Tom

Pinklight:

It doesn’t have anything to do with whether Eve’s nature changed. That is because the Bible does not say that. It just says, the husband shall rule. Then, in the New Testament, the passages about submission and covering refere to 1. the order of creation, 2. the woman being deceived and in the transgression. That’s all God has told us. See?–what we have to do is not go beyond Scripture and start arguing over surmises and speculations and reading between the lines. Just, “What has my Lord said?”

Cheryl,

I think you should carefully consider what I said. Because the attitude displayed toward those who have faithfully translated the Scriptures was so harsh, so stereotyping, and so based in an ignorance of the facts at hand, that it is not at all unwarranted to suggest bigotry. Perhaps you are so convinced of your point of view that you do not see the unloving attitude you and others posting on this blog have toward those who sincerely take the Scripture at face value in this area. Like many of the issues which divide the Church, it is those who insist on adding to the plain statements of Scripture who are the source and continuance of division. That is what Catholicism is–additions to the Word. That is what Calvinism is–additions to the Scripture. That is what Pentecostalism is–additions to Scripture. The list includes all the denominations. You boil it down, they almost all have some areas where they are sticking the Word of God as-is, but at least some area they insist on adding to it. Your version of God’s teaching on women is the same. You have to add to, interpret, appeal to “cultural matters”, get into the “intent of the human author” etc, etc, etc. Rather than the plain statements of Scriptures. Such as, “As the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything”; and “I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”; and “Let your women learn in silence with all subjection…and if they will ask anything, let them ask their husbands at home”. Etc.

For someone to take these at face value should not be greeted with the–yes, bigoted–reaction I find here. You really need to take a heart check. Can you not see that the motives of someone who has been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and who has given himself totally to God, forsaking all, to have a bad motive for simply wanting to believe and practice the Scripture as-is? THAT is what some of the writers on this blog need to consider, and why I really think you should consider your heart attitude–because you are so confident you know the heart motive of a whole class of people. And THAT IS the definition of bigotry. I mean, think about it: what makes for racial bigotry? Its when one racial group views all others of another racial group in a negative way, without knowing them. You know, statements that reveal bigotry a such as: “all whites are greedy”, “all Japanese are bloodthirsty”, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”, “all blacks are lazy”, etc. So what is the difference between these kinds of statements and “anyone who believes woman should be subject to man in the family and in the Church is just a power freak?” Which is the attitude you portray.

I love God. I am just a miserable sinner saved by grace. My life is not my own. His Word is to be obeyed. If he had said, “Men shall submit to women in the Church and not teach”, I would delight in doing that for my Lord. If He had said, “it is a shame for a man to pray uncovered”, I would delight in wearing a covering for my Lord, delight in displaying my obedience to him, unashamed, for all to see. Had He said, “Husbands, submit to your wives in everything”, I would joy that I can serve the One who shed his blood for me and bought me, by dedicating my life to obeying my King by submitting to my husband. If He said to be silent in the meetings of the Church, and I knew the daughters of Philip prophesied, I would be open to the Holy Spirit using me anywhere He would that He has not specifically told me I must not, and I would be confident His power will be all the more displayed as I walk in love and obedience!

As a man, I follow my Lord’s command, running my home according to His word, teaching according to His Word.

Please examine your heart. You do not know the motives of the people you are talking about, I am confident of that. And I KNOW that your analysis of me as one of those is not true. And I KNOW that you have spoken in ignorance of at least one specific point (the manuscript evidence for “submit” in that verse of Ephesians 5). Something is amiss.

Be you a true sister in Christ: grace, mercy and peace be with you, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Tom

First of all, your scholarship is shallow and you are showing a very judgmental attitude toward the translators. It borders on bigotry, I suggest you check your heart before the Lord.

FYI the verse 22 DOES have the word “submit” (upotasso) in it. Only two manuscripts–P46 and B have upotasso left out. “Submit (upotasso) IS in thousands of manuscripts, including Aleph, A, D, F, G, I, K, P, Psi, the Uncials, the Byzantine; ancient translations into Italic, Syriac, Georgian, and Slavic; and ancient quotations by Chysostom, Origen, Basil, Theodore, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Jerome, Pelagius, and Augustine (not to mention Ignatius, in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, chap IV). Why did the editors of the NA27 Greek text leave it out? If there’s a bias in this issue, it would seem to be one that wishes to avoid the submission of women to men as taught in this verse. The only major translation that seems to follow the NA27 at this point is the New American Standard. All the others–and rightfully so, given the manuscript evidence–follow vast majority of the manuscripts, and the critical editions such as the Majority Text, Stephanus, Scrivener, and render the verse, “wives, to your own husbands submit, as to the Lord”.

Second, in verse 24 of Ephesians, “submit” is in ALL the manuscripts, and thus in all the translations.

Third the “submitting one to another” is defined by the rest of the passage, and the rest of the New Testament. Please remember that parents/children and masters/servants are included in this passage. In these relationships we also find authority/obedience. The “mutual submission” works according to the various relationships God has ordained. Parents “submit” to their children’s needs by raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Children submit to the parents by obedience. Servants “submit” to their masters by offering them not only an outward obedience, but also obedience that is from the heart. And 1 Peter shows us that the submission to authority is especially important when the authority is “froward”, harsh, or unreasonable–

“NKJ 1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:”

Not a very American concept, but there it is–it is suffering patiently under unjust authority that really brings reward. We Americans are so lusting after having no authority! Yet, look where reward in the Kingdom comes–from patient suffering under unjust authority! Perhaps we should consider the Scripture, “and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection”, and again, “if we suffer, we shall also reign with him”.

Thus, to return to Eph 5, the “mutual submission” applies to both the authoritative and submissive roles of the various relationship.

Now, as to the remark about letting the words of Paul be over those of Jesus–this demonstrates unbelief in the Scriptures, for it is written in 1 Corinthians 14: “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write are the commandments of the Lord”. Paul got none of his teachings from men, as we are taught in Galatians–he got it straight from Jesus. In Thessalonians, it is written, “if any man obey not our word in this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him”. When you read the Epistles, you ARE reading Jesus’ words!

When it comes to the teaching of submission and the Lord Jesus, please note that the one thing Jesus learned was obedience, as it says in Hebrews. Note also that Jesus was subject to his earthly parents: NKJ Luke 2:51 “Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them”. This was part of perfectly fulfilling the Law of Moses. But the command is repeated in Eph 5, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord”. So Jesus showed perfect obedience to his head, the Father, as well as to the man and woman who were his earthly parents. The Church is obedient to Christ, and so (as Ephesians so plainly says) ought the wives be to their husbands.

Again, I strongly urge you to do a heart check in your attitude toward men (and women) who stand for what the Scriptures say about the authority of males in the family and in the Church.Grace and peace be with you, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

OK, lets look at the flow of the passage:

Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

NOTE THAT SUBMISSION BOTH PRECEDES AND FOLLOWS HEADSHIP IN THIS SCRIPTURE!! How much more plain must God be?

The scripture plainly links submission to headship in this passage.

In another passage dealing with headship, along with the original issue of this post which was “covering”:

NRS 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head– it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have [a symbol] of authority on her head, because of the angels.

The New Revised Standard does the best job of literally translating the phrases that are commonly all rendered “covering”. Note that at the beginning in verse 3 we have the headship. And at the end the woman is to have–literally–“authority on her head”. Headship and authority are tied together.

God is the head of Christ. What qualified Jesus to be our Savior, the spotless Lamb of God? Complete, perfect OBEDIENCE to the Father. In fact, it is the one thing he learned: “KJV Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered”. He said, “I do always those things I see with my Father”, and again, “NIV John 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it”, and again, “KJV John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me”

Christ is the head of the male. And what must we men do? To be led by Him. To be obedient to Him. To no do our will, but His. We are directly answerable to Jesus–especially for the way we treat those women of whom we are the head, as we are commanded in that very passage in Ephesians–“husbands, love your wives”.

However, back to the original subject of the post–the male is NOT the “covering” for the female. And he is NOT the “priest of the home”. He IS the head of the woman, he IS the boss of the home. But he had better use that authority under submission to his head, the Lord Jesus. We males need to consider the qualification for bishops in Titus, “not self willed, not soon angry”. And that’s just for starters. Take a look at the list of requirements for being a male who acts acceptably in the sight of God, in Timothy and Titus. Isn’t it interesting how much longer they are than the “lady lists” in Titus, Ephesians, and elsewhere? In fact its the same in Ephesians–the weight of responsibility for godly living lies heavily upon the one in authority–“to whom much is given, much is required”.

Don’t let the abuse of power define how the Bible is intepreted. In fact, don’t let the abuse of any doctrine lead you away from it. Satan is constantly perverting what is good, and often is successful in giving what is good a bad name. NKJ Romans 2:24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.

The facts of Scripture show that “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church”, Eph 5. The Scripture says to the first woman, “your desire shall be to you husband, and he shall rul over you”, Genesis. The Scripture says in 1 Peter that women are to be like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham, “calling him Lord”. In Titus, one of the fundamentals that older women are to teach younger women is to “be obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed”. In 1 Timothy, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man”. I 1 Cor 14, “34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” And that is not the exhaustive list. You should avoid clouding the issue by throwing out buzzwords like “hierarchical”. The question is, what does the Word of God SAY? Who cares if it is hierarchical or egalitarian? The question is, what does God COMMAND? So, this is what the Scripture teaches us. Not popular today. But there is it. Let us not be like the Pharisees who made fancy interpretations in order to wriggle out of what was plainly written. So to answer you question–it has EVERYTHING to do with what the Scripture says.

This is classic Pharaseeism. What did the Pharasees do, in the matter of the “corban”? They did a very fancy theological dance and, Presto!, when the dust clears, they had excused themselves from obedience to the simple commands of the One whom they professed to serve. And it is just so with this matter. It is very plain that God has ordained “I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”. And in our day, we do a fancy theological dance and Presto!, no, that’s not what it means, and we justify our disobedience. It find it interesting that, in 1 Corinthians, right after God says, ” Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church”, He then says, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” The Holy Spirit put an exclamation point after His doctrine of women keeping silence in the churches.

When it comes to the husband being the “covering” for the woman, this is utter nonsense. Its as much nonsense as the man being the “priest of the home”. From the way people repeat these bromides, you would think these phrases occur all over the Word. But they are not to be found. The man is neither the covering for the woman, nor the priest of the home. Hi IS the boss. He IS in authority. But the only “covering” the woman is obligated to have is a cloth veiling of some kind upon her head, 1 Cor 11. She is also to have long hair, 1 Cor 11. also. And we are all priests. My wife is on totally equal standing before the throne of the Father as I. There is no difference in that regard. But she is obligated, as Sarah, to submit, to obey. And to not exercise authority nor teach in the Church.

Another sad thing in all this is that our view of the Christian life has so narrowed “ministry” to the 1 or 2 hours per week of “church service”. But as we are filled with the Holy Spirit, the other 71 hours can make those meeting times relatively insignificant–and that is where the woman can do so much–without disobeying the Scripture–that it makes our petty striving to pervert the Word of God, so that we don’t have to obey the plain meaning of it in regard to the role of woman that God has ordained, laughable. And it would be truly laughable if so many people were not under the deception of this false doctrine.

Thank you, Cheryl! As a man, I get awfully sick of people telling me that I don’t like flowers (I do!) and that I want more violence and war stories in church (I don’t!). I enjoy hearing the voices of both women and men. I don’t want to be separated from the women; I think we do that too much already.