Kristen

Thanks, Craig. And I do appreciate that from Jeremy as well. Looking back over the posts, I see that I neglected to address this:

“As far as Galatians 3:28, Paul nowhere removes social structure that are in place. In Ephesians he does not release slaves from their duty; they are to obey their masters. So when Paul gives slaves the freedom of Galatians 3:28, he must not be talking about social roles. They are fellow heirs in salvation, but they are still slaves. Women are fellow heirs in salvation, but they are still women.”

Slaves were not barred from having authority in the church because of their condition as slaves. So how can this passage be read to bar women from having authority in the church because of their condition as women?
Also, does the fact that Paul does not remove social structures, mean he is giving an endorsement to those structures or stating that they are God’s divine plan for all time? That is an argument that pro-slavery Christians used to make. But the fact is that the young Christian church was in no position to try to overturn the social structures of the time. This does not mean slavery is God’s will– or male authority either.

Jeremy, I could turn around and ask you, “Why do men desire so much to keep the pulpit from women? Could it have something to do with Genesis 3:16?” Two can play at that game. I myself have no desire for the pulpit. I only wish for my sisters who feel God’s calling, to be able to answer it just as freely as my brothers can.
It is interesting to me that you have offered no exegetical support for your own position, but still insist that your view is based on exegesis, implying that mine is based on eisegesis– when I am the one who has explicated the Greek meanings of words, compared texts to one another, analyzed what the words and phrases say outright vs. what is assumed, and compared one text to another asking reasoned questions about how they would have worked together in the early church.
You do not find my exegesis persuasive. So be it. Your reasoning for why you do not support women in ministry is your own. I was not saying that your reasons were the same as those of former supporters of black slavery or divine right of kings. I was simply saying that the Scriptures have been used by those in power to support their power– and that anyone reading them would be well advised to take that human motivation into account, particularly when it has to do with “traditional” interpretations. No accusation of your own personal motives was intended.
I wish you well.

I will conclude with this. Jeremy, you said:
“I am a complemenatarian because I don’t see any other way to understand God’s Word on this issue. It would be easier to be an egalitarian, but I would not feel that I was accurately handling Scripture. If I could see a true way of interpreting these passages that favored the egalitarian position, I would gladly shift sides.”

I have shown that there certainly are other ways to understand the Bible texts which you appear to believe are conclusive. Even if you don’t find these other readings conclusive either, I hope you would agree that the “plain sense” isn’t really quite as “plain” as you might think– and that this supposed “plain sense” is actually a traditionalist interpretation, and not “plain sense” at all. In any event, tradition is a very shaky foundation on which to base the restriction of half of all Christians from using gifts that God might very well be giving them.

Jeremy, you said:
“I just think that’s a weak argument that in a letter that mentions Phoebe, not addressed to her, Paul would tell her the guidelines to exercising her influence. Women were permitted to be deacons, and that was influential, but they were not allowed to teach men. Phoebe would have known this; Paul didn’t need to mention it in a letter to the Romans.”
Rom 16 talks about a lot more women than Phoebe. Priscilla, Mary, Junia, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Julia, and the “sister” of Nereus are all mentioned. Your assumption that these women knew they were not allowed to teach men is without basis. Churches were far apart, and letters were passed around by carriers. The letter to Timothy was a personal letter to one person, not to a church, and it was the letters to whole churches which were circulated. There is simply no textual evidence that all women in all churches were receiving a teaching that they were not to teach men.
It’s interesting that you mention Phoebe. One of the words Paul uses to describe her is “proestasis.” This is the noun form of the word “proestemi” (Cheryl can correct me if I’m spelling these wrong), which means literally “to stand before,” and is used to convey leadership in Rom. 12:8, “Let the one who leads (proestimi) govern diligently.” It is also used in 1 Tim. 5:17, “The elders who rule (proestimi) well are worthy of double honor.” It certainly looks as though Paul is describing Phoebe as a “leader” or “elder.”
See this essay for more information:
http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=501

In short, the interpretation of these passages in such a way as to forbid church authority to women, is by no means the only possible, or even the most likely, interpretation. Given the nature of humans in power to interpret the scriptures in ways that support their power, (such as using Noah’s curse over Ham to justify black slavery, or the scriptures on honoring the king to support “divine right of kings,” I would say that these traditional interpretations are all worthy of a second look. The passages used to support male domination are not exempt.

Jeremy, you said:
“I don’t see your point with the ‘I do not permit’. Is it that this is Paul’s opinion rather than a rule? Paul gives commands in the first person often. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10:20, he says, ‘but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.’ ”
No, the issue is not that it is Paul’s opinion rather than the rule. The issue, as I said before, is whether Paul is addressing a specific situation, or making a universal decree. Even in the passage you cite, Paul is speaking of a specific situation. He is talking about Gentile sacrifices, which were common in his day. No believer in the West today is likely to confront this situation. This passage no longer applies directly to us in the US, Canada, Europe, etc, as it applied to them then. We need to find a different way to apply it to ourselves.

You said:
“Paul doesn’t just give these commands for women to a couple churches. In 1 Corinthians 14:33-34, he writes, ‘as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches’ So it is all the churches that practice these things.”
When the earliest church fathers quoted 1 Cor 14, they never mentioned the existence of verses 33-34 at all. In the earliest manuscripts we have, these verses appear in two different places in the text. There is a lot of other early textual evidence that these verses were added later by someone else, just as someone probably added Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. There is a lot of textual evidence that women simply were NOT silent in “all the churches” at all. 1 Cor. 14:26 says, “When you come together, each one [gender-inclusive word here] has a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.” (Emphasis mine.) In any event, you cannot make 1 Cor 14:33-34 parallel to 1 Tim 2:12-15. They simply cannot be shown to be talking about the same thing at all.
To be continued.

Jeremy, you said:
“First, creation order is used as an analogy, not a reason, in 2 Cor 11:3.”
Then how can you be sure it is a reason, and not an analogy, in 1 Tim 2:13?
You said:
“Second, in 1 Cor 11, the form is possibly not applicable today of head coverings, but the principle of submission to one’s husband still is. The problem in Corinth was not so much with the covering, but with the attitude.”
Then how can you be sure the problem in 1 Timothy was not so much with the teaching, as with the attitude with which they were teaching? (Not one positive use of the word “authentein” can be found in any usage of this word during the time this book was written. “Exercise authority” was not the way this word was used until around 400 AD.)
You said:
“‘Gar’ is used plenty of times for ‘because’. Even in the favorite verse of egalitarians, Galatians 3:28, it is used this way. I can give you plenty of examples if you need.”
I can also give you plenty of examples where it means “for example” — and therefore, the use of the word “gar” does not necessarily mean that Paul was grounding his prohibition in the Creation narrative in order to render it timeless and universal. That is the issue we were addressing. You seemed to believe it was a slam-dunk.
You said:
“All these words leads one to believe that the word authority here is simply that.”
All my research into this matter indicates the exact opposite, as I have described above.
To be continued.

Jeremy said:
“These reasons are the creation order and Eve’s deception. These reasons are not cultural or temporal, but eternal. Therefore, his command is eternal. No?”
Not necessarily.
There are several places where Paul refers to the creation or to creation theology while clearly not intending to make his present discussion timeless and universal. 2 Cor. 11:3 is one. Most churches also do not believe that the head-coverings commands of 1 Cor. 11 were intended as timeless and universal, but were related to cultural understandings of the meanings of head coverings in an honor-shame culture– and yet Paul refers to the creation order in that chapter as well. In 1 Cor. 10:11 Paul speaks in general of the way he uses references to OT narratives, saying that they are “examples” and “warnings.” He does not say anything about them being meant to ground NT truths.
Also, it is my understanding reason that the word “gar” translated as “for” in “For Adam was formed first, then Eve,” means “for example” or “for illustration” more often than it means “for the reason that” in Paul’s writings.
For these reasons, I do not believe the creation narrative in 1 Tim 2 need be viewed as a way to make what Paul “was not permitting” there timeless and universal. I think it related to a specific problem in a specific church, and the message we should receive from it is, “Those in deception should not be permitted to teach until they have quietly sat down and learned true doctrine.”
If Paul really was giving a universal, timeless prohibition against any and all women ever having authority in the church, these questions must be seriously considered and answered:
Why does he use the word “authentein” instead of the usual word for “have authority,” which is “exousia”? Why does he begin the passage with the words “I do not permit” in the present active indicative tense, rather than, “A woman must not” in the imperative tense? And why does he bury this universal, timeless command for all churches for all time, in a personal letter to his deputy whom he has left behind to correct problems in one particular church having to do with false teaching (1 Tim 1:3)? Why does he commend many women in Rome who clearly have some influence (Rom 16), without mentioning to them that they would be going too far with this authority if they used it to teach or lead in a mixed-gender church gathering?
Finally, if Paul is really saying that there are some gifts of God that are only for men but not for women, why did he include women in: “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . there is not male and female . . . for God sent His Son. . . that we might [all] receive the full rights of sons”? (Gal. 3:28-4-5.) The “full rights of sons” was a phrase that meant the full status of an adopted male heir as a son in every legal sense of the word, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. Are women the only ones of this group who have fewer rights and privileges? Did Paul intend a freeborn Jewish Christian to be able to say to a Christian Gentile slave, “Paul was only talking about salvation here, so be content. We freeborn Jews get all the leadership roles and positions of power and authority in the church.”? And if women are the sole exception, why did Paul specifically include them as receiving “full rights of sons”?

Ditto!

Thanks, Craig. You’re sweet.
It’s not my tone I’m worried about, however. I have learned the hard way that any time parallels are drawn between racism and complementarianism, or between black slavery and female subordination, it can be cause for serious offense. That’s why I have tried to explain that I’m not accusing him– or any comp– of anything.
It may help that he’s Australian and not from the US. We’ll see.

Craig– no, I had not intended to share that first bit with Mark. I was simply sharing with you folks here that have done my best to mitigate any potential offense my arguments might cause him– but if he takes offense, then so be it. I believe I am speaking the truth in love to the best of my ability.

Ok, this last section is pretty volatile. I hope it doesn’t make Mark terribly angry– but he was blunt and direct about what he said about the egalitarian position, and I must in honest rebuttal, do the same.

Calvin and Luther don’t try and reintroduce slavery into the 16th Century, for example, which one would expect them to do if Christians have always considered slavery to be normative. The early church did not campaign to keep slavery going, or hold it up as something universally and unqualifiedly good. So it’s a misperception about how the Church understood slavery – similar to the argument that all Christians believed that the Bible taught a flat world before Galileo. There are a number of early church fathers who believed (like many philosophers at that time) in a round world.

So the issues aren’t parallel. The mainstream tradition did not think that slavery was obligatory (i.e. normative) – that God wanted slaves in all times and places. Usually people argued (at most) that it was possible under certain conditions. And there had been different views on the shape of the world. But no-one believed that the passages in question taught an egalitarian view of marriage. The people arguing for slavery didn’t just peg their case on the household codes either – they drew on a wide range of texts as well for their position, so that part of the argument is wrong as well.

Further, there is a disanalogy in that those contesting slavery and arguing for a round world were going against the grain of the society of the day, while those supporting the received position were reflecting the consensus of their society. In the current debate that shoe is on the other foot – egalitarianism is the view that seems reasonable and obvious to our unbelieving contemporaries.

I agree with the basic point – have to show from the Bible as a whole, and not just assume. But I think the other side has to be in play as well. To say that the whole church got it wrong for two thousand years about something so ethically important is a big claim. To say that at a time when the view in question simply reflects the moral intuition of our own society is an orange light. The teaching of scripture has to be really, really, really clear for that to be the case. And egal reasoning on these things is hardly ‘clear’, even if it is true, it is more like ‘torturous’ or ’subtle’ as a description. That can’t decide matters, but it needs to be given some significant weight.

I must begin by saying that though Calvin and Luther don’t try to reintroduce slavery into the 16th century– and though the Roman Church had influenced the decline of slavery in the Middle Ages, serfdom was an institution well into Calvin and Luther’s time, and to the best of my knowledge, neither one spoke against it. Serfdom was, of course, a form of slavery– only it was bondage to the land rather than to the slave owner. Serfs could not be sold away from their families, therefore– but neither did they have the power to leave the land they were bound to. I would tend to say that as a whole, the church has had an ambivalent attitude towards institutions of slavery. The church also had a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards marriage in its early years, believing virginity and celibacy to be spiritually superior; which of course is one attitude that Calvin and Luther both worked to change. And it does seem as if evangelical Protestantism has gone too far the other way, discouraging singlehood as an equally viable choice for Christians, which I firmly believe the New Testament teaches to be the case.

So I will agree that marriage and slavery are not exactly parallel. But it’s not saying a lot to say that those who used the scriptures to defend slavery drew on a wide range of texts, not just the household codes. It is the usual case that a person holding a certain position as “biblical,” will draw on a wide range of texts that they believe support their position, directly or indirectly. The point is that slavery, parenthood and marriage were all part and parcel of first-century households, and therefore it does make sense to look at the passages that deal with the three of them as a group, as what is said (and not said) about one, may have some bearing on what is said about the other two.

Nor do I think it’s saying much to say, “no one believed that the passages in question taught an egalitarian view of marriage.” They didn’t teach that– not in the way you mean. The most that I can say as an egalitarian is that Paul believed that Christ had restored the relations between the sexes such that men and women could be “one” in their full, equal status as “sons” in Christ– and that this equality must inform the relations of husbands and wives, in a culture and setting that were patriarchal. To say the passages have “egalitarian marriage” in view is to be anachronistic– just as it would be anachronistic to say Paul was “anti-slavery.“ But this does not mean that the passages can be said to “teach” or uphold slavery or male rule in marriage– rather, the passages address slavery and male rule in marriage facts of that society which the infant religious movement had to accommodate. But accommodation is what I believe Paul was teaching. It is in this way that Paul’s teachings about slavery can inform our view of what he meant by his teachings about husband-rule– for if he was not endorsing slavery as a divinely mandated institution, we cannot say he is clearly endorsing male rule as divinely mandated either– not in light of his statements in Galatians 3 and 4 about “no slave or free, no male or female” and Christians from all these groups being “adopted as sons” and “one in Christ Jesus.”

Why, then, did “the whole church get it wrong for two thousand years about something so ethically important?” The first reason I would give is that “he shall rule over you” was a consequence of the Fall, just like thorns and thistles in the fields. We still have not managed to eradicate thorns and thistles, though we still fight against them. The male desire to rule over the female is something intrinsic to the fallen human nature, and no easier to eradicate than the thorns and thistles– and in the case of male rule, for most of history the human race has made no attempt to fight against it, but males who wished to rule in Christendom have used it as one of the building blocks of their power.

Which brings us to my second reason. Why did the church believe holy war in Jerusalem was a way to honor God? Why did the church as a whole uphold the “divine right of kings” as a biblical mandate? Why did popes use the name and authority of the Apostle Peter to build their own personal wealth and influence?

Because it is a fact of history that through the ages, Christians in places of power or privilege have used the Scriptures as buttresses to their power and privilege. Any statement in the Bible that can possibly be used to do this, has been so used, and many are still being so used today. Spiritually abusive sects like the shepherding movement have used the Bible to uphold the authority of leaders over the rank-and-file members. The domestic discipline movement uses it to uphold a husband’s “right” to spank his wife. Southern United States slaveholders taught that the curse of Noah on the sons of Ham meant that the black race was intended by God to serve the white race. Upholders of Apartheid in South Africa taught similar doctrines. The English aristocracy taught the peasants to pray, “God bless the king and his relations, and keep us all in our proper stations,” and preached that stepping out of the station to which you were born was rebellion against God. Many of these sects have taught that they way they interpret the Bible is the way the church has interpreted it since its inception, that their position is therefore privileged, and that the Bible “clearly” supports their position over and against that of the opposition.

In fact, if you will click on this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=S1ZEtrmbPRwC&ots=lq1ATez_K9&dq=A%20Scriptural%2C%20Ecclesiastical%2C%20and%20Historical%20View%20of%20Slavery&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

and begin reading at around page 45 at arguments put forward for black slavery against the Abolitionists in the United States, you will find the following ideas (these are summaries of the arguments):

That the Church has traditionally, for 1800 years prior to the the current age, supported slavery.

That the plain sense of the Scriptures is pro-slavery.

That the problem is not the institution of slavery, but the abuse of it by some men.

That those who oppose slavery are bowing to the godlessness of their own modern culture.

That the African race is designed by God to be under the white race, as can be proved in the book of Genesis, and is happiest when it embraces that design.

Whether or not any of these arguments for black slavery had any real basis in history or Scripture is another issue– but the fact is that the arguments, when reduced to their basics, look very much like many of the complementarian arguments. It is the nature of human beings to use whatever arguments are perceived as having the most power, in support of their position– and there are few things in our world even today, that have as much power in the human mind, as Scripture. Therefore, what ought to get the “orange light” are positions on Scripture which tend to uphold the power of groups that have long held power– when Christ’s parable about not seeking the highest places at the banquet, is in direct opposition to such uses. (I am not saying complementarians are deliberately seeking power– and I’m certainly not saying their hearts are wrong or that the oppression of women is their goal. But these human social trends and historical patterns are things that need to be looked at steadily and honestly. As you said, this can’t decide matters, but it needs to be given some significant weight.)

In light of this, this argument:

“Those contesting slavery and arguing for a round world were going against the grain of the society of the day, while those supporting the received position were reflecting the consensus of their society. In the current debate that shoe is on the other foot – egalitarianism is the view that seems reasonable and obvious to our unbelieving contemporaries”

seems lacking in perspective. The movement that eradicated black slavery in England and the US was largely made up of Christians, and weight and thrust of the whole counsel of Scripture was used by these Christian groups to uphold the idea of the full equality of the races, against those who would cite certain texts as means to uphold white power. In the same way, most of the pioneers of the early feminist movement– the women’s suffragettes– were Christian in beliefs, outlook and foundational ideals. These ideas are not so much offspring of the Enlightment as they are offspring of the Second Great Awakening.

Both movements were very counter-cultural in their inception and in their long, hard-won fight against oppression. The reason they seem “reasonable and obvious” to us now is because they succeeded in persuading society of the injustice of the opposing view. Are our idealistic Christian forerunners now to be rewarded for their blood, sweat and tears by having their position mistrusted for having won?

Another thing is that the current complementarian position is not actually what the church has believed for 2000 years. Complementarians believe that women are equal, but have different roles such that the roles of authority in the church and home belong to men. The long-held traditional view of the church has been that women are inferior in mind and body and are designed to be under male authority, not just in the church and home, but in the business world as well. Since women have now abundantly proved that they are just as capable as men in the secular sphere, modern complementarians have re-examined their Bibles and found that to uphold the notion that women are inferior to men, or that women should not be allowed any place in society other than as keepers of the home, is not as biblical as the church once thought. Egalitarians simply take this a step further and say that if the weight and thrust of the whole counsel of Scripture is for female equality, why would this not be full, functional equality in all spheres of life? Is the position that women belong under male authority in the church and home, really as biblical as the church once thought– and as many in the church still think?

That pretty much concludes my arguments. I recognize the volatility of some of what I have shared in this last section, and though I have spoken bluntly, it has not been my intention to judge complementarians or any of my brothers or sisters in Christ. God bless.

Ok, getting back to answering Mark.

Several of his paragraphs subsequent to the ones I have already addressed are expansions on the same issues. So I’m going to comment only on the ones that are left that my earlier comments did not address.

First, there’s this:
1. The Bible indicates that marriage is built into Creation and New Creation, and is good.
2. The Bible doesn’t do that for slavery.
3. The society of the day had a unanimous strong view about both marriage and slavery that was patriarchal, and Jewish exegesis of the Bible understood the texts patriarchally.
4. The Bible does teach a structure of marriage, either patriarchal or egalitarian.

My argument was that the Bible does treat marriage and slavery as different – one is built in and fundamentally good, one is not built in and is not an unequivocal good.

I do not deny that marriage is built in from the beginning and shown as good. But I will say that the way I read it, marriage as an institution of patriarchy was not the way God originally conceived it– and the New Testament appears to overturn husband-rule as the norm for New Covenant marriage. I do not think that this would be lost on Paul’s original audience, as I have said. Paul was a Hebrew scholar. I understand that Paul was also Jewish, and it is true that in general, Jewish exegesis of the Bible understood the texts patriarchally. But much of Paul’s writing repudiates common Jewish understandings of many OT texts. Paul was not wed to rabbinic understandings. My question is, do the OT texts really show that God set up marriage from the beginning as a patriarchal institution? Because if they don’t, then given the nature of the New Covenant kingdom of God, it is quite likely that Paul had moved beyond Jewish patriarchalism in this area, and that he was trying to move his readers beyond patriarchalism too.

“And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and . . . over all the earth. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth on the earth.” Gen. 1:26-28.

What this shows is identical treatment of the man and the woman, and identical status of the man and the woman before God. He formed them both to be in His image and to have dominion, and then he told them to be fruitful and multiply and rule the other creatures. But to me, the important thing to note here is that for Paul, as for us, Genesis Chapter 2 cannot be read without a view to Genesis Chapter 1. The woman, no less than the man, is given rulership in Genesis 1. There is no hint in Genesis 1 that the man is in authority over the woman.

It is in the next chapter that we see the words “help meet” (note that these are two words, not one): “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him an help meet for him.” Genesis 2:18.

It is important here to note that the name “Adam” is simply the Hebrew word for “human.” Genesis 5:2 says, “Male and female He created them, and blessed them, and called their name “adam” (human) in the day when they were created.” Woman is not an afterthought that God happened to have. When God made the “adam,” the male and female human were in God’s mind from the beginning. But he created one “adam” alone at first, for a reason. Genesis 2:19-20 says that God deliberately brought the animals to the adam to name them, “but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

God then causes the adam to fall asleep, and he takes “one of his ribs” (the original Hebrew says “from his side”), and makes a woman. She is made of the exact same substance as Adam, so that he cannot claim her nature as different from his in any way. Adam recognizes what God intended him to recognize– that no other creature is of Adam’s own nature, but this woman is. And this is where the word “man” as in “male” is first used by Adam in regard to himself, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” v. 23. But is a relationship of authority and submission being set up here? Was Eve created to be Adam’s help, as we understand it in English today– his “assistant”?

The Hebrew word there for “help” actually refers to someone who renders strong aid that is desperately needed. Most of the other times that this word, “ezer,” is used in the Old Testament, it refers to God. In Psalm 33:20, for instance: “Our soul waiteth for the Lord; He is our help (“ezer”) and our shield.” An “ezer” is not someone who is subordinate to the one helped. God as “ezer” is above the humans who cry for Him to be their “help.”

But the woman is not a “help” from a superior position, as God is, so the text in Genesis 2 adds a modification. The woman is a “help meet for him.” “Meet” in the KJV is an old word meaning “suitable to” or “corresponding to.” The Hebrew word is “kenedgo,” which literally means “facing him,” or “as in front of him.” The idea is that here is a help (strong aid) that is not above Adam, as God is, but is face-to-face with him. Equal partnership is strongly implied by this phrase.

God makes the woman because one “adam” alone is not good. The “adam” needs a strong aid that stands face-to face with him. God wants the “adam” to recognize this strong, face-to-face aid for what she is, so God makes sure the “adam” knows that this being is not like one of the animals, but is of his own substance and nature. Genesis 2 then concludes with a parenthetical– that it is because of this manner of creation that man and woman are to join in marriage and be “one flesh.” There is still no hint of subordination of Eve to Adam. In fact, the later subordination of the woman to the man is clearly shown in Genesis 3:16 to be the result of sin.

Would Paul really have understood that because Adam was made first, and because he named the animals, this put him automatically in a position of authority over Eve? If you take 1 Tim 2:15 and overlay it over the top of Genesis 2, it may seem that way– but can we be sure Paul would actually have read Genesis that way? The Bible clearly shows that the reason God had Adam name the animals was because God wanted to show Adam that there was no “facing-him-strong-aid” to be found among the animals. And even if naming something implied authority over it, Adam did not name Eve till after the Fall– in Genesis 3:20. When Adam said, “She shall be called Woman, for she was taken out of Man,” he was not naming the woman. He was simply distinguishing both himself and her from one another as male and female. The Hebrew word for “called” is a different word from the word used when he “named” the animals and “named” Eve. If the idea of “naming” has any meaning of “authority” at all, then it is interesting to note that Adam did not name Eve until after sin had entered the world and after God told Eve, “he shall rule over you.” (Notice, too, that God did not give a command to the man, “See that you rule over her,“ but merely made a statement to the woman, “He shall rule over you.“ Male rule, like thorns and thistles and pain in childbirth, was a consequence of the Fall, not a command of God.)

Nor is there any indication in Genesis itself, that being made first put Adam automatically in authority over Eve. If being made first implied authority, then the fish and the birds would rule the land animals, and the land animals would rule the humans. But God made the human alone at first so that God could show the human how much he needed an “ezer kenegdo.”

Looking at other Old Testament passages about marriage, we definitely see that “ruling over her” quickly became the norm in Israelite thinking. The Law largely assumes that men are going to consider their wives and daughters to be their property, and sets up certain parameters to give women and wives some protections. But even within those parameters, we often see God working with and through women in ways that elevates and ennobles them. Deborah, Miriam, Abigail, Esther — all were used by God in ways that indicated grace and dignity far above man’s usual treatment of woman.

And then Christ came. And He did things like tell Martha that Mary didn’t have to serve in the kitchen but could come sit and learn as a disciple, right in the same room with the guys. He spoke to the Samarian woman in theological discourse, in a way very similar to that in which He spoke to men like Nicodemus. Unlike the way the Old Testament’s point of view is fairly consistently male, Christ frequently would tell one parable featuring a man’s perspective, and then another parable featuring a woman’s perspective, in a parallel fashion (see for instance Luke 15:1-10). In short, Christ made it plain that while Israel’s law was male-focused, the kingdom of God was focused on men and women together.

And then we get Galatians 3:26-4:7, which is one of Paul’s great statements about the nature of the New Covenant community brought about by Christ’s death and resurrection.

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Now I say: That the heir,, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all. . . Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. . . Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

Looking closely at this passage, it is not referring only to salvation; this is not just about the fact that people of all races and both sexes can become part of God’s family. See the last part of this section of Scripture: “that ye might receive the adoption of sons. . . and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” That phrase, “adoption of sons,” was a special legal term in the original Greek, referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir.. Adopted male heirs had the same status as freeborn male sons, with all the privileges and benefits that sons enjoyed in that culture.

Paul is saying that “in Christ” Jews and Gentiles, slaves and freemen, males and females, all have full and equal status as adopted freeborn “sons” in the family of God. It was not Paul’s intention that a freeborn Jew, after reading this passage, would feel able to tell a Gentile or a slave, “There, you get to be saved just like us; now be content with that, because positions of authority in the Kingdom belong only to freeborn Jews.” Such flesh-based distinctions are part of the “elements of the world,” (Gal. 4:3), and these “elements” are not part of God’s covenant community in Christ. And according to the same passage, this applies to “male and female” distinctions too.

In other words, when the New Testament is looked at as a whole, it appears that Christ’s coming was meant to change the damaging effects of male-female relations created by the Fall, so that wives can again become the “face-to-face strong aid” of their husbands. 1 Cor 7 makes this abundantly clear in the careful, line-by-line parallels indicating equal reciprocity that Paul shows throughout the marriage-advice section. “Let each man have his own wife/let each woman have her own husband.” “Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her/likewise also the wife to her husband.” And so on and so on, throughout the whole passage.

Looked at in this light, it becomes hard for me to believe that Paul’s passages about practical Christian living (including marriage practices in Eph 5 and church conduct in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim 2) were meant to override his principle in Gal 3:28 that in Christ, oneness between the male and female is being restored through equality of status and full “sonship.” It seems to me instead that Paul was working out how those principles of equal status could be worked into the culture in which he and his readers found themselves.

(Note: the more I study 1 Tim 2:14-17, the more it looks to me like Paul was addressing a specific problem distinctive to the church at Ephesus in the early to mid-first century. According to Greek scholar Philip Payne, the word “permit” in the Greek almost always implied a case-specific injunction. And Paul’s general grammatical practice was to use the first person singular, present active indicative tense (translated here as “I do not permit”) to indicate a current desire or conviction, not a universal, timeless command. Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, p. 320-21. I simply do not think Paul intended this passage as an interpretation of Genesis such that we can read it back over and into the meaning of the original Genesis passage in the way complementarians do. We need to read it instead, in light of what the New Covenant Kingdom is supposed to be.)

So what it comes down to is that as far as I can see, the whole New Testament, including Paul, gives women a new, equal status with men, restoring them to what was lost in the Garden. Practical issues had to be worked out in light of the situation the young churches found themselves in, but the weight and thrust of the Scriptures as a whole is for male-female functional equality.
***

I will address Mark’s last point as soon as I can. Today’s my 23rd wedding anniversary! And I have to start getting ready for an evening out with my sweet equal partner and best friend. (grin)

Ok– that’s as much as I have time for now. I may be able to get to the next points later this evening, or it may have to wait a few days or a week. I will end with this statement of Mark’s, because my answer to it is very short:
If we lost the wealth that modern society can produce and went back to the kind of society where it is big grind to produce enough food to feed people and there is little discretionary capacity in society for people not to be involved in food production (and so not much of a police force or bureacracy, let alone any social welfare or universal education) then I think we’d return to more authoratarian society strucutres fairly quickly, even with a view of universal human dignity. I think we have little grasp how much what we take for granted is actually the conditions of a society where everyone is rich. Even our poor people have a kind of wealth unimaginable in earlier eras.

Is Mark a sociologist? Because I simply don’t see what his reasoning is behind this. I’m not a sociologist either– but I don’t see how authoritarian social structures spring of necessity from subsistence farming. I think they do spring of necessity from the tendency of humans to seize power whenever there isn’t anyone to stop them– but simply from needing to work hard just to survive, no.

Here is my response to Mark’s second point.
I think the ‘lay down power’ here is pretty tendentious. Almost any complementarian would say something like all this, but would say that what is going on is the reshaping of authority to be used as an exercise of service to those under authority rather than as a lording over them. My question here is – does Jesus model the kind of way of using authority that Kristen is speaking about here? Does he use it with humility? does he lay down his life, does he not exasperate us? And would she (and you) be happy with describing that as Jesus ‘laying down power’ in his relationship with us?

I certainly wouldn’t be happy to use such language about the one I call Lord. And yet he is the model, and I don’t see it as a model of laying down power, but of using it in a servant way.

And again, this is the kind of ‘this but that’ reading that is just so hard to pin down. Is Paul writing in such a way that indicates that these relationships have authority or not? Kristen seems to be suggesting ‘yes’ – but in such a way that over time we’d move beyond the letter of what Paul has said to the spirit of it and move to more egalitarian relationships. You seem to be saying ‘no’ – there’s nothing in these texts, we need to look elsewhere.

These comments open up the whole question of authority. Authority– what it is, what it’s for, and who has it– is often an unquestioned assumption made by believers based on their own church backgrounds, rather than something examined fully in the light of Scripture.

Jesus said in Matt 28:18-19, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples. . . .” Any authority that anyone in the church has, therefore, is actually Christ’s authority and not his/her own. In Titus 2:15, when Paul tells Titus, “Encourage and rebuke with all authority,” the word is not “exousia,” (“have rights/authority over”) but “epitage,” which means a command from God to be passed on. Delegated authority is the only authority we humans have.

The first question, then, is “do husbands have delegated authority from Christ over their wives?” As I have written before, I think the authority of husbands was a culturally given thing, an outgrowth of the Fall, and not from Christ at all. The New Covenant is marked by its departure from such external distinctions as “Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female.” Gal. 3:28. If the authority of the husband/father/slave owner was man-made and not from heaven, then what Paul was talking about was not wives being under any divinely delegated authority of their husbands. (I do note that the only place where the word “exousia” — “rights/authority over”– appears in relation to husbands and wives is in giving them reciprocal rights/authority over one another’s bodies in the marriage bed, in 1 Cor. 7).

Secondly, Mark’s question about how Jesus relates to the church is interesting to me. I myself feel very happy and comfortable saying that Jesus, while He walked on earth, carefully and deliberately modeled humility (“I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls,” Matt. 11:28), laying down his life (“He took our infirmities and bore our diseases” being shown as coming to pass not just in the Crucifixion, but when He worked through the evening and into the night healing people in Matt 8:16-17), not exasperating us (“I no longer call you My servants, but My friends,” John 15:14) and laying down power (“He got up from the meal, took off His outer clothing, wrapped a towel around His waist [dressing as a slave] and . . . Began to wash His disciples’ feet.” John 13:4-5).

In light of this, Mark’s words, “I certainly wouldn’t be happy to use such language about the one I call Lord,” sound very much like Peter’s: “No! You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus was dressing like a slave, acting like a slave, and doing a slave’s job. He was not, at that moment, exercising any authority over the disciples. He did not command Peter to let Him wash his feet, but only told him the consequences if he did not allow it. I do not see this as “using power in a servant way.” It is simply taking a servant way– which is what He did as a model for us. His exercise of authority over the church is never shown as a model for us– only His servanthood to the church is shown as a model. Even so is the husband asked to model Christ’s laying down of His life in Eph. 5 — in the way Christ “gave Himself up for her,” “cleansed her,” “presented her to Himself,” and “feeds and cares for” her. Nowhere does Paul tell husbands, “command her, exercise authority over her, lead her,” or any similar language at all.

Christ does have authority over the church– although the head-body relationship as set forth in Ephesians is never described in terms of authority. My conclusion is that when Paul tells wives to submit “as the church submits to Christ in everything,” I think he was telling wives to voluntarily yield to their husbands in all ways in which the church would yield to Christ. This would have included husbands’ authority, because husbands did have authority in that era. But the husbands are simply not being addressed in terms of the proper way to exercise authority. They are being told to stop acting towards their wives in terms of authority at all– to start acting in terms of mutual submission, laying down their lives, giving themselves, and raising their wives up. In short, it’s not the responsibility of those being ruled– the children, slaves or wives– to change the “ruler-ruled” paradigm. It’s the responsibility of the ones in power– because they’re the ones who can.

(I must also note here that the church would never need to submit to Christ in terms of being dominated over, abused, neglected, or asked to follow into sin. Therefore, wives today who are submitting to husbands who still insist on always being the one in the lead “but doing it in a servant way,” may feel themselves justified in ceasing to submit if that leadership becomes abusive, neglectful, domineering or otherwise sinful.)

Finally, I will say that I worship Christ, follow Christ, and obey Christ– but in my prayer times and times in Bible study, I simply do not always relate to Christ from a ruled-to-Ruler stance. Many times I simply rest in His love. Many times I pour out my troubles and fears. Many times I just tell Him how much He means to me. The Spirit of Christ is sometimes overpoweringly strong– but many times He comes to me “gentle, [as if] mounted on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Jesus made that particular gesture, riding in on a donkey, in an era when kings went about with huge pomp and ceremony. The amazing statement He was making is sometimes so familiar now that it is lost on us. But yes, it is just such language that our Lord encouraged to be used about Him.

Ok — here is my response to the first of Mark’s points that I said I was going to respond to. His words are in bold, followed by mine.
My point is that both the Jewish (missed by Kristen when she classifies my position as a simplification) and the Roman societies had fathers in charge of children (certainly including adult dependents as she says), husbands in charge of wives, and owners (predominantly but not exclusively male) in charge of slaves. And they didn’t see one of those as patriarchy and the other two as not patriarchy. All three were fairly naturally paired together – Paul’s household codes aren’t all that revolutionary by putting those three relationships side by side.

And I’m not sure I’m slipping in ‘marriage equals patriarchal marriage’ as an unchallenged assumption. My point was, I thought, that that is what marriage was for both Paul’s Jewish and Gentile readers. They didn’t have an abstract view of marriage and then go, ‘and of the ways marriage could be structured, we opt for patriarchal’ – they had one view of marriage: patriarchal. My statement has to do with what is being understood by the society and so what the words Paul writes are going to mean to that audience.
This is precisely the point I was making. When we understand what Paul’s original audience would have been expecting to hear, what he was describing were not rules for patriarchal marriage (or slavery, or parent-child relations) as they knew them. The words would have startled them. They would have been surprised, first of all, that in a “household code” such as they were used to hearing, the wives, slaves and children were addressed directly, as if they had some choices of their own to make. The household codes common in that day (and, as I understand it, familiar throughout the Roman Empire, which would have included in Palastine) addressed the patriarch, the pater familias, only, and addressed him in terms of how to properly govern his wife, children and slaves.

They would have been surprised, secondly, by the words Paul used to the husbands/fathers/slave owners. Nothing is spoken about ruling. Nothing is spoken about authority (look at the head-body relationship as described in Ephesians itself, Chapters 1 and 4, and you will not see the word “head” as it relates to “body” spoken of in terms of authority-over, but in terms of raising up to be together, in terms of provision, and in terms of nurture and growth). The husband/father/slave owner is instead told to “give himself,” with a picture of Christ in the act of ultimate self-giving. He is told about how Christ brought His church to Himself by cleansing and making her holy. He is told not to exasperate his children, but to give them training and instruction in the Lord. And he is told to treat his slaves in the same way (!) as his slaves have just been told to treat him. The passage begins by speaking in terms of mutual submission (Eph 5:21) of all believers to “one another,“ and wraps up by explaining to the patriarch that there is no favoritism with God (Eph. 6:9).

The “one another” pronoun in the original Greek is a pronoun of “reciprocity,” as stated in both LSJ and BDAG. It is only used in the NT for “situations where there is mutuality or reciprocity,” as explained by Philip Payne in Man and Woman, One in Christ, pages 279-280. Since it is nonsensical for all Christians to have authority over one another, the word translated “submit” in Eph 5:21 (which in the earliest manuscripts is the verb governing v. 22, which itself has no verb) need not always convey the idea, “yield to authority.” “Voluntarily yield to one another” is the clearest understanding of Paul’s meaning.

Secondly, Philip Payne’s book quotes M. Barth as stating that around the same time that Paul was writing his letter to the Ephesians, a “new type of marriage” (neither “sacral” nor “patriarchal contractual”) was slowly making its way into common practice. Barth characterizes this as “marriage where mutual consensus guaranteed the rights of both parties.” (M. Barth, Ephesians, 2:656, quoted in Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, p. 274). Non-patriarchal marriage therefore would not necessarily have been completely foreign to some of Paul’s wealthier, more educated readers– though the patriarchal system and its common household codes would still have been the most common form of marriage. Paul’s teachings would have been surprising, as I said– but the idea of mutuality in marriage was not so completely foreign that Paul’s audience could not have grasped the implications of his words.

It is when we come to the text from our 21st-century Western mentality, expecting that patriarchal marriage is just one (and certainly not the most prevalent) form of marriage, that Paul’s words look to us like they are supporting a patriarchal structure, rather than just accepting its reality in that culture as something that must be worked with. From the perspective of Paul’s original readers, I do not think that would have been the case at all.

Craig, I like what you’ve written a lot. I would suggest that you add in there, something along the lines that husbands are not to their wives everything Christ is to the church (such as redeemer or diety– Mark will surely not disagree with this), and that therefore husbands must not try to be more to their wives than “head” to their wives’ “body.” As for what that relationship entails, let Paul himself define it in the Letter to the Ephesians. The head-body relationship of Christ and the church in the Book of Ephesians is simply not pictured in terms of the head’s authority over the body, but in terms of the unity of the head and body, the provision and nurture from the head to the body, and the raising up of the body to be with the head.

Craig,
Oh, I get it. Well, Mark is focusing on the results of an attitude of submission, and mistaking that for the submission itself. He has turned your definition sideways. I think once you point that out to him, it will clear matters up on that score, anyway.

Finally, I would point out that not only does Paul never say the authority of males is a divine right– Peter actually puts husband-authority in a list of “human instititutions” that Christians are being asked to voluntarily yield to. 2 Peter 2:13 is the introduction to the section that begins with kings and ends with husbands. “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every institution of men.” Peter’s first letter is largely about how Christians are to get along in a hostile world and its institutions of power. There is no indication that when Peter starts talking about husband-authority, he is suddenly switching to some divine mandate.
Paul, on the other hand, writes in Ephesians about being “in Christ,” and makes it clear that marriage “in Christ” is more than a human institution– and in Paul’s view, it involves husbands laying down their power and raising their wives up to be beside them– as God first intended in Eden when he gave the woman as the man’s “face-to-face strong aid” (which is what “help meet” really translates as) to have dominion together with the man.

As for this sort of question:

“The Church submits to Christ in everything in a way that has no authority connotations?”

No– I don’t think that’s what’s in view in Eph. 5. There are certainly authority connotations in the household codes given by Paul. But the point I would make is that the authority of the husband/father/master is a shared assumption of Paul and his readers in that time and culture– not a divine mandate. When this is understood, it is not the instructions to the wife, slave or child that are so radical (except that we tend nowadays to miss the fact that Paul was doing something revolutionary in speaking directly to those to be ruled, as if they had some will of their own in the matter). What is really radical is the instruction given to the one in power. Mark wonders where it is that Christ is spoken of in terms of submission to the church. Surely it is in the moment when He yielded voluntarily to those who cried “Crucify!” as spoken of in Eph 5 (“he gave himself for her”), many of whom, no doubt, became the church when Peter preached to them in Acts 2 (“God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU CRUCIFIED.”)
Paul says, “submit to one another . . . husbands, lay down your lives as Christ did for the Church.” If that’s not an illustration of submission, I don’t know what is. And I honestly don’t see how Mark doesn’t see it in Christ “emptying himself” and “becoming obedient to death” in Philippians 2 as well.
Yes, Paul tells those under authority in that culture to submit to those in authority over them. But then he tells those in authority to lay down their power. But what Paul never does say is, “Men, your authority over your wives, children and slaves is by divine right.”

I honestly don’t understand where Mark is getting the idea that egals think “submit” means “put the other first and meet their needs.” “Submit” means “voluntarily yield to.” As such, it can happen whether the person you are voluntarily yield to is in authority, or not. Christians are asked to “voluntarily yield” to government authorities, not to “put them first and meet their needs.” They are also asked to “voluntarily yield” to one another. Because voluntary yielding can be given to someone in authority or someone not in authority, it may, but need not, convey the idea of authority. That’s not hard to understand.
Mark’s making a straw man argument. No egal I ever talked to has given the word “submit” the meaning “put first and meet the needs of.”

Anyway– I’m sick today, so that’s all I’ve got. I’m hoping to get a chance to really focus on Mark’s comments this weekend.

Christ does give the disciples as a group, commands. Also he tells the 12 after the Resurrection: “All authority in heaven and earth is given to me. Go you therefore. . . ”
In other words, the Father (who is the source of all authority) has given it all to Christ, who then sends his church out in his authority. The church, then, functions as a partner with Christ, acting in Christ’s authority. As his Body, she is “together” with him in authority, and the passages which describe the “head-body” relationship focus on that togetherness. But I think that Christ has the power to command the church, so authority is implied in that.
But husbands and wives who are Christians are BOTH in the church. I think the complementarians forget that. They act like only husbands are in the church, and the wives are sort of like add-ons. The wife is just as much under the direct authority of Christ as the husband is. It isn’t a heirarchy.
But I think that in the final consummation, when we become “like Him, for we will see Him as He is,” authority will become moot/obsolete. There will be no more need of commands, for our desires will be united with God’s (and yet somehow still be our own).

Craig said,

“Are there any single issues that Mark raises that you would like to discuss here first, or would you prefer to wait and do one single reply when you are ready?”
Right now I don’t know whether or not I want to discuss anything. As I formulate my reply, I might raise an issue or two here. I certainly will want you all to respond to what I say before anything gets sent to Mark.
Thanks for asking!

When I said,
“But “head” as used throughout Ephesians is simply not about an authority-subordinate relationship,” I was referring to “head” as related to “body.” As the “body,” the church is raised up to be WITH Christ– it is everything else that is under His feet. The husband is to raise his wife up to be beside him in authority– not to consider her under his feet.

“I guess where I am going is, if we believe there are some similarities between husbands and wives and Christ and the Church (which is scriptural), then what do we do with authority if CHrist exercises authority over the church?”

We have to stick with the metaphor that Paul gave: the husband is “head” of the wife as Christ is “head” of the church. That means that the husband as “head” cannot be different towards his wife than what Christ is towards the church as its “head.” It does NOT mean the husband can take on other roles of Christ towards the church than “head.”
Christ is “Lord” of the church (which definitely entails authority), but “head” as used in Ephesians is not synonymous with “lord.” Christ is the Object of worship of the church– but “head” as used in Ephesians is not synonymous with “object of worship.” Husbands must not appropriate other roles than “head” when it comes to their wives– and Ephesians itself identifies what “head” means. It has to do with being the source of growth and provision (as per Eph. 4). It has to do with going down to the church’s level and raising her up to be “seated” with Him above all other things (per Eph. 1). But “head” as used throughout Ephesians is simply not about an authority-subordinate relationship. “Lord” has that meaning, but husbands are never told they are “lord” of their wives.
As far as I can see, the issue is not that Christ is not in authority over the church. The issue is that being “head” is not about authority.

“How are you going Kristen? Are you still planning on replying to Mark?”

I have not gotten anything ready yet. It took him almost a month to get back to us. I figure it won’t hurt him to wait a bit. (grin)

Craig– one example is the “divine right of kings.”

Craig,

Mark’s post is interesting but makes me a little sad. Especially the way he appears to view Jesus– his words about Jesus as his Lord seem to coincide with those of Peter when he said, “Lord, you shall never wash my feet!” But Jesus apparently thought it necessary to act as if he were Peter’s lowly slave, in order for Peter to understand what Jesus had come to do. But I’m mostly sad because Mark still seems blind to the fact that women, just like slaves, were meant by God to become fully functioning, full-status individuals in the Kingdom. And his point of view represents something deeply entrenched in the church as a whole. How long, O Lord?

At any rate, I will come up with a reply, but it will take me some time.

Barbara, I appreciate your words very much! I do think it’s important to read the Scriptures is just like you have described– it is a Great Story of oneness, divided and then brought back together (creation-fall-redemption), which repeats itself in various ways through substories throughout the whole Great Story.
By understanding this overarching theme, we can more easily weed out what is incorrect teaching– because it results in a continuation of division rather than contributing to restoration of oneness.
“Complementarianism” continues the division because it continues the results of the Fall– that the man would rule over the woman, thus destroying oneness. The New Creation that Jesus brought is one in which “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male or female, for you are all ONE in Christ.”

“Using Piper’s humble willingness to admit the presence of sin in his life as a means of promoting a doctrine that he opposes (egalitarianism) is very low conduct indeed.”

Wow, judgmental much!

Is this what we were doing? “Using” Piper to promote egalitarianism? Or were we discussing Piper’s situation from an egalitarian perspective?

Supposing a prominent atheist had said he was stepping down for a while from writing books on the atheist-physicalist worldview. Would it be “using” the atheist’s situation to promote Christianity, if we discussed among ourselves his possible reasons?