pinklight

How low can you go, not how high, that is the kind of love asked of husbands by Paul. It’s about serving and giving up self and not playing God. The idea of being God to the wife is completely backwards, and that is scary!!

Elastigirl,

It really is a horrible idea, kinda funny too actually. And it’s crazy the things people will believe. And to think that some believe that the husband being in such a position is love, is even weirder. I don’t get it???

Eph 5
22 Wives, to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Looking at v23, when did God die? This little amount of context doesn’t even support the comp misunderstanding of the term “the Christ.”

dogmadekate,

Which is part of why the complementarian view was confusing to me.

The comp view in as much as the Trinity is concerned definitely confused me also…The comp conceptualizes “the Christ” as a person/being, who’s nature’s cannot be seperated from eachother, when reading Ephesins 5, therefore looking on both his human and divine nature with emphasis ofcourse on his divine nature because of the authority it entails, rather than understanding the correct use of the term/title and that his nature’s can be seperated one from another. God did not die.

The whole idea that comps believe the husband to be like God to their wives…I just really don’t even know what to say about that except, maybe, wow. I’m really not trying to sound snarky, but that’s just, whoa.

Wow is right. I feel the same way. It’s pretty amazing isn’t it how one can elevate themselves so highly above another and what’s more is so highly even above the person who they are to be one with! When the husband is mapped to Christ and his saving work in Eph 5, it’s “how low can he go” not how high.

This Ephesians 5 issue with “the Christ” reminds me of the a similar complementarian interpretive problems with 1 Corinthians 11 where “God” is thought to refer to “the Father” when the context supports otherwise.

Cheryl,

I just wanted to say that the idea of Christ existing in eternity past doesn’t compute. The idea for me divides the Trinity in such a way that God is no longer one. If Christ existed in eternity past then God is not one. I don’t think I could explain my thought process on this, especialy anytime soon, but that is what the idea in effect means to me.

Based on a misunderstanding of the term “the Christ”, basically this is how the complementarian reads Eph 5:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head (authority) of the wife AS Christ, (who is God with authority) is the head (authority) of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, (who is God with authortiy) so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

dogmadekate,

So I think I get that. My question is how does all of this fit into complementarian vs. egalitarian viewpoints regarding women? I’m not really seeing where these issues are connected.

The issue is how complementarians interpret the term “the Christ” as being synonymous with “God” and is connected to where the matter begins in the first place which is with Eph 5, where the wife is told to submit to the husband, (who is the head of the wife) as the Church submits to Christ. Since “the Christ” is taken to refer to Jesus’ divinity rather than just his humanity, the comp husband then views himself in a position like God to his wife. Being in a position like God to his wife, based on Eph 5, the comp then applies other passages where God is spoken of as a husband to his people, and he then applies those to himself.
Hope that helps.

Lydia,
I really appreciate what you have said @79, 80 & 81. I completely agree.

I remember now that when I first learned of the complementarian view I had also learned of a hierarchal view of the Trinity from the same complementarian.

It is not immaterial at all. The Bible NEVER says that the Christ is in existence as a spirit. NEVER!!

Division.
This view, in so many words, of Christ began haunting me once I learned about the existence of the complementarian view. I think the idea that “Christ is in existence as a spirit” or “was in existence as a spirit” before the incarnation, is one logical conclusion of “complementarianism thought”…
I learned a saying some years ago – Logic can take one right over a cliff – but I never forgot.

NN,

If you have to answer yes and no then just state why for your yes and why for your no.

NN,

I had asked:
Out of two imperfect fallen human beings, one reflects the perfect ultimate being (God) and the other fallen humanity (the Church).

Can you explain to me, the logic of possibility on this one, NN?

I didn’t get a direct answer but I would still like one if you are able to provide one.

Cheryl:

NN, I think you are running into a problem as you are equating “Christ” as “God” when the two terms are not synonyms.

NN’s use of Hosea/Gomer indicated to me that he was doing just that.

NN,

Here’s my focus on what you are saying:

Out of two imperfect fallen human beings, one reflects the perfect ultimate being (God) and the other fallen humanity (the Church).

Can you explain to me, the logic of possibility on this one, NN?

Thanks Cheryl for putting up this post!

For example in 1 Timothy 2:9, 10 Paul is talking about godly women who have good works.

I’m glad you brought this up because it came to mind when i was wondering about the “troubling” surrounding context.
I’m thinking that since it is “Godly” in the mind of the comp for women to not teach men that therefore this part of the context will be merely over looked and not put in contrast to vv11-15.

Waneta @ 16

So why aren’t they emphasizing “Even as Christ loved and gave himself” as much as they insist on woman submit?

Because then they’d have, at the least, equality on their hands (mutual submission). And how could such a thing fair with “equal but different”?? What Christ gave is more than what the wife is asked to do.
The husband is to give more than the wife, but can’t have none of that, no, not like Christ!

Many comps view that God gave the command not to eat of the tree, to the man alone, so to turn around and call what God told Eve a command to be followed, then doesn’t make sense.

Let me clarify: Many comps lack the knowledge and understanding that God did not give the command to the man alone not to eat of the tree. He also gave the same command but with different words, to them both, while they were together.

How could it be a command to follow when it wasn’t given to the man in the first place??

It makes absolutely no sense how it could be a command to be followed when it was told to Eve since in comp thinking God speaks to the man and not the woman on commands. Many comps view that God gave the command not to eat of the tree, to the man alone, so to turn around and call what God told Eve a command to be followed, then doesn’t make sense.

Elaine,

It never ceases to amaze me how Christians managed to sanctify the complete opposite of what the Bible says. (ie. Eph.5:31)

It amazes me too. Hard to believe in some respects.

dogmadekate,

In other words a “you’re equal but your not” contradiction.

Oh, the things that don’t make sense. Can’t people do better than that!? For real…
Good point 🙂

Thank you Craig! That made me feel really good 🙂

Been a rough two days…! But I’m glad to be able to get back here with ya’ll!

4 (The Ephesian man is like Adam in not doing anything to help- but that is another subject)

Craig,
So because the woman is not allowed to “authentein” the man and because he can help her in her salvation, I don’t think that like Adam he “was not doing anything to help.” He was being dominated unlike Adam which changes everything – and I should know… 😉
So, I think the only comparison between him and Adam would be that he knew better than the woman did (just as Eve did not know better), because the woman is the one who needs to learn and not the man, but which is another reason why Adam and Eve’s creation order and what it resulted in, is a good example of this Ephesian woman and man (or couple), that is, one is learned and one is not and deception is the result for the one who lacks knowledge.

Craig,

You seem to be connecting Adam being created first to Adam himself not being deceived.
If we follow the pattern, then Eve being created second would connect with Eve herself being deceived, rather than the Ephesian woman.

The subject and focus is about the woman, not Eve though and that’s why this doesn’t work either.

4 (The Ephesian man is like Adam in not doing anything to help- but that is another subject)

I think he’s being dominated or something like it, but the woman is to stop teaching and usurping “authority”, or something like that… so he cannot be compared to Adam in the same way that the Ephesian woman can be compared to Eve. Eve did not treat Adam in the same way that this woman is treating “a man” (or ‘the man”).

If you connect Eve being created after Adam, with the Ephesian woman’s deception, then wouldn’t you have to connect Adam being created first with the Ephesian man’s deception, not Adam?

Craig,
Except that the subject and focus is not about the man, but the woman who needs to learn, and quitely, and not dominate, not teach, and who is deceived and who will be saved. The passage is about her, and not the man she is teaching false things to. Though the man she is teaching isn’t deceived which is why he can help her in salvation – “But she will be saved if they continue…” Besides, Paul connected Adam to Adam but Eve to the Ephesian woman. And that is how it looks when one follows his thought process.

For Adam was created first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but Jane, having been deceived has fallen into transgression.

If I read that, I have no problem seeing the connection between Jane and Eve. Paul has simply substituted Jane for Eve in his second comparison, but Eve is still in the picture because of her inclusion in the first and the knowledge we have that she was deceived. Jane is like Eve. I don’t have to assume anything to come to that conclusion. (Unless you believe it is an assumption that Eve was deceived.)

Awesome, gengwall! 🙂 The way you’ve explained this by giving the unnamed woman a name, makes it very clear! 🙂

Craig,
@208

If I am understanding you correctly @204, you are saying another clue why v14 is not Eve is because Paul changes tense from Adam to the woman when speaking of their deception (or non-deception). If I have heard this before it hasn’t sunk in, so thanks for saying this. This means that there are clues before it (with the change in tense from Adam), clues in it (perfect tense), and clues after it (v15) all pointing to the woman not being Eve in v14b. This is all very interesting.

Yes, my point was that Paul changes tense from v13 to v14, and therefore couldn’t be speaking of Eve in v14 and why should he change tense if he’s talking about Eve? What he said on Adam was past tense. They are both dead.

Craig,
@206

In discussing question 3 @200, 201 I can see you are considering the question but I am not sure that I am seeing an answer. Are you just thinking aloud or did I miss an answer somewhere?

I was kinda thinking out loud…

3 How do you explain Paul’s reasoning in v13,14 without referring to the deception of Eve?
(A)For Adam was formed first, (B)then Eve. (A)And Adam was not deceived (B)but the woman…
Here’s how I’d explain paul’s reasoning:
Paul says “Adam was formed first” and connects that thought to “And Adam was not deceivd.” Next he says “then Eve” and connects that to “but the woman…”
The reason why Eve was deceived is because of the things she did not learn as Adam had because he was created first and she was created after. What Paul is doing is connecting Eve being created after Adam to the woman’s deception and falling into sin, just as he connected Adam being created first to him not being deceived.
And we know from Genesis that because Eve was created second, she was deceived because of the knowledge she lacked that Adam did not.