gengwall

Was just looking at scripture for all and it seems to indicate the Christian status of the husband is not the issue. The literal translation in scripture for all is:

“likewise wives being-subject to-the own husbands that also if any-men are-being-stubborn to-the word…”

It implies, in my opinion, that the men are not so much unbelieving but are rebelling or back-sliding. In fact, “unbelieving” seems to be quite a bad translation (the KJV has it as “if any obey not the word”.) This further supports the notion that the specific window into Abraham and Sarah’s life is a point in time where he is “being stubborn to the word”. It elevates the example that Sarah is setting – how much greater is her reverence and inner purity, not to mention plain patience, if she is dealing with an Abraham who is behaving very badly – and puts it in line with the other examples of submission, obedience, and respect that Peter has preceeded this passage with.

I am all a twitter! This is great dialog.

My take on the context and Sarah’s example follows Paula’s a little, with some of truthseekers insight included. Let me lay it out.

I love Cheryl’s synopsis of the overall context of 1 Peter leading up to Chapter 3. I agree very much. But I also do believe that the first part of Chapter three, while continuing with the general thoughts, again addresses specific marital concerns. I also agree with truthseeker that “unbelieving” may have a broader idea in mind, and that is of any husband whose behavior is “unscrupulous, unfair or dishonest”, whether he is a Christian or not. So, when we get to Sarah, I believe her example is specifically associated with those times where Abraham was “unscrupulous, unfair or dishonest” – times Paula very rightly points out. So, when did Sarah “listen” to Abraham and treat him as a superior at a time he was behaving badly? It was when he tried to prostitute her to save his own skin. At no other time was Sarah MORE respectful and honoring when she had every right to be otherwise. It was in those circumstances where Sarah’s example is doubly meaningful where “unbelieving” husbands are concerned.

There are so many great things about this passage. Some other observations.

Peter, like Paul, especially in 1 Timothy and Ephesians, does a great job of setting up the general principals and then applying them in the nitty gritty of life. Wow!

Sarah’s example alludes to the Proverbs 31 woman, who’s “value” or “praiseworthiness” is not wrapped up in outward looks and charm, but in her fear of God.

The instructions to husbands have an eerie parallel to Malachi 2:13-17. Although many focus on “I hate divorce”, and rightly so, the other message in that section is that if you treat your wife poorly, if you do not honor her and “live with her in an understanding way”, your prayers will not be heard.

I am not fond of the translation of “honor” in 1 Peter 3:7 because that English word is very closely related to “respect”. Of course, “respectful” isn’t the best translation for phobos in verse 2 either. The two Greek words are quite different, far more than our English translations reveal. I would prefer “reverential” in vs. 2 and “cherish” or “value” or something along those lines in vs. 7.

Of course “weaker” in vs. 7 always raises some eyebrows. I’m not sure there is a way around that one. I’m sure Peter’s meaning goes deeper than physical strength but also is in no way degrading.

Verse 7, while being the only verse addressed to husbands, is still full of meaning. Most importantly, it completes obliterates any thought that male “rule” is somehow godly design.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.

Yes Paula! Let me just say this – context, context, context.

Now for a song:

Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do,
whatcha gonna do when they marry you….

Ooohh! 1 Peter 3 – I can’t wait. I have lots of thoughts on Sarah calling Abraham “lord”. I am sure that is part of what you will be covering.

Opps. Sorry. I can’t resist.

To Paula’s response in 73 to my #72, I should have written:

Those unicals are tough, aren’t they. Here it is in Hebrew: ‘dntwntn’nmd’tm’r’n

Excellent! *takes deep breath and exhales slowly* Ok, I’m done now. Got that out of my system. Sorry Cheryl. Onward…..

hahahahahahahaha

“idontwantnoonemadatmearian”

ROTFL – “conciliatorian” is not a word but “conciliatoriness” is. So I guess a conciliatorian’s modus operandi would be conciliatoriness.

ooohhh “concilatarian” still isn’t a word but it sounds good. Or should it be “conciliatorian”. That’s a mouth full. How about “placatarian”. Better yet – “arbitrarian”. (I love a thesaurus). “Pacificarian”. Oh Paula – do get started! Maybe Cheryl can have a contest or poll here in the blog. What fun. My headache is going away.

I think we need a new term to describe the mushy middle fence sitters who I often deal with. They aren’t hard core male supremicists but they certainly also aren’t sold on equality. So, we have “complimentarian” and “egalitarian”. I guess it should be something ending in “…arian”. I don’t think “compromisarian” or “equivacatarian” are words. Any thoughts?

I agree about the potential need for vagueness. Even though this was a personal letter to Timothy, I doubt they enjoyed much mail privacy in those days. Even the way Paul leads into the section in vs. 11 seems to be kind of *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* “you know who I’m talking about here Timothy”. But there simply is no other way to logically and accurately view the grammer of vs. 14 than to see that a specific woman is in view and it can not possibly be Eve. And there is no way to separate vss. 11 and 12 from 13-15. Of course, that doesn’t stop people from pulling “pink and blue” plurals (yes – I read your article and enjoyed it very much) from singular thin air.

Greek and Hebrew suck. Why couldn’t they have had specific words for husband and wife separate from those for man and woman? It would have made things so much easier.

It just goes to show how even fence straddling theology (the kind I am most exposed to) can suck you into a paradigm which throws you completely off the trail. We have been talking about this intensely for, what, over a month now, and I still had stuck in my head that 11-15 was somehow about ministry because the debate is always initiated with that viewpoint as the basis. I have been seeing things from the POV that 11-15 is not a universal, permanent instruction about women in church, but that it is just a local, temporal instruction about women in church. The reality is that it isn’t about women in church at all. Any talk of universal vs. local, permanent vs. temporal, is all one big red herring! I think I need an advil.

I just had one of those epiphanies that sometimes come over me. Maybe this has all been said before and I am just dense and missed it, but it occurs to me that 1 Tim 2:11-12 remain completely within the marital realm, and specifically within the dynamics of the marriage being addressed, and have absolutely nothing to do with women’s conduct IN CHURCH. In verse 12 in particular, is it not just the husband who is the object of both the “exercising authority over” and the “teaching”? Moreover, verses 11 and 12 are bookended by this idea of the specific woman being in a state of peacfulness. And the “all subjection” referenced in vs. 11 harkens back to Paul’s instruction for wives in Ephesians 5 to “submit…in all things” to their husbands. Call me looney (or forgetful) but I don’t see how verses 11-12 (or thru 15 for that matter) have one bit of relevance to the congregational setting. How can people claim these verses are meant to keep women silent IN CHURCH and teaching only other women and children IN CHURCH when they seem to only be dealing with what is going on between a particular husband and wife IN MARRIAGE?

We have gone through this exercise before but it bears repeating to help make the entire passage “clear”, if for no one else, then for Mike Seaver. Instead of paraphrasing as we have done in the past, I have cherry picked (hahaha) translations that get closest to the “clear” Greek meaning and then cobbled them together to make a paraphrase that does not technically fall outside of conventional translation. Highlighted text is that which differs from the majority of the translations (and often from all other translations) yet is far closer to the original Greek meaning as understood and interpreted by egalitarians. It also is much more “clear”. Here goes.

Selected Tranlsations Verse by Verse
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. (Good old KJV)

1Ti 2:12 and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness. (Youngs Literal Translation (YNG))

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (many, some with variation “formed first”)

1Ti 2:14 Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; (Hebrew Names Version)

1Ti 2:15a Yet she will be saved…(many with variation: “But…she shal[l/t] be”. NIV has “restored” as a footnote for “saved”)

1Ti 2:15b …through the child-bearing (YNG)

1Ti 2:15c …if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (ESV and others with variations for “holiness” (sancti[ty/fication]) and “self-control” (modesty, propriety, sobriety))

The Paraphrase

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. And a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness[1]. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. [And] Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being decieved, has fallen into disobedience. Yet she will be restored[2] through the child-bearing if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control[3].

Specifics
Verse 11 – “the woman”. A particular woman is in view.
Verse 12 – “a husband”. The situation being dealt with is specifically intermarital and relates to how the woman and her husband are interacting.
Verse 14 – “has fallen”. The verb tense indicates past action with a ongoing result.
Verse 15a – “the child-bearing”. A particular birth (that of Jesus) is in view. Also note that the restoration is in the future.

Ironically, all of the translations when considered alone contain various degrees of “unclearness”. But if one focuses on the areas where individual translations get part of the translation right, it becomes quite clear.

Notes
1. The word does not mean absense of sound but instead, conveys a state of peacefulness.
2. “Restored” is a legitimate and probably better translation. It is strange that it only occurs in the footnote in the NIV and in no other translation. The idea is that this is a decieved and wayward Christian who needs to be brought back into communion with the congregation, not a heathen who needs salvation.
3. This ties all the way back to the general instructions for the congregation on how to conduct themsleves found in verses 8-10.

My wife and I just had meals with both sets of parents for Father’s day – lunch with hers and supper with my. It was wonderful as always to get three generations of family together. With my wife’s family, the conversation just happened to turn to men, masculinity, and what it means to be a proper, biblical husband and father (I swear I had nothing to do with it). It was refreshing again to hear my father-in-law outline his view on what a proper male “head” should look and act like. It is significant that my wife’s family is a very conservative, very “traditional” family. Yet, somehow they have gleaned the proper context out of the scriptures.

He began by saying that the husband’s “job” is simply to “love his wife as himself” (Ephesians 5). He said, infact, that if a husband loves anything more than his wife except God, that is work, children, parents or other family, or recreational activities, he may not receive any respect from his wife. He also said that the husband has no right to “demand” anything of his wife, including submission, respect, or adherance to any decisions. In fact, he emphasized how important it is for husband and wife to arive at decisions together. He said specifically that it was sinful for a husband to “lord it over” his wife and that God’s purpose for marriage is so that the husband had someone who “completed” him. Implied in that* was the idea that all of the “things” that went into a marriage – raising children, activities of daily living, decision making, and everything else – was the result of this partnership, not some unilateral “headship”.

We did not talk about church ministry per se, but my wife tells me that in their conservative, male led congregation, there were discussions at least about females in deaconess positions. Although they never got to an egalitarian culture within that church, my suspicion knowing him and his study of scripture leads me to believe that he would turn to scripture if confronted with the comp/egal controversies. As my wife puts it, “he wasn’t going to support authoritarian male rule just because he was a man.” Most importantly, he would always discuss controversial topics with his wife and valued greatly her counsel. If she pointed out things from scripture that had not been covered by all the “macho men”, he was not afraid to go and stand against convention.

I tell you this simply to encourage you. Even in households and congregations that, from the outside, would look to be text-book complimentarian, there are individuals, and yes, very often individual men, who look into the scripture for themselves and have grave concerns and even outward rejections of complimentarian teaching. Sometimes it takes years to get there, but it is possible. Be encouraged – even the Cleavers sometimes get it right.

*The discussion ranged far and wide and covered a good deal of ground before we got into the nitty gritty of “love your wife…” You will have to trust me that this was the just of his meaning.

rejoice,

He was certainly joking, yes? Of course, nothing surprises me anymore.

does comp teaching have on the fact that so many men within their congregations struggle with sexual sins.

I’m not necessarily sure this is true. What I mean is that sexual sins including adultary and pornography but even lesser sins of oggling and immodest behavior are rampant throughout the entire church body. I do not believe either the comp or egal camps are immune. And of course, although there are certainly virtuous men in all circles of life, the statistics show amazing (and distrubing) uniformity of sexual sins across all demographic sectors.

1 Corinthians 7 is another great passage which may enjoy some play here in the future. I don’t know if there any other place in scripture where equality within marriage is more stressed than in the bedroom. Now, that doesn’t mean everyone in every kind of congregation studies 1 Cor 7. But it is there.

I know many feminists have long argued either that Christians en mass are sexually repressed (hardly true!) or that Christian men hold their wives as sex slaves. I suppose there could be a tendancy for the latter in comp marriages, but I have no evidence that that is true. As far as I know, comp men are just as likely or not to have good sexual relationships with their wives, even if the rest of the relationship sucks. But I don’t know. Again, I would be interested if someone has a study which looked at this issue.

One thing I do think that is fairly widespread is the unhealthy view of sexuality within more conservative or traditional families and churches. That is a shame. Again, if those types of churches are predominantly comp, there may be problems with withholding of sex and the subsequent sinful acting out on the part of the men. Again – no evidence, just speculating.

I have been asked by my comp why I can’t recommend just one bible. I am then accused of looking for versions that tickle my ear, that support what I want to believe.

Ah, yes, I have heard this argument. Your response is correct – that no translation is inerrant. To prove it, refer them to the very words of the KJV scholars who were extreamly humble and well aware of their inadequacy in comparison to the original authors.

The answer to the “Greek or Hebrew” scholar argument is that, besides the many scholars who are out there, there are scores of online resources available to help one understand the original languages. (This drives them nuts because they usually hate the internet as well).

As far as scholars “tickling the ear”, challenge them that they also listen to scholars who could be just as guilty. Their very teaching assumes a level of scholarship that you consider just as “ticklish” as any you might listen to.

Of course, in the long run, it is sensless to argue with automatons who have drunken the comp koolaide. Rest assured that you take the more sensible approach, and even their darling KJV scholars would agree.

I prefer the NASB in most cases because it is very literal. I am not very fond of the NIV, although, as I have said above, it sometimes really gets it right. Most of all, when dealing with difficult passages, I start where Cheryl often starts – with the online Greek and Hebrew interlinears at scripture4all.org. I actually have the desktop version which allows me to search, gives mouse over definitions, has the Strongs numbers and concordance, and has several other parallels to chose from. For hard copy I have several versions available and the afore mentioned 8 version parallel. And I use blueletterbible.com quite often as it has multitranslation display, lists all the verses that use any particular Greek and Hebrew word, and has the Thayer’s Lexicon. For extra-biblical resources on Greek, I use the lexicons at perseus.tufts.edu

Of course, for someone who just wants a bible to read, the NIV is probably the most readable text. I just would warn anyone that the bible does not contradict itself, an any apparent contradiction either from plain reading or proposed by another person should be thoroughly studied. your challengers are correct in that there are many out there who “tickle the ears” on all sides of every issue. I trust no person to TELL me what the bible says without researching it for myself.

The good news is that the bible was written for every person. One of the biggest lies that “scholars” like to tell (I actually had a pastor tell me this once) is that to truly understand the bible you have to have a theological education. Everyone else should trust the learned pastors and appologists to explain the “mysteries” and other hard to understand passages. Nothing gets me more ticked off because I know that the original readers, and indeed to a great extent, the original audience, of the bible were not Phd’s.

Now I wish I had posted the longer comment, but I will leave it for future discussion. I look forward to it!

Paula #27 – Thumbs Up!!! Cheryl, you should have an all limeric thread for comic relief.

Of course, you ladies are having maybe a pinch too much fun at the expense of us men. I’m feeling very intimidated :O. (I hope that smiley came out right)

I’m curious what people have experienced more of from comp adherants in terms of roles – what women’s roles are or what men’s roles are (which of course would, by default, also define women’s roles). My experience has been mostly male focused – “a true ‘head’ of the house makes the money”, etc. The passage which male focused “role” delegation often turns to, especially regarding “providing”, is 1 Timothy 5:8 – “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (KJV). I don’t know if Cheryl has ever addressed that one – again, it is a little off topic for this blog – but it is one of the grossest cases of cherry picking and context abandonment I have ever seen.

More to my question, do y’all experience more people trying to put women “in their place” or elevate men to their thrones?

I do agree with you about Paul’s direction to husbands that deals with their fleshly flaws. But with the women I have another view. Women had been under their husband’s authority in that culture. This is the way it had always been, but Christianity changed that and gave them their own responsibility to mature and grow and use their own spiritual gifts. As they experienced Christianity, I believe that there is a strong possibility that their freedom in Christ might cause some of the women to despise their husbands. Surely they could submit to serve everyone in the congregation, but their own husbands? Why should she had to minister to him when she was freed from that?

I had a big long response written but as often happens, I believe this is not the perfect thread to continue on. Suffice it to say that I disagree slightly with you only in the area of root causes. You take the position (correct me if I’m wrong) that the root cause for any reluctance to submit on the part of wives is primarily (and maybe even exclusively) cultural. I think it goes back to the beginning and the fall, just as does the reluctance in men to love. I am comfortable with that minor difference.

This stand separates believers and identifies those who do not agree with them as “enemies”.

There is a little more subtle but equally disturbing trend in less aggressive churches. That is to call anyone who disagrees with the pastor or the leadership “divisive”. As you might easily guess, that label has been used against me and I have been marginalized within my own church. What is inexplicable is that my wife gets labelled on a par with me. If you knew her, you would be shocked because she is anything but divisive. But she has taken the unfortunate step of agreeing with me, and so she is pushed out as well.

In a sense I pity these misguided friends. When you make your brothers and sisters your enemies, who do you have left? Of course, they would claim “God is on our side”. Somehow, the angst they are going through is not exactly the “peace which passes all understanding” that I believe God’s followers are supposed to experience.

Assuming we are on reasonably common ground….

I think there is a full circle here, not so much with 1 Tim 2 but with inner-church relations in general which encompasses 1 Tim 2, and it DOES revolve around 1 Cor 11 and Ephesians 5 because of the use of “head” in both. Here is the progression as I see it (and patriarchal men and the women who follow them believe it).

Ephesians 5 says that the man is boss (i.e. “head”) in the marriage and the woman needs to obey* (i.e. “submit”)…..->
In a more general sense, 1 Cor 11 says that all men are “head” over women. This is especially true in church where the women need a “head” (i.e. boss) to watch over and “cover” them…..->
Therefore, any discussion of male/female relations in church (e.g. 1 Tim 2) can only be understood in the context of the general hierarchical arrangement of men as boss and women as obedient follower…..->

As I and many others have said before, this is extremely myopic and misguided. But it is also pervasive. It is a belief that I truly think is a fundamental component of our (men and women alike) fallen state.

I really think it begins with the gross misinterpretation of Ephesians 5 and snowballs from there. It is no wonder that these men (and the women who believe them) think that “will rule over” is a command, not a consequence. That is why I am so passionate about getting to the heart of Ephesians 5, because to me, the misinterpretation of it is the root of many of the problems. BUT, the correct interpretation of it is the solution to many of the problems.

That is also where I run into such resistance from women, because they also are prisoner to this patriarchal paradigm even if they are rebelling against it. Even if I present a very egalitarian view of Ephesians 5, they simply don’t believe me. Actually, they don’t believe I believe what I am saying because they believe all men believe that Paul was outlining male rule. They see conspiracy all over the place because they have believed the lie that the patriarchal paradigm is really what Paul meant. (Of course, they have also suffered the real life pains that that paradigm produces.) Therefore, they distrust me and dismiss Paul. I have literally had women tell me that I don’t really believe what I am saying; that Paul was a misogynist plain and simple and anyone who tries to paint him otherwise is either a fool or a liar. And it all stems from this fundamental, pervasive, invasive misunderstanding of “head” and “submit”.

lol – that’s “howls of foul”! I am not exactly sure what “howls of fowl” would sound like but I’m hearing geese honking. Definately not what I meant.

Yes – to all. And aren’t you saying that men are thus called because the first Adam failed and we have all inherited at least the fleshly inclination of that failure? If so, I whole heartedly agree.

This is where I have run into problems in the past with women who only have known abusive men. You made the statement:

God set up a system whereby men now are called to sacrifice (not silence!) in order to pave the way for their women to get past all of the sin-filled traditions that stop a woman from fulfilling her calling as an imitator of God (my emphasis)

I can tell you from experience, a statement such as that from a man (i.e. me) would have elicited great howls of fowl from many of the women I have dialoged with in the past. One chief complaint would have been “I don’t need any man to pave the way for me.” Another would be, “that is just another ‘system’ where God puts men in charge.” I must confess, there are times where I feel men can’t catch a break. It seems we are always presumed to have alterior superiority motives.

But enough whining. I think we see things the same even though we use different terminology. Do we agree that Paul’s directions to husbands in Ephesians 5:25-30 are expressly designed to address a fleshly flaw in males brought on by the fall? And the more controversial parallel question: would you agree that Paul has similar motivation and is taking a similar approach in vs. 22-24 in his direction to wives?

Sue – Titus 2:5 certainly isn’t the only place that the KJV runs into translational trouble, at least in the cultural paradigm of a 21st century reader, but I certainly see your point. I find myself constantly searching different versions to see who seems to get it closest (in comparison to the original languages, of course), even if it means looking at a paraphrase.

Just a sample –

I think the KJV has malakos and arsenokoit?s all wrong in 1 Cor 6:9 because the translation focuses on personality characteristics rather than real sinful actions. Although I generally don’t like the NIV, I believe in this verse they got it exactly right.

I view the translations in the opposite order in Job 31:1, where I believe the NIV leads the reader completely astray by introducing “lust” into the verb biyn where it simply doesn’t belong. Their translation leads one to believe only a certain level of looking at a woman is bad (especially when considered along side Matthew 5:28). In this verse, I think the KJV is dead on.

This is why I have an 8 version parallel bible in my library and rely on web resources like blueletterbible.com where I can easily compare versions. Considering ANY version to be perfect and the only authoritative version is, at best, short sighted. At worst, I dare say it is idolatry.

Cheryl – Tying up some loose ends.

My “guarding” stuff was kind of shooting from the hip. Suffice it to say that I do not think of Adam as the guardian of Eve so much as the guardian of an environment. I think we are in synch on that note. Having said that, part of guarding an environment does bleed over into protecting the people in that environment. At any rate, I did say that both husband and wife (and male and female in general), have both the capability and responsibility to engage in “guardian” and/or “headship” activities. My specific focus was Ephesians 5 and the reasons Paul had in having to rather blatantly point it out to men.

As far as “head”=”source” goes, again, my focus was Ephesians 5, not 1 Corinthians 11. My point on 1 Cor was that it is not a passage specifically addressing marriage, like the second half of Ephesians 5 is. The primary teaching in 1 Cor 11 regards in-church activity, not marital relationship, yes???

so, regarding this….

I see a man as a “source” of the woman in that he should be the provider for her. He can be the starting point where the doors are opened for her to minister. If a man fights for a woman to allow her to minister in the church and if all husbands fought to open the door for their wives, there would be no closed doors for at least the married women. Can a husband be the source or provider for a woman to be elevated to an equality with him even while society holds to a lower view of women? This is how I see the man as a provider for his wife. Would this help at all to make “source” in line with “provider” for you?

I don’t have a problem with the practical application that you outline – indeed I would say part of headship is sacrificing for and serving your spouse so that she can be free to “be all she can be”. (Again, both genders do that, but men seem to need a 2×4 to the head to get it) I simply would never summarize it with the term “source”. It is probably my symantical stumbling block. I do agree that “head” in its current cultural context, while probably being linguistically accurate, causes unfortunate conclusions to be drawn and needs to be reworked in some way.

We have to remember that “head” is in reference to “body” not “house”. So that the husband is the “head” of the body” not the “head” of a building or a family.

LOL – I can’t tell if this is a concurance or a rebuttal. I think we are saying the same thing so I will take it as a concurance.

lin said “As for KJO, I would encourage her to read the preface written by the KJV translators.”

Absolutely. As I recall, they not only praised the work of those that had come before them but expected, and even encouraged, further translation work in the future. Of all people, they would have been aghast at the very concept of “KJV only”.

I would BET that if the majority of women really knew the difference between comp theory (opinions, supposed implications, presuppositions, assumtions etc) and biblical facts and proofs, that they would fall off the comp wagon like flies

I truly believe there are very few women who are actually on the comp wagon, even amongst those living in comp marriages and attending comp churches. I have never actually heard a woman ever argue the comp point of view – it is always men. Well, that isn’t exactly true. I read a book called “Does Christianity Squash Women?” where the author, Rebecca Jones, kind of straddled the fence. She supports literal readings of the biblical texts (including no women in the pulpit and all the head covering nonsense), but she still argues for egalitarian marriages, the reality and application of giftedness by women, and strong female leaders in ministry (as long as they don’t exceed the scriptural boundaries).

But that is about it. Other than her, I have not read a single female author or heard a single female speaker or interacted with a single online contributor who toed the strict complimentarian line.