the importance in not giving to the written word of God more time than it deserves, in relation to the Word made flesh (John 5:39-40).

So what is being suggested is that only men can have a direct relationship with Jesus. Either that or they are saying that a relationship with the bible trumps a relationship with Jesus.

Jesus would not agree. He certainly had relationship with women directly. Even Mary & Martha!

I might add that one of my comments on the blog was blocked, but the pastor then put it up as a seperate post…to redicule me! What he did was chop bits out of it so that my argument looked silly. I found it interesting what he cut out. It was the bits that provided evidence for the truth. It was the bits that he did not want said because they explained the confusion within the English translations etc.

He knew that these bits might point people to the truth, so he cut them out.

Hi LMB!

I was discussing some Greek grammar re 1 Tim 2:12-15 on a Pastors blog. People (some of who were a part of the pastors congregation) were saying some very ill informed statements in regard to definite and indefinite articles to try and prove me (or Cheryl!) wrong. The Pastor said nothing to correct them. I was eventually silenced from correcting them, but the pastor made it clear that his level of Greek was similar to mine…probably better.

Whether or not he agreed with my conclusions was in some ways a seperate issue to the grammar itself. He was very happy to make my claims from the Greek look stupid, yet he knew they contained the truth.

The irony? He said I did not love the truth, but rather hated it. I don’t go beck there any more! 🙂

Cheryl, thanks for your comment #18. I have noticed recently that some comp pastors are very dishonest when it comes to what they know and what they are happy to let their ‘flock’ think. They hold back the truth on purpose. I do not know why, though I assume the truth takes them somewhere where they do not want to go.

Having said that, I know there are dishonest pastors in all denominations/areas and I am not saying that all comp pastors are ‘cult’ leaders!

I think it has been good that no one has asked Cheryl for graphics…but she has been quiet for a few minutes and I am concerned…

I am not sure how Grudem can be so positive about the Danvers statement when CBMW have had to answer question after question clarifying all the ‘details’. It might be worth asking them when a female donkey can teach a man. I assume the answer would be, “only when there is an angel with a flamming sword that you cannot see in front of you”.

But I guess they enjoy having the questions asked and being the ‘authority’ on all matters gender related…

I should go and do some work 🙂