Authority Vs Submission Biblical View
Yesterday I received two polar opposite views of Ephesians 5:22 by email. One was from “NN” who has responded here in the past
Date: 2010-05-23
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/
Yesterday I received two polar opposite views of Ephesians 5:22 by email. One was from “NN” who has responded here in the past. He is a complementarian who has commented on authority in marriage, one of a handful of complementarians who have been willing to give their views on women on this blog in a respectful manner. In NN’s email he sent me a link to his view on submission in marriage which he says is not to be mutual. In the other email my son Ryan gave me his conclusions after a time of researching on his own the issue of authority and submission in marriage in order to present a biblical answer to his pastor. I am going to refer to both views in this article for us to consider.
NN suggested that my blog readers might be interested in his views that he has recently posted on his blog. NN wrote to me about the time period since he last corresponded on my blog back in December 2009:
Since then I have meant to write up a brief logical clearly addressing the question of hierarchy in the instructions of the apostles on the marital relationship. Unfortunately it took until now for me to actually find the time. Nonetheless – I thought you might be interested (and possibly even your readership given the torrent of comments in that last discussion).
NN’s premise is that submission in marriage is not mutual but my son’s conclusion is the polar opposite. First of all here is Ryan’s finding. His article starts with the thought that the understanding of “source” for the Greek word for head (kephale) in 1 Corinthians 11 can also fit in with Ephesians 5:22-25 when you consider the context. Ryan’s main concern in his research is whether submission is mutual or relegated to wives alone.
Ryan’s research:
I think source fits well with the description in Eph 5:22-25 also. As I was studying this, I noticed that the NASB showed “submit” as in “Wives, submit…” in italics, which means it wasn’t in the original. I looked at the NET (New English Translation) notes and they highlighted that 3 MSS (manuscripts) don’t have “submit” after wives in v22. These MSS are earlier than the others and are significant manuscripts, so this is likely the original reading. Knowing that Paul tends to write run-on sentences (not to mention there were no ‘periods’ in the Greek), I wondered if the sentence might have been intended as an extension to v21. Check this out:
“…(v21) and be subject to one another in awe of Christ, (v22) wives to your own husbands as to the Lord, (v23) for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself the Saviour of the body.”
Doesn’t that make more sense? Look how Paul is describing mutual submission to one another and then continuing to elaborate on how that should look in the marital relationship as a corrective to the cultural norms of the day. We need to remember that the Epistles are often correcting specific things that are happening which sometimes we can only understand from the historical context — and this can make interpreting passages like this that much more involved.
We know that the culture was already quite pre-disposed to subduing the wife in marital relationships. Women were meant to propagate the husband’s name and were treated more like property than equals. What is the likely outcome of such subjection of the wife is a slave-master-like obedience. Paul seems to actually be saying here that instead of obeying like a slave, the wife should submit to her husband in a more biblical manner, thus calling her out of her ‘pit’ so to speak. The most revolutionary part of Paul’s words would be the fact that he says all are to submit to one another, and that most definitely includes husbands submitting to their wives!
And again, as we saw in 1 Cor 11, Paul elaborates the basis for the marital relationship, this time for the Ephesians as well: “for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself the saviour of the body.” In other words, because the husband is the source of the wife (just like Christ is the source of the church) and therefore she his equal, they should be mutually submitting to one another in love. (The church is also treated as the equal of Christ in the sense that the new person will have a new body and will no longer sin). This description is a refutation of the idea that the wife is a lower-class partner to the husband, or that there are more important people in the body than others (ie. jewish believers vs. gentile believers). It is a proclamation of the equality of all! The source relationship is a powerful foundation for equality, not hierarchy!
Continuing… “[For] as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives [ought to be] to their husbands in everything” (v24). The NASB has “But”, though this reads as a continuation of substantiation for Paul’s earlier statements. Interestingly, the NASB adds “ought to be” (italics) which actually makes it sound like Paul is commanding the wives to submit and is not in line with how what he says is actually freeing them from cultural slave-master relationship. In other words, in everything the wives should be willingly submissive out of love and not as a slave to a master! Why would Paul be supporting what was already culturally in vogue?
And finally, v25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…” Does this mean that women don’t need to be sacrificial in their love for their husbands? Of course not! In fact, they are the ones sacrificing everything in first-century culture. Even in our culture, the women usually have to manage the home as well as work and make meals, etc. This is a corrective for the men who don’t participate in loving submission to their wives and families!
The conclusion is most certainly an equality in loving submission one to another in the whole body, and especially in marital relationships. It is a corrective to the master-slave marital relationships which were typical in the first century. The ‘new man’ should be one who treats his wife as his own flesh, as his equal, not as his inferior.
~End of article submitted by Ryan Schatz
NN’s views are opposite of Ryan’s in that NN believes that the submission of wives is the same as the master-slave relationship. NN writes on his blog:
The Egalitarian argument runs along the lines of: “Eph 5:21 tells christians to ‘and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.’ But this is the same word used when it tells wives to “be subject” to their husbands. Since “be subject to one another” means that the husband is also “subject” to the wife, Paul’s later instruction specifically to the wives cannot indicate any sort of hierarchy in the marital relationship.” However, as discussed previously, the instruction here given is the same as that given to servants toward their masters and citizens toward the ruling authorities – it is quite clear that this instruction does imply submission to authority.
There are several problems with NN’s view. The first is that he fails to document that the earliest manuscripts do not have the verb “submit” in verse 22. Instead the submission for wives must refer back to verse 21 which lists Christian submission as mutual. In fact that grammar in verse 21 (one another) is reciprocal.
reciprocal — A pronoun that denotes reciprocity; that is, it indicates an interchange between two or more groups. (Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology)
The next thing that NN misses is that Paul’s reference to submission is at the end of a list of things that are the practical outworking of being filled with the Spirit which is the topic from Ephesians 5:18 and on. Submission then is a work of the Spirit in our lives and the application is to one another. NN continues:
But now we move on to the instruction which Paul gives to wives and husbands and note that the apostle makes a distinction in the command given. Specifically Paul tells the wife to “be subject to the husband” but does not tell the husband to “be subject to the wife.”
Paul doesn’t need to list the second half of mutual submission because verse 21 specifically and with reciprocity lists submission as a one anotherpractice that follows the outworking of the Holy Spirit’s filling. Husbands are expected to see that as Spirit-filled Christians they are to live a life of submission to one another just as surely as any other member of the body of Christ must live out their faith. Husbands are never listed as exempted from the Spirit-filled life that is to be lived out through submission.
So why is it important for Paul to list women who are part of the culturally disadvantaged class included as a special note for submission? NN sees this as a clear sign that wives are under their husband’s authority. In his second recent article NN writes:
Paul gives instruction that wives are to “hupotassoe” their husbands in Eph 5:22, Col 3:18 & Titus 2:5. Just after this last passage, in Titus 3:1, Paul again instructs his audience to “hupatassoe” the governing authorities. Similarly, just before his instruction to wives, Peter uses this same term to describe the relationship of believers to “ordinances of men” and of servants toward their masters.
There is a huge problem with NN’s reasoning. While it can be documented that the cultural system of that day mandated autocratic and all-inclusive authority to the husband over every area of his wife’s life, there is no mandate ever given by God for the husband to exercise such an authority over his wife. Remember that in the beginning God made both the man and the woman as rulers of this world. He did not give either of them the right to take authority over and subdue each other. So while the worldly system has gone off on a tangent of lordship-authority as a male right, there is no God-given authority for the husband to subdue his wife nor is there a God-given extension of authority that has listed in the Scripture the husband’s extent of power, rights or lordship over the personhood of his wife. If such an authority is culturally mandated and not God-given then she too is a free man as a son of God, free indeed from the worldly system that dominates and subdues humans.
So what NN fails to list is that there is a turn-about regarding the worldly system when believers are transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. While the early Christians used to be bound under a system of authority that took away their freedom of choice as the earthly rulers subdued them, took dominion over them and subjected them underneath their authority, in Christ they had become true free men who were no longer bound by forced subjugation. This freedom extended to slaves and women who were by virtue of their position in Christ now equal as God’s sons and thus fully free. Paul refers to this when he writes to his fellow Christian Philemon who is a slave owner of a runaway slave named Onesimus. Paul pleads with Philemon to embrace Onesimus no longer as a slave, but as a brother in Christ.
Philemon 15–16 (NASB)
15 For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever,
16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
How were these former worldly slaves to act as Spirit-filled and empowered sons of God while their masters were not as yet brothers in Christ? While their position as sons of God gave them freedom, they were encouraged to be slaves of Christ and for His sake to willingly submit themselves to their masters. What was forced upon them before was removed in Christ, but living as a free men in Christ empowered and enabled them to freely submit to what lawfully was no longer an authority over them. By this act, they would give a witness for Christ that would enable their unsaved masters to see Christ living in them.
NN writes:
The relevant definition of this English word “submit: to yield oneself to the power or authority of another.” This word appears throughout the New Testament and is common in other writings of the time. While several arguments are advanced in egalitarian thought as to how we should understand this word, we are discussing its specific use in the Epistles of Paul & Peter, and we can quite directly observe their use of this word in other circumstances which make immediately apparent what they mean in the use of this word.
This cannot be the meaning of submission in the Epistles since Paul specifically defined submission as reciprocal. If submission in Ephesians 5:21 were to mean to yield oneself to the power or authority of another then each one would have a power or authority over everyone else. The thought of you submitting to my authority and me submitting to your authority becomes nonsense in the passage.
Let’s look at Ephesians 5 one more time in context:
Ephesians 5:1–2 (NASB)
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;
2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
Here we see that there is an injunction for all of us to be imitators of God. How are we to imitate Him? We are to walk in love for each other and sacrifice ourselves for the good of others. This applies to both men and women as Spirit-filled believers. The next part is especially important because of worldly “greed”.
Ephesians 5:3–8 (NASB)
3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
7 Therefore do not be partakers with them;
8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light
In verse 3 the term “greed” means:
as bad behavior, a disposition to have more than one’s share greed, covetousness, avarice … as a matter of being compelled to, as what is grudgingly given
Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library
The Louw Nida lexicon further expands on compulsion as a form of greed:
to take advantage of someone, usually as the result of a motivation of greed—‘to take advantage of, to exploit, exploitation.’
…in this matter, then, no one should do wrong to his brother or take advantage of him
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains
Is a disposition to have more than one’s share of authority so that one creates for oneself a “role” of authority to take advantage of another’s disadvantaged position in order to exercise authority over a brother considered greed? Absolutely! The Bible lists the possibility that authority can be created by one’s own self instead of given by God.
Habakkuk 1:7 (NASB)…Their justice and authority originate with themselves.
Those who are greedy for authority will not let that authority go. By taking authority that does not belong to them, they are tempted to practice lording over others and this is forbidden for believers.
Matthew 20:25 (NASB) But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
What is listed by Paul in Ephesians 5 that should identify those belonging to God’s family? Let’s take a look:
Ephesians 5:9–11 (NASB)
9 (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth),
10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.
11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;
Those in the family of God who are living by the Light should do what is pleasing to the Lord. So what is pleasing to the Lord? Here is where we find Paul’s list:
Ephesians 5:15–21 (NASB)
15 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise,
16 making the most of your time, because the days are evil.
17 So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.
18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,
19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;
20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father;
21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
Our walk that is pleasing to the Lord is one of subjection to one another. This is the will of the Lord and it has no bounds of social standing, race or gender.
Paul then brings us to an area where women may not see the benefit of God’s will to submit. What might cause a godly Christian woman to not want to be submissive to her husband? In that culture before she was “in Christ” she was without freedom and was compelled by her husband’s power that the culture vested in him, to be subject to force and his demands that she obey him. Now that she is free in Christ, she may not want to go back to what she may see as a bondage. Submission to her may bee seen as a forced subjection. But Paul is telling wives that their submission is not to be forced. She is now free and her submission is not to be forced by having to obey this cultural authority over her. She is to submit in love in the fear of the Lord. Ephesians 5:1-2 is written for her:
Ephesians 5:1–2 (NASB)
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;
2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
She is no longer compelled to obey, but rather out of love and for Christ’s sake she is to honor her husband as an offering to Christ Himself.
And what about husbands who have been used to the benefits of unconditional power and control that they wielded over their wives? They are no longer to lord it over their wives but are to be imitators of God and to walk in love toward their wives. How do these men who yearned for power and authority, learn to give up this power over their wives? They are to become like Christ Himself who gave up his own power to come to earth as a sacrifice for us.
Ephesians 5:1–2 (NASB)
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;
2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
What did Christ give up? He gave up His rights to all authority and all power so that He could live as a mortal man. Husbands are to be imitators of Christ who Himself existed as God with all power and authority but He gave it all up to live in humility.
The last of Paul’s instructions directly to husbands show a giving up of their cultural authority in order to love their wives as themselves.
Ephesians 5:28–31 (NASB)
28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,
30 because we are members of His body.
31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.
Notice in verse 31 that the cultural male right is given up by the man for his wife. The culture said that the man had the right to have the woman leave everything to join his house. She came to him and she brought the dowry. The dowry is money or property brought by a woman to her husband at marriage. This worldly system of a woman bringing a dowry to the man and leaving all to join him is the exact opposite to what God’s will is for the marriage union. Ephesians 5:31 is a quote from Genesis 2:24 and it is the evidence of perfect submission of the man to the woman that God established in the beginning. The husband is the one who is to give up all to be joined to his wife. He leaves and cleaves and sacrifices for her. This is exactly what Jesus did for the church. Jesus submitted Himself to the church and gave up all for her and Paul calls this a great mystery.
Ephesians 5:32 (NASB) This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
What should be the wife’s response be to such a great sacrifice of her husband’s? She is in awe of him and gives him respect for his act of initiating a life of sacrifice for her.
Let’s sum up Ephesians 5:21, 22 on submission in marriage. As Christians, our aim is to please the Lord and one of the ways we please the Lord is through respectful submission in marriage. There is no lordship of one over the other because this is not pleasing to Christ and male lordship authority is a manifestation of the worldly system with its deeds of darkness (verse 7) that subjugates and controls and is a pattern of greed that ultimately takes advantage of the other in a covetousness lust for lordship. The husband as the “head” or source or starting point is to be the one who initiates a sacrificial giving up of himself so that by his act of submission to come to her and in giving up of his cultural male-rights he will model the initiating and sacrificial love of Christ for the church.
I predict that those who cannot give up their rights of male authority will never fully understand the will of God in marriage.
NN
2010-05-24
★
Let me start by thanking Cheryl for her willingness to interact with an opposing idea.
A few points are necessary to clarify the content of what I said and to point out that the logical demonstration which I described regarding a biblical understanding of gender roles in marriage was not even addressed by the above discussion.
The logical argument is straightforward (and not based primarily on Eph 5):
~Both Peter & Paul explicitly instruct wives to “hupotassoe” their husbands in several places in the epistles.
~This word (“hupotassoe”) is the same word which the same apostles used when describing the proper conduct of slaves toward their masters and citizens to the governing authorities. It is clear from its apostolic usage that it refers to a command to submission on the part of the doer.
~ This command [to submit] as given explicitly to the wife in the marital relationship, while the husband is not instructed in the same way [but rather to love the wife]. This gives clear indication of hierarchy within the marital relationship is given.
The commentary on Ephesians 5:21 is a secondary issue to the logical proof given above. It is simply meant to clarify the question of “if ‘hupotassoe’ means ‘submit’ then how can it be mutual and how can there be hierarchy within marriage when all christians are instructed to ‘submit’ to each other. The simple answer of course is that within a christian marriage there are at least two distinct aspects to the relationship involved: the people are both christians and they are husband/wife. As christians the relationship is governed by love [agapaoe] and this leads to mutual ‘submission’ however in the marital relationship a second type of love also exists [eros] which is not intrinsic to all christian relationships, and this type of love is naturally hierarchical as established by God.
Two loose ends that I particularly want to address:
– I did not say that the submission of the wife was the same as a master-slave relationship.
– Cheryl notes that the cultural system of the day was patriarchically autocratic (true) and that God never tells the man “exercise authority over your wife” (also true). This raises a question of why God didn’t say that if the marital relationship contains hierarchy. The answer is the same reason that God did not tell the wife “make sure your husband shows sacrificial love for you.” We are each told our own responsibilities, when we worry about this then the rest is for God to handle. But even in our daily lives it is plain just how much trouble arises when people are more concerned about how other people aren’t living up to their end of the bargain than in living up to their own responsibilities. (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/28921.html)
-(To limit the number of tangents arising and stay on the central point I will not address other flaws either in Ryan’s argument or other argument made in response to what I said.)
NN
2010-05-24
TL – You can get access to the Strong’s greek & hebrew lexicons including Thayer’s lexicon through Blueletterbible.org
here is ‘haegeomai’ http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2233&t=KJV
(Other resources are also available at other sites – I find them best used in conjunction with each other.)
Moreover, I did not say that husbands are exempt from christian submission or wives from love – but that in context of the marital relationship – out of the broad scope of all christian relationships; wives are instructed specifically to submission and husbands to love their wives.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-24
★
NN,
Thanks for joining in the discussion so that we can work on clarification on this issue and a sense of unity in our love for the Lord Jesus and each other.
A few points are necessary to clarify the content of what I said and to point out that the logical demonstration which I described regarding a biblical understanding of gender roles in marriage was not even addressed by the above discussion.
My article was on the issues and context of Ephesians 5. I may write another article going into the other epistles but for this article my comments were long enough and the still emphasis on mutual submission must not be missed by moving on to another passage. We have to remember that the Scripture does not contradict itself and when Paul emphasized mutual submission, the other epistles will not contradict this to announce female and slave submission only.
The logical argument is straightforward (and not based primarily on Eph 5):
~Both Peter & Paul explicitly instruct wives to “hupotassoe” their husbands in several places in the epistles.
Your “logical” argument would hold water if you could prove that submission is limited within the marriage unit to wives alone and disallowed for men to practice. The problem that you would have in Ephesians 5 (which is what my article is specifically focusing on) is that submission in marriage and submission in our Christian faith is linked to one verb found only in the verse describing our mutual submission.
So the question begs to be answered – does God forbid men to submit to their wives in marriage? Emphasizing one half of the relationship does not qualify as a prohibition on husbands submitting to their wives.
The next question that begs to be answered – does God model humble submission as an example for all godly Christian husbands and does He desire that husbands go even beyond submission to the point of giving up their male “rights”?
If we see Jesus as the perfect example of husbandly love, the very first thing that we see Him doing in coming to earth is giving up His rights and His authority so that He can live for and die for His bride.
I think I will create a second article to deal with the other instances of submission in the epistles. Watch for it shortly as I get time to put together a new article.
~ This command [to submit] as given explicitly to the wife in the marital relationship, while the husband is not instructed in the same way [but rather to love the wife]. This gives clear indication of hierarchy within the marital relationship is given.
There is no clear “indication” of hierarchy. Is the command to love one’s spouse something given only to men? Obviously not. And the clear indication of mutual submission for all Christians cannot be exempting husbands unless that is explicitly stated. Where is there anyplace in the Scriptures that the apostles stated that husbands are disallowed from submitting to their wives as that would be against their “office” or “rights” as men or husbands? I find it amazing at how much we “read into” the text our own bias. Let’s work hard to unload our own bias so that we can see what the text actually says.
The commentary on Ephesians 5:21 is a secondary issue to the logical proof given above. It is simply meant to clarify the question of “if ‘hupotassoe’ means ‘submit’ then how can it be mutual and how can there be hierarchy within marriage when all christians are instructed to ‘submit’ to each other. The simple answer of course is that within a christian marriage there are at least two distinct aspects to the relationship involved: the people are both christians and they are husband/wife. As christians the relationship is governed by love [agapaoe] and this leads to mutual ‘submission’ however in the marital relationship a second type of love also exists [eros] which is not intrinsic to all christian relationships, and this type of love is naturally hierarchical as established by God.
First of all the establishment of marriage was set up in Genesis. Where is there a hierarchy set up there? I don’t see it at all. The statement that married eros love is “naturally hierarchical” is not supported by God’s Word in the Genesis account. It may be your desire to have hierarchy in your marriage, but it is another thing to claim that Scripture supports that hierarchy.
Secondly agape love transcends any other kind of love and so if there were a competing kind of love in a relationship it must be under agape love not forcing agape love under submission to a lesser love. Agape is God’s kind of love and it is the highest of all.
1 Corinthians 13:13 (NASB) But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love (agape).
Where is the proof that another kind of love will force agape love to be underneath and subordinate to a secondary kind of love? This is an interesting concept that you have come up with, but your proof is sorely lacking. Agape love is the highest love and is not under subjection to eros love.
Two loose ends that I particularly want to address:
– I did not say that the submission of the wife was the same as a master-slave relationship.
You did say that the instructions are the same for both wives and slaves and the same word used. If you are not saying that the submission of women is the same as submission of slaves then why did you link the two? What is the sameness that you are claiming?
This raises a question of why God didn’t say that if the marital relationship contains hierarchy. The answer is the same reason that God did not tell the wife “make sure your husband shows sacrificial love for you.” We are each told our own responsibilities, when we worry about this then the rest is for God to handle.
But the point that I was making is that God gave no “responsibility” for the man to take authority over his wife. We cannot claim a hierarchical right of authority to the man without God giving Him that authority. In fact no authority is legitimate unless God gives it out as a right so that no one can claim an authority for themself. My point still stands that God gave no right of authority of a husband over his wife. It matters not that God didn’t talk to her about His plan for authority of the man. It does matter whether He assigned that authority over the wife to the man. God did not do that so for anyone to claim an authority that has not been God-given is usurping what belongs to God alone.
But even in our daily lives it is plain just how much trouble arises when people are more concerned about how other people aren’t living up to their end of the bargain than in living up to their own responsibilities.
Sure, I can agree with that. But that doesn’t take away the fact that men have claimed something as belonging to them that does not. No man has been given a male-right of authority over a woman. God’s plan is that all should grow up to maturity and learn how to make decisions on their own. To place women under the authority of men would mean that God made women inferior in that they need an eternal supervisor to keep them from failing. This takes away from the place of the Holy Spirit who alone is needed to keep us on track and growing in the knowledge of the Truth.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-24
★
TL,
E-sword has some good Greek tools. You can down load it here http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html
As far as hegeomai here are some lexical meanings. Unfortunately my blog won’t all foreign character so the Greek words and phrases will be missing:
to go before, lead the way, Hom., etc.:—c. dat. pers. to lead the way for him, guide, conduct, Id.:—also, to go before on the way, Lat. praeire viam, Od.
2. c. dat. pers. et gen. rei, to be ones leader in a thing, to lead the song, Id., etc.
3. c. acc. rei, to lead, conduct,
II. to lead an army or fleet, c. dat., Hom., etc.:—c. gen. to be the leader or commander of, Id.
2. absol., the rulers, Soph.; leading men, N.T.
III. to suppose, believe, hold,
2. with an attributive word added, to hold or regard as king,
3. to believe in gods,
4. to think it fit, deem it necessary to do,
IV. the pf. is used in pass. sense,
Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon (347).
hegeomai (2233) primarily signifies “to lead”; then, “to consider”; it is translated “accounting” in Heb. 11:26, RV (KJV, “esteeming”); 2 Pet. 3:15, “account.” See CHIEF, COUNT, ESTEEM, GOVERNOR, JUDGE, RULE, SUPPOSE, THINK.
Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vol. 2: Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (9).to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide; in our lit. only pres. ptc. of men in any leading position (Soph., Phil. 386; freq. Polyb.; Diod S 1, 4, 7; 1, 72, 1; Lucian, Alex. 44; 57; ins, pap, LXX, EpArist; TestZeb 10:2; ViEzk 2 [p. 74, 7 Sch.]; Just., A II, 1, 1; Tat.; Mel., HE 4, 26, 10; Ath. 1, 2) ruler, leader (opp. the servant) Lk 22:26. Of princely authority (Ezk 43:7; Sir 17:17; 41:17) Mt 2:6; 1 Cl 32:2; 60:4.—Of high officials Ac 7:10; MPol 9:3; 1 Cl 5:7; 51:5; 55:1. Of military commanders (Appian, Iber. 78 §333, Bell. Civ. 3, 26 97; 1 Macc 9:30; 2 Macc 14:16) 37:2f. Also of leaders of religious bodies PVindBosw 1, 31 [87 A.D.] Cp. also Sir 33:19 Sb 7835 [I B.C.], 10; 14 the [monarchic] of the cultic brotherhood of Zeus Hypsistos) of heads of a Christian congregation Hb 13:7, 17, 24; 1 Cl 1:3.leading men among the brothers/members Ac 15:22. FBüchsel, TW II 909f.—Of Paul taken to be Hermes the chief speaker 14:12
- to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard (Trag., Hdt.+) 2 Cor 9:5; Phil 2:25. Phil 3:8a …
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (434).hegeomai.
1. This word means a. “to lead,” b. “to think,” “believe,” “regard as.” In the NT it occurs in sense a. only in the present participle (see 2.), but is widespread in sense b. (though not found in the Johannine writings). “To esteem” is the point in 1 Th. 5:13 (as in Thucydides 2.89.9).
2. a. hegoumenoi (mostly plural) is used for community leaders in Heb. 13:7, 17, 24. These are examples of faith (v. 7) and pastors responsible to God (v. 17); they are thus to be obeyed (v. 17), and are mentioned before the saints (v. 24). Yet according to Lk. 22:26 the hegoumenos is to be as one who serves—a necessary check on officialdom. Judas and Silas are called “leading men” among the brethren in Acts 15:22.
b. hegoumenoi can also be leaders outside the community, e.g., military leaders in 1 Macc. 9:30, national leaders in Ezek. 43:7, princes in 1 Clem. 5.7, leading priests in the papyri. Quoting Mic. 5:1ff., Mt. 2:6 has the term for a national ruler, and Acts 7:10 has it for Joseph as the governor of Egypt.
Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (303).
I hope that helps!
NN
2010-05-24
To TL (comment #4):
Liddell & Scott can be accessed through the Perseus project (http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/PERSEUS/Reference/lsj.html) – but it is a bit more academic and less user friendly. The preferred method of searching it is directly with Greek characters.
On your comment let me ask a question: Are our religious affections for God’s “use” according to His desires? Does this make them in some way less a benefit to and for us? This is the very nature of benevolent authority – God the Son’s benevolent authority towards us was so complete that He sacrificed Himself to redeem us.
NN
2010-05-24
To Cheryl (Comment # 5);
I start by highlighting one critical point in your argument:
If we see Jesus as the perfect example of husbandly love, the very first thing that we see Him doing in coming to earth is giving up His rights and His authority so that He can live for and die for His bride. (emphasis mine)
No, He didn’t. He gave up His rights certainly (e.g. Phil 2:7) – but nowhere are we told that He gave up His authority. In fact we are told quite the opposite in a great many places (e.g. Matt 9:6, Matt 28:18, etc.) Being of the power and authority of God, He chose a life of service to those under His authority. I agree that Christ is the perfect example of husbandly love (just as Paul said) – but realize that Christ’s serving us does not lessen His authority over us. The words and instructions of Christ are authoritative because they come from authority; from the Christ – our celestial and ultimate Bridegroom to the Church; of whom our present marriages are but shadows.
Since you repeatedly reference the matter: The word ‘hupotassoe’ appears directly in Eph 5:22 in the Textus Receptus, while it is referenced elliptically from the previous verse in the GNT Morph (Greek can do that in a way English cannot). But, in either case the idea is in the verse – Agreed? So the only question is how we are to correctly interpret it.
You say:
Secondly agape love transcends any other kind of love and so if there were a competing kind of love in a relationship it must be under agape love not forcing agape love under submission to a lesser love. Agape is God’s kind of love and it is the highest of all… Where is the proof that another kind of love will force agape love to be underneath and subordinate to a secondary kind of love?
But I have already answered that in my post which you referenced:
While this certainly refutes the standard objection posed by Egalitarian thought based on this passage, let us not lose sight of the positive understanding which we should take away from this. The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship; but, the love of Christ – agape – is of FIRST IMPORTANCE. When you are married you are FIRST a christian, then a spouse. Just as in any other aspect of life; Christ is to be central and our other actions a corollary of this most fundamental truth. It is an issue of first and second things. Submission is enjoined within marriage, true; but if this interferes with christian interaction then you have done it wrong. And you will lose not only the good of the christian interaction but will destroy the good of submission in the the marital interaction. And when this plays out is it any wonder that so many people question the apostle’s instructions.
And finally, you state:
You did say that the instructions are the same for both wives and slaves and the same word used. If you are not saying that the submission of women is the same as submission of slaves then why did you link the two? What is the sameness that you are claiming?
I simply pointed out that Paul gave parallel instructions using the same verbage. Surely this must inform our understanding of how the apostle uses this word, no?
Despite my desire to continue – this response is already too long. So I shall stop here in the interests of retaining what brevity I can.
NN
2010-05-24
To TL (comment # 10);
I think this is what you are looking for (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?redirect=true)
Of course my question has lots of negative connotations – it has exactly the same negative connotations of the question you asked. I asked the question to highlight the mode of thinking that leads to these negative connotations. The mode of thinking so natural to this world that gives ‘used’ a soiled connotation. Does God “use” us? Certainly! (e.g. Rom 9:21) – Is this a bad thing? or detrimental to us that are His? – of course not.
The rest of your argument (that God is “above authority”) has no logical meaning whatsoever. God Himself speaks of His authority and power over all things and particularly over His people (Matt 9:6, Matt 28:18, Rom 9:21, Jhn 19:11, Col 2:10, etc.). As He declares these things, we are in no position to decide that He used the wrong word.
Lastly, Paul seemed to think that the marriage relationship does reflect the relationship of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33). I think I’ll go with Paul on this one…
Though this is not to say that we always reflect the Truth in our own earthly lives. Whatever our lives say “We cannot shut up about the gospel, we may be e telling the truth about Jesus or telling a lie about Jesus but he is always, always talking about Jesus.”
NN
2010-05-24
To Cheryl (comment # 17);
It is easier to form elliptical statements in Greek but even English can give the type of statement which you “don’t think possible.”
“John and Katie are going to support each other, and Max is going to do the same for Steve.” – We’ve gone from a reciprocal to a non-reciprocal statement.
It’s more awkward in English but possible nonetheless.
Before you say it – of course this doesn’t prove that the second is not non-reciprocal; it is just compatible with it. So you have to look to other information to find out whether or not the second construction is also reciprocal (which is why looking at other parallel instructions in the epistles is necessary to be certain of correct interpretation).
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-24
One more thought: did Adam and Eve argue in the garden, since Adam was given the authority of final say in case of an argument? If the man and woman lived in perfect harmony, what need was there for the man’s authority?
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-24
Elastigirl,
Welcome to my blog! Thanks so much for joining in the discussion!
Susanna,
So glad to have you back! We have missed you around on the blog and your words of wisdom are also greatly appreciated!
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-24
pinklight,
Thanks for your comments and the questions that help to keep things going!
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-24
★
NN,
You said:
To reiterate – we are agreed that Christ (in human form) had authority and that Christ now has authority – in fact All authority (irregardless of its origin).
May I rewrite this to make a more Biblical statement? We are agree that the Word of God gave up His rights and His authority in order to become man and then in time God told Him when He could take authority again and eventually He was given back all authority that He had in the beginning in His existence as God.
You argue that Christ gave up said authority to be the Bridegroom. But both during His time on earth and now, He has authority.
What I was arguing is that the Word gave up His authority and His rights in order to become man. When He was walking on this earth there were times that He did not exercise His authority and times that He did not know things like who touched him and when He is coming back. It was the Father who chose when and where Jesus could exercise expressions of His authority.
Therefore, your argument that Christ gave up His authority to be the Church’s Bridegroom CANNOT logically be correct.
There is nothing illogical about this at all. The church has always believed that the Word gave up his rights so that he could live like us as a human being. He was not walking around as a five year old with all authority. Rather he learned obedience as a human and when the Father decided, Jesus acted in obedience with the Father’s choice to exercise parts of His dominion.
Furthermore, in Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul explicitly relates the proper mutual interaction of husband and wife as a parallel of Christ and His bride the Church.
That is true, however the church has always known that Paul did not give the example of Jesus and the church as a full example of a human husband and wife for no mere husband is the Savior of his wife.
In the marriage union the husband holds the same relation, namely, that of headship, as Christ holds to the Church, and the headship of the one represents the headship of the other.” With regard to the words, “and He Himself is the Saviour of the body,” the same authority says, “It is best taken as an independent clause, stating in a definite and emphatic way an important point in which Christ, who resembles the husband in respect to headship, at the same time differs from the husband.… The husband is head of the wife, and in that he is like Christ; but Christ is also that which the husband is not, namely, Saviour of that whereof He is Head.”
Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament5:22–24. Most ancient writers expected wives to obey their husbands, desiring in them a quiet and meek demeanor; some marriage contracts even stated a requirement for absolute obedience. This requirement made sense especially to Greek thinkers, who could not conceive of wives as equals. Age differences contributed to this disparity: husbands were normally older than their wives, often by over a decade in Greek culture (with men frequently marrying around age thirty and women in their teens, often early teens).
In this passage, however, the closest Paul comes to defining submission is “respect” (v. 33), and in the Greek text, wifely submission to a husband (v. 22) is only one example of general mutual submission of Christians (the verb of v. 22 is borrowed directly from v. 21 and thus cannot mean something different).
Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Eph 5:22).
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-24
By the way Susanna, I don’t think I said congratulations on your newest addition to the family! It is great to have you back even if it is between feedings!
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-24
Kristen,
Those are excellent, well laid-out thoughts. Thanks!
pinklight
2010-05-25
Hmm… 🙂
pinklight
2010-05-25
This isn’t the pr3vious info I was refering to, but…
NN
2010-05-25
To All,
Rather than try to answer individual comments (there have been many), I wish to address two threads which have emerged and which I see converging to the core of the question. Let me address these questiosn, make a couple of aside remarks, and then tie them together by examining the very concept of “Christian authority”:
1) Despite the pushback about specific instances of authority – it seems that there is general understanding that legitimate authority can exist within human Christian relationships. If this is true then a logical corollary of this truth is that Ephesians 5:21 is NOT incompatible with authoritative hierarchy within Christian relationships. Therefore Ephesians 5:21 is compatible with a hierarchical understanding of marriage. (It doesn’t by itself prove it – proof is made clear from other passages as outlined here.) And of course none of these (governor-citizen, parent-child, inter-officer, etc.) authority structures is exactly like marriage just as none of them is exactly like the others. Each relationship is of course different, but in all of them authority legitimately exists and is not in conflict with right Christian behavior.
2) TL asked a good question: “how does one add authority to “oneness” without destroying the oneness?”
– I will not answer “how” that is a much longer (though very worthwhile) conversation. But we see that Christ, Bridegroom of the Church, has authority over the Church. Whatever you believe about how and when He got that authority – He has it NOW and will have it forevermore (Matt 29:18, etc.) and He is the Bridegroom now and forevermore (Eph 5:22-33, 2 Cor 11:2, Rev:19:7). Therefore we have an example of a relationship of “oneness” in which there is yet authority. And in fact it is this very relationship which which Paul explicitly compares to human marriage in which the Bridegroom rightly has authority.
Asides:
a) I never said “spiritual” or not, the question was of whether there was some kind of authority – what kind it may be is a separate and subordinate question.
If you will do me the courtesy of listening to what I say and not what “camp” you must therefore presume I must be in (or Augustine, Tertullian, etc.), we will make much more headway.
MOST IMPORTANT – Read this if you read nothing else!
• But let me be clear for this is more important than all the rest. – there is problem which we will very naturally encounter regarding any contemplation of authority derives from our all-too-human experience with authority, both its abuse and its temptations. It is not wrong that human authority should exist, but the very power of it makes it natural to abuse. Just as with sex, food, or money; power and authority are not wrong of themselves but certainly can be carried out so wrongly that they we may be tempted to wonder what good could come of them. And our Lord, who has ultimate authority over us taught us about this. In Matthew 23, Luke 22 and elsewhere. He taught his disciples about the temptations and abuse of power. Christ does not say that greatness does not exist: He says rather that our ideas about “greatness” are all wrong. The whole point of the authority which Christ commands is to be looking outside ourselves, just as the love to which we are commanded differs so fundamentally from the selfishness of worldly love. The authority of Christ over us is complete, He is our God and our Lord – it could be no other. But His authority was one not to come and be served as a king of men to demand obeisance, rather He considered our need and in ultimate love took upon Himself to do what we could not. Any complementarian male who feels smug or complacent with the idea that they “have authority” has misunderstood every lesson about Christian authority which Christ Himself lived out for us (and any complementarian woman who has experience this misunderstanding lived out will rightly feel hurt by this). This is in fact exactly what Paul tells husbands in Ephesians 5 – in Christ, “authority” is not about my comfort, it is not about the fact that I would really like a glass of iced tea right now. It is about the Good of those with whom I have oversight. Whether as a father, a master/employer, or a husband. Christian authority means that my responsibility is to their benefit – not my own comfort.
pinklight
2010-05-25
I’m the ear right now! ;P
pinklight
2010-05-25
Not only does Paul never say that the head commands the body, he explicitely states that the head cannot command the body.
Always thought that was interesting.
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-25
The last sentence should read: Neither can you stop your heart form beating…. (Wiggly baby makes writing difficult)
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-25
How does biofeedback work?
Researchers aren’ t sure exactly how or why biofeedback works. However, there does seem to be at least one common thread: most people who benefit from biofeedback have conditions that are brought on or made worse by stress. For this reason, many scientists believe that relaxation is the key to successful biofeedback therapy. When your body is under chronic stress, internal processes like blood pressure become overactive. Guided by a biofeedback therapist, you can learn to lower your blood pressure through relaxation techniques and mental exercises. When you are successful, you see the results on the monitor, which encourages your efforts.
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/biofeedback-000349.htm
pinklight
2010-05-25
The modern man tries to squeeze all of these from the one wife he marries and no wonder it is a disaster.
Oh dear……….
NN
2010-05-26
To Sue (comment #113)
I have not denied any meaning in 1 Cor 7 and in fact previously discussed the meaning of this passage in discussion on this very blog here. And if you read what I wrote above – the proper use of the man’s authority is always to the good of his wife; not selfish exploitation of the woman’s sensuality without regard for her.
Let me apologize for any unnecessary emotional turmoil that I have might caused. However, and to put a rather fine point on the matter – the question is not what some people may find offensive: from the ancient Pharisees and Sadducees to the Greeks and Romans, to the postmodern atheistic liberal or the modern Hindu or Muslim. The question is only what is God’s message and how we can obey (for He is our ultimate authority).
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-26
★
Hi folks, wow, what a lot of good comments! I will be popping in and out as I am able since this is a really busy time for me.
NN, you said:
And if you read what I wrote above – the proper use of the man’s authority is always to the good of his wife; not selfish exploitation of the woman’s sensuality without regard for her.
I rarely talk about my own past, but this quote brings one last comment about a time that has long past.
I had the most amazing best friend until the day that I got married. That day he changed from my best friend to the person who was now responsible for me. He believed that God would hold him accountable for what I did or did not do and acting as a good and faithful man, he took his authority over me “for my own good”. There is no question in my mind that his actions were out of love for me and out of responsibility towards God. He was going to be the very best authority over me that there ever could be and that would make me perfect and the very best I could be.
After years of his authority over me “for my own good” I lost all the love I ever had for him and I dreamed about freeing myself from my tormentor through divorce. Was my husband to blame? Absolutely not! He was doing the very best job that he could with the teaching he had received that he was responsible for me and he alone would be responsible before God for what I and the family did. His heart was right. He tried the best he could do. It wasn’t his trying his best that was wrong. It was the whole system that was flawed.
Who told us that God has gifted men to know what is “for the good” of their wives? Who told us that women don’t know what is good for them but men do? Who told us that the woman was not meant to grow up to be an independent mature woman who can make godly decisions? Who told us that the woman would need a man who would measure her decisions and her actions and either approve or disapprove of what she does “for her own good”?
The understanding that a male knows better than the woman knows what is “for her good” and can stop her from doing what she desires to do “for her own good” because he has a godlike responsibility for another adult human being to make sure that she always remains under his authority to decide what is “good for her” is actually an evil thing.
The evil is because God created both the male and female to have mature decision making power. God made them both rulers of this earth. He did not make them as one ruler and one child who needed constant supervision because they are prone to mistakes and to not knowing what is good for them. No, that isn’t the truth of God’s word. God made two mature adults. There were no children or dependent adults without the ability to make decisions in the original creation.
One may ask why Eve then made such a bad decision to eat the fruit? First of all she made a decision because she was given decision-making ability by design. It wasn’t her decision-making ability that was the problem. Rather, she ate the fruit because she was deceived. She did not need to have someone make her decision for her “for her own good” but she did need someone to give her the facts that she was missing so that she could have made a wiser decision. She needed to know the facts about God’s character that only one person had seen clearly because of the creative acts that this one person alone had seen in creation. All she needed was more information to make a decision without the influence of deception.
Adam had what she needed but he refused to share it with her. There is no indication that he was responsible for making her decision for her. And God did not call Adam to account for “allowing” Eve to make a decision on her own when he should have made her decision for her “for her own good”. What Adam was called to account for was merely “listening” to his wife’s voice while she was talking to the serpent and doing nothing to stop the serpent’s deception. That was called treachery.
What was the good thing to do that Adam did not do, was not making her decision for her or taking his authority over her. All she needed was a word of truth so that she could have made her own wise decision.
Adam failed Eve in the garden many years ago and today husbands fail their wives when they now fall for the serpent’s lie themselves. So many men have been deceived to believe that God has given them authority over another adult human being to make all the final decisions “for her own good”.
But the truth of the matter is that God has called us all to grow up and be mature and to learn how to make decisions on our own. What women need is not a boss or a decision maker making her decisions for her. What women need is truth. We need all the tools to make our own decisions so that as mature Christians we can be prepared for our place in the next world. We too will be judging the angels and we too must learn how to judge wisely and maturely the things of this world.
When men fall for the lie of the modern-day serpent who has whispered in their ear that men are in charge of women and must supervise them to control their decisions in order to stop them from making “mistakes”, satan laughs at the church because by his deception he is holding back the gifts and the ability of women to grow to maturity unhindered. One half of the Church’s warriors are at stake. And satan has convinced men that they alone are the warriors and they alone are responsible before God and they alone understand women enough to make women’s decisions for them “for their own good”. This is not the truth. It is a lie.
The truth is that God has gifted and called his female “sons” into a spiritual battle and they cannot do the job that they are called to do if men hold them back. I challenge men to look closely at the Scriptures. Where did God tell Adam to make Eve’s decisions for her? Where did God command Adam to take authority over Eve or reprimand Adam for not taking authority over her? Why did God create two rulers on this earth only to hamstring one with no decision-making power? Did not God say that all of us are going to judge the angels in the next life? Do we seriously think that God has created that place of judging for the church in the next life but not allow women the freedom to make proper judgment calls regarding their own life while here on the earth?
One the biggest errors of translation in the entire Bible is the addition of the words “symbol of” in 1 Cor. 11:10. This addition bolsters the lie of satan that women are under the authority of the man instead of having their own authority over their own head. But if you research the verse carefully, not only will you see that the addition of the words “symbol of” are not there in the original text, but the term for “authority” ALWAYS means that the person themselves has the authority and right to do an action. Does a woman have the right and authority to make the decision over what she puts on her head according to 1 Cor. 11:10 or does this verse say that the man has been given authority over her to decide for her “for her own good” what she wears or doesn’t wear on her head? The truth that is clearly shown by verse 10 is that the woman has authority over her own head!
Folks we have fallen for the deception of the one who is the most crafty liar this world has ever seen. He wants to remove authority from women that God has given to them. He wants to make women ineffective in spiritual warfare. And he wants to hurt our marriages by allow men to believe that they alone know what is good for women. Guys you don’t understand us. And you surely don’t know what is good for us. Give us the truth and give us information. But allow us our God-given right to make our own decisions as we walk in maturity with our own fear of God. The Proverbs 31 wise woman was one who made her wise own decisions without having a husband take authority over her. She was a godly woman, mature and wise and capable of judging the angels (1 Cor. 6:3) in the future life.
Men, husbands, you have a choice. You can continue to claim an “authority” over your wife that God did not give you nor did God give Adam “authority over” Eve in the original good creation and you can reap as a result women who are held back, kept from full maturity in their decision-making ability and unhappy that they are never “allowed” to ever be themselves without the control of a man. Or you can release women to God’s control so that they can be Proverbs 31 women capable of making godly choices without a man’s controlling what they do “for their own good” and have mature, godly women who will have their husbands rise up and praise them for their wisdom, their strength and their godliness with their own mature decision-making power (Proverbs 31:28).
It is your choice men, but chose wisely. You can have a strong mature woman at your side or you can force her to remain child-like and dependent so that you can continue to take authority over her “for her own good”. In the next life she too will be judging the angels. It would be a godly and a wise thing for you to release her now and allow her to be all that she was created to be and accept her rulership as God’s good creative act instead of believing the lie of satan that she was meant to be ruled over instead being of a godly ruler herself.
pinklight
2010-05-26
What women need is not a boss or a decision maker making her decisions for her. What women need is truth.
Amen
Charis
2010-05-26
The coupling in the passage is
submissionLOVE, not submission head
The coupling for HEAD is BODY and as was discussed earlier this is an intimacy/interdependence metaphor and not about “submission vs. AUTHORITY” as the blog title suggests.
Cheryl that was a very moving testimony about how your husband “let go” of control over you. My research indicates that the hupotasso verbs in Eph 5:21 and Eph 5:24 are in the PASSIVE VOICE. IOW when Paul says “wives ARE SUBJECT to their husbands IN EVERYTHING” its DESCRIPTIVE not PREscriptive.
When your husband was a control freak, you WERE SUBJECT to him just like you ARE SUBJECT to gravity on planet earth. That affected you deeply. Could we say it ministered DEATH to you as his BODY.
Now that he has “let go” you remain SUBJECT TO him and the fact that he now has FULL CONFIDENCE in you (like a Proverbs 31 husband) has nourished and cherished you as his BODY and ministered LIFE.
So, IMO, NN is right about a husband having authority/power. But I would not call it “authority OVER” I would call it “authority TO”. God has given NN authority TO minister LIFE or DEATH to his wife/BODY.
(and vice versa for wives, BTW)
NN
2010-05-26
To Charis (comment # 129)
You might find the following commentary interesting (not my own, a quote):
http://nuallan.livejournal.com/6888.html
NN
2010-05-26
To SM (comment 135)
I would be glad to discuss this at greater length – but may I suggest that we do it at my article directly (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/53190.html) to prevent creating even more disconnected threads in the current discussion?
You can comment & ask questions at the link given above and I will be glad to see if I can answer you more clearly. (Also, if you can be more specific about what you find unclear then I may be of more help in explaining it.)
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-26
NN,
If you wife has decided with her “lesser” authority to a decision and you disagree, can you by your “greater” authority overrule her?
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-26
And Dave, how awesome to have you “fly by” the blog!! You Aussie’s are really a wonderful addition to this blog.
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-26
Hey NN, I see you are online. You have still not answer my question…!
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-26
Susanna,
Yes, we too have sure come out of a bad place but God is good that he showed us the way of love.
Sue
2010-05-26
I will post this on my blog in a bit.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-26
So sorry that the Greek characters don’t show up on the blog. It appears like an unsolvable problem for now. Sorry.
elastigirl
2010-05-26
Oh, I think this discussion can go much further with a good deal of usefulness.
NN
2010-05-26
To Sue (170)
I have already answered this question on this blog in another discussion and will simply give a pointer to that rather than retype it here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/12/11/can-a-wifes-authority-be-overruled/#comment-9575
(and elaborated in the discussion following this original comment)
NN
2010-05-26
To SM (189)
Please read 184 & 190 regarding my usage here of “eros” it may clarify some things.
Dave
2010-05-26
I hear you question SM (200). It is a good one.
TL
2010-05-27
NN,
you have made your inferences elsewhere. And now I would appreciate your responses to what I said.
SM
2010-05-27
★
NN (214):
“If interested for gmail chat ingarandur[AT]gmail[DOT]com – it is so much quicker to figure out where the common ground is for a starting point in the discussion that way, and easier to step through a discussion point by point without it taking aeons…
I appreciate the invite. I am not so much interested in a “live” chat because I am not able to just sit and carry on without interruption or having to leave the computer for some time. The blog format posting is more compatible with my schedule and responsibilities. Again, there are others who are engaged in this conversation on this thread who seek to understand your premise. This is where your article came under discussion. I didn’t get any answers from my questions posted there when I initially obliged your request but rather you seem to step back somewhat in your comments.
I have made my questions succinct and clear for the ease of clarity and brevity in your responses; therefore, I a chat would only take much more time than I have.
NN continues: “Though you raise a good point…”
Ok, what is the good point I raised? Again, please explain what you are claiming.
NN continues:
“I presume that we can agree that the apostles consistently give distinct and non-equivalent instructions to husbands and to wives separately:
Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Pet 3, etc. – In each case the wife specifically is told that she is to be submitted (”hupatassoe”) to her husband; while in each case the husband is given a distinct and different instruction.
Whatever the origin of these distinctions are in the case of the instructions given: personal, cultural, or universal – we can at least agree that the instructions given are distinct and non-equivalent.
Agree? Disagree?”
I have now answered this at least three times. Here is what I wrote at 209 in this thread:
“No, we cannot agree that the virtues or principles that should characterize the female or male Christian are unique to their gender. The instructions, as I understand, are addressing real people in real time with their own unique set of political and cultural circumstances. All the epistles are addressing real people including–the disenfranchised and marginalized–Christians, women, salves–and how they can best live out their faith within the current systems…. Given the overall teachings of scripture, I do not see that wives and husbands are given distinct instructions but that the same principles and virtues are incumbent upon both believing spouses.”
My answer to this question on your journal:
“I concede that the authors may very well be instructing the original audience how to best live within their current cultural climate given their station in life. Specifically, for wives for whom it was already a cultural mandate to not only submit but obey, the gospel elevates their societal obligation by instructing wives to “submit as unto the Lord” but even more remarkable in a society consumed by status and prominence was the instruction to all (men included) to “submit to one another” (Eph 5:21, etc.).”
I have been more than fair by consistently and forthrightly answering your questions. However, you have yet to answer one of mine. You avoid by inviting me to your journal. When I pose questions there you evade by responding that you will not answer as it seems I have worked them through myself or by simply restating your presupposition without giving any explanation or basis and when pressed you still do not answer by inviting me to chat as if that will some how simplfy this process.
If you believe something, say why? It is based on what truth? What fact? What scripture? If it is not based on anything other than your observation or experience or anecdotal evidence then own that.
I was reading a blog recently where the author claimed that hierarchal complementarianism was divinely ordained because women were less confrontational. He had no scripture. He merely based this on anecdotal evidence based on his experience with his wife, but at least he owned the premise of his reasoning by saying she was more shy and steered away from confrontation, and he believed men to be generally more confrontational therefore qualified for headship i.e. authority and leadership over wives.
NN, whatever it is, just own the basis of your premise and spell it out for those of us who are sincerely trying to understand your conclusion: —because “eros” exists between a husband (who can never be a wife) and a wife (who can never be a husband) a patriarchal hierarchy is divinely-intended.
At this point, if you do not do that, I have to conclude either:
1) that you realize what you thought Paul wrote so directly and what you thought was so clearly evident now appears not so direct or evident, or
2) that you knew up front you were reading into the text, or
2) that you do not know the basis of your premise, or
4) that you realize you were misguided and are backing away from this.
Which of these is it or is it something else?
With respect,
gengwall
2010-05-27
I am curious why there is such an emphasis on eros when the word never occurs in the New Testament.
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-27
sorry, I forgot to remove Mark’s comment from my post which I used as a reference.
Sue
2010-05-27
Authoritarian erotic love is deeply problematic and the source of the greatest human evil.
SM
2010-05-27
gengwall, (255)
This is how NN defined at my request “inequivalent”:
“In this case “inequivalent” means that two “objects” (people) are not the same in the sense that you cannot reverse the relational statement concerning them and have it hold true (mathematically we would say that the relationship between them is not transitive).”
http://nuallan.livejournal.com/53190.html
I conceded the point that a man is always a husband and not a wife and the woman is always a wife and not a husband.
However, they are both each other spouse and partner, in addition, they are co-heirs together with Christ, sons of God within the family of God, members of the Body of Christ, co-laborers in the Kingdom of God, vice-regents of God’s creation…
pinklight
2010-05-27
Kay, thank you!!
I’m still behind at like 203 and trying to catch up )))aahh(((( lol
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-27
pinklight,
I have prayed for you. Thanks for sharing!
NN
2010-05-27
To Susanna (252),
I will say this as nicely as I can…
Your grasp of the concept of formal proof is completely incorrect.
Formal proof is any logical proof developed from axioms (‘first principles’ – truly fundamental first principles, by definition cannot be proven). This is quite as true of science as of theology (though of course what each considers “first principles” are quite different)
What you call “the scientific principle of a hypothesis” – is also a poor understanding of the scientific approach to discovering things. In science the best practice is to determine a hypothesis from the most straightforward interpretation of some fact and then to determine what ‘data’ would show the hypothesis to be false – and then examine this ‘data’.
Which incidentally is exactly the approach that my original post details:
A straightforward reading of passages such as Col 3:18, Eph 5:22, 1 Pet 3:1, etc. suggests a hierarchy implicit within the nature of the marriage relationship.
What could make this hypothesis untrue? Well if we misunderstood the nature of the instruction given – for instance if ‘hupotassoe’ didn’t really convey the ideas of obedience. Or if the command was given because of a specific cultural condition which is no longer true.
Then we examine both of these falsification conditions (as discussed in my original post – http://nuallan.livejournal.com/52878.html, and throughout this comment thread, including (239)). And both of these falsification conditions are shown not to be the case – as such the original hypothesis is demonstrated from first principles.
When I say that I have proven something (theologically); the presumed first principles are that the Bible is inerrant (true in all it espouses and does not contradict itself); and that it may be understood in context of the text itself.
Finally, as an aside which I should have asked many times over now: what would the falsification conditions be for your theories? I know that most people do not naturally think this way but it is essential to being able to identify when things are true & false (based on certain axiomatic presumptions), proven & unproven.
As an example consider (250 – my apologies Mara but it really makes a great example)
“Authoritative and erotic combined (by which she means ‘the fusion of erotic pleasure with the domination of females’) lead to pornography.” This implies that pornography is the result of a “male dominant – female subjugated” sexual mindset. But if this were true then we would not expect to find pornographies (and illicit sexual practice) in which the two partners were “equal” or in which the female were dominating over the male, and yet this is empirically observed to be the case.
Always look for falsification conditions – without them we can never recognize a proof and tell it apart from a hunch.
NN
2010-05-27
To SM (262)
In my original post on “eros,” (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/53190.html) I note that this concept is underpinned by a previous post giving explicit proof for hierarchy (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/52878.html) – the proof for hierarchy came first; though you seem to have latched onto them in reverse order. That I am telling you that any discussion of hierarchy based on “eros” must first presuppose that hierarchy exists is something I have already said and should not be strange to you.
But to clarify the nature of the other statement – we have a quote in physics:
“But the real glory of [a conceptual model] is not that we can find the answer, but that we can find a way of thinking such that the answer is self-evident.”
The concept of “eros” as explaining marital hierarchy is a model; but we must have a common understanding of the data before a model can possibly make any sense.
This is what leads us back to the content of (239) – we must be mutually clear on the data before having a meaningful discussion of the model.
TL
2010-05-27
I haven’t yet seen your blog NN. and please don’t ask me to read back and find the link. 🙂
Sue
2010-05-27
Are you suggesting that having a degree in physics is better than having a degree in Greek?
NN
2010-05-27
To SM
Is there a reason that you are so averse to commenting on the logical content of comment #239? – Here it is for your easy review – http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/comment-page-3/#comment-12105
I would quite like to discuss the idea of eros as operative within the marital relationship and its consequences – but any such discussion would be pointless without first establishing the common ground as I developed it in #239 (or alternately at the post on my “blog” prior to the one about “eros” in which I detailed the theoretical groundwork)
pinklight
2010-05-27
(261) Thank you, Cheryl!
Kristen
2010-05-27
So– having previously given an answer to NN’s post #239 which he said he wouldn’t proceed without, and now having expanded on it– does that satisfy you, NN?
pinklight
2010-05-27
292
Hi Dave! Thanks for the prayer! Have missed you! Glad to see you here! 🙂
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-27
And Mark, if you have no intention to answer our questions, why are you here? If you want to do a monologue, I am sure there are plenty of places where you can do so.
pinklight
2010-05-27
We miss the fact of the forest, trying to figure out the meaning of lichen and drops of sap.
lol
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-27
★
Mark,
It is quite like you to ask questions instead of answer them. You may not mean it this way, but it comes across as being evasive.
I was going to answer once again when I see pinklight has just responded to you in summary that is wonderful:
A verse where Paul says for *husbands* to submit to their *wives* does not exist.
A verse where Paul says for all to submit to one another does.
A verse in Genesis saying that Adam had authority over Eve does not exist.Here’s one way to describe the difference:
“One another” encompasses husbands.
“Helper” does not encompass the concept of “Adam’s authority”.
Being created second does not encompass “Adam’s authority”.
“Eve’s deception” does not encompass “Adam’s authority”
There is nothing in Genesis that encompasses “Adam’s authority”.
Great summary!
Mark, you said:
By the way, i never had the intention to answer your or Susannah’s questions. I simply wanted to show that authority did exist in the pre-fall world.
You had no intention on answer our questions? Why am I not surprised?
Final thought just to re-inforce. I want you to prove from scripture where a husband is told to submit to his wife explicitly- this way the issue should be solved. You can ‘disprove’ all the reverse passages as much as you want, but you must therefore show where a husband is told to submit to his wife. If you cannot do this, the point is proven- egals are teaching a false teaching, something not declared in scripture. Then for you to be consistent, show me the second or third witnesses from the Bible. I will wait for all eternity i assume!
All of us (including husbands and wives) are part of the one another’s that are to submit to each other:
Ephesians 5:21 (NASB)
21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.1 Peter 5:5 (NASB95)
5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.Galatians 5:13 (NASB95)
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.1 Corinthians 16:16 (NASB)
16 that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors.
Now what Scripture can you give to show where God delegates authority to the man to be the authority over his wife?
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-27
Yes these are nurturing NN, but I am not a child!!!!
Dave
2010-05-27
I can feel the heat coming off my computer monitor…
Kay
2010-05-28
NN:”(fortunately my children are still young)”
NN,
I hear that! Thankfully, my children are adults now with children of their own.
NN
2010-05-28
To SM (358)
Quick note: I use ‘eros’ because it was used in ancient Greek as one of the four common words for ‘love’ and because in a more modern sense it was used by Lewis to describe the romantic love between a man and a woman. The word itself is never used in Scripture. But I hope that we can agree that there exists a romantic love between a man and wife which is distinct from other sorts of affection.
But again – to develop an understanding of the concept itself we will first need to find common ground for communcation – so back to (357 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/comment-page-3/#comment-12223):
Can we agree on this point?
The apostle Paul gave different and distinct instructions to husbands and wives.
Charis
2010-05-28
Quote NN : “The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship”
I agree with NN and I think its in Ephesians 5 quite clearly. Doesn’t make husband or wife inferior or superior, but they are different and the instructions to each are different .
Click Here for a photo of “one flesh” (don’t worry, its nothing inappropriate).
How did that happen?
Methinks eros might have had a part.
Who will “nourish and cherish” the “one flesh” by nature and design”as her own body”?
OTH, Who, according to Ephesians 5, is instructed to CHOOSE to nourish and cherish his wife as his own body NOT by nature and desigh but by decision of the will?
NN
2010-05-28
To Susanna (366)
Logic acting upon axiomatic premises is the ONLY method of acertaining provable truth.
Your first syllogism is not formally valid, you have committed the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Since formal validity is the most basic concept of basic logical inference may I humbly suggest that your grasp of logic is rather more tenuous than you might hope. (oh, and actually the converse of a true statement is not logically necessarily true, only the contrapositive is)
To show the problem your syllogism is equivalent to:
If a being is a god then it can sustain life (If p then q)
Women can create and sustain life (q)
-> Therefore – Women are gods (Therefore p)
Though you could also look at it as an improper commutation of conditionals depending on which error you wanted to useIn addition what you call “dialectic’ here is simply a definition of terms – you are proposing axioms.
With regard to your second “logical reasoning” – I will recast it into logical forms (and include the premises you did not for clarity):
[If God says in the Bible that a thing is true then it is true]
The Bible (creation account, law, gospels, etc.) do not say that God gave man authority
-> Therefore, God did not give man authority.
… This one is actually a form of denying the antecedent. (There are two fundamental types of binary logical fallacies – you have now managed both.) An equivalent invalid syllogism would be:
[If God says in the Bible that a thing is true then it is true]
The Bible (creation account, law, gospels, etc.) do not mention the “Trinity”
-> Therefore, the “Trinity” is does not exist.Might I suggest that Lewis’ lament for the state of the educational system was not unjustified.
May I close by stating that I am quite certain that I have not underestimated an opponent – but I also hope that there is no need for you to be an “opponent.” Debate should not be a competition – but an exploration; not about “winning” but about ascertaining truth. (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/34685.html)
Charis
2010-05-28
In your comment #239, I agree with 1, 2, and 3 (for 3, male rule is clearly a result of the Fall. The male and female were both given equal dominion/AKA authority in Gen 1:26-28.)
However, here is where I think you are missing some pieces:
QUOTE NN: The above logic chain proves that the differentiation between men and women is a truth which transcends particular culture – but it does not prove that it is hierarchical. To prove that we must examine the particular instructions give:
Women are told to “hupotassoe” their husbands – this same general instruction is used by Paul in the same context to describe the proper actions of citizens toward their governments and slaves toward their masters. Furthermore, we are instructed by the Christ that we are to obey the governing authorities (”render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”) so we must interpret Paul’s specific instructions to wives to be in keeping with his use of the words to describe other obedience relationships ENDQUOTE
NN, The hupotasso verbs used in Ephesians 5 are all PASSIVE
http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm
(with the exception of the one added to Eph 5:22 in the Textus Receptus- which is an interpretational addition muddying the waters IMO). So Eph 5:21-22 reads “BEING SUBJECT to one another… wives to husbands” and Eph 5:24 reads “wives ARE SUBJECT to their husbands in everything just as….”
Its the same concept as Douglas Wilson observed about “the husband IS the head of the wife” http://nuallan.livejournal.com/6888.html . The wife IS subject to her husband. I think “vulnerable” conveys the meaning. Wives are vulnerable to their husbands in a way which does not go vice versa. To me, eros seems to be a kind of object lesson of this.
Charis
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-28
NN, you wrote: “Logic acting upon axiomatic premises is the ONLY method of acertaining provable truth.”
So you are saying that we need to have a first principle, a self-evident truth, as the basic premise from which we deduct our conclusion? That is precisely what I said, i.e. you cannot use an inference as you premise. You can only create inferences from a premise and accept them or reject them according to proof. But here’s the real pickle when it comes to theology: how do you determine what the first principle is? How do you prove God’s existence? How do prove God is good? By using logic? That was the fallacy of the ontological argument of Anselm of Canterbury. He argued that since the mind could not conceive of anything greater than God, it proved the existence of God. But as has pointed out, this makes God’s existence dependent on the mind, i.e. what the mind cannot perceive does not exist, which is a false assumption.
You wrote: “Your first syllogism is not formally valid, you have committed the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
I wonder where you studied logic… The following is from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“A good argument is one whose conclusions follow from its premises; its conclusions are consequences of its premises. But in what sense do conclusions follow from premises? What is it for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises? Those questions, in many respects, are at the heart of logic (as a philosophical discipline). Consider the following argument:
1.If we charge high fees for university, only the rich will enroll.
We charge high fees for university.
Therefore, only the rich will enroll.
There are many different things one can say about this argument, but many agree that if we do not equivocate (if the terms mean the same thing in the premises and the conclusion) then the argument is valid, that is, the conclusion follows deductively from the premises. This does not mean that the conclusion is true. Perhaps the premises are not true. However, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true, as a matter of logic. This entry is about the relation between premises and conclusions in valid arguments.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence)
I.e. If a god can create life and a woman can create life, it follows that a woman is a god. The conclusion is not true, but it is valid.
You wrote: “oh, and actually the converse of a true statement is not logically necessarily true, only the contrapositive is”
This is what I said too.
You wrote: “Might I suggest that Lewis’ lament for the state of the educational system was not unjustified.”
I graduated from High School in Finland, which is considered the best educational system in the world in all international comparisons (US is solidly at the bottom when 8th graders are compared).
To your last comment: there is always an opponent in a debate. An opponent does not mean that we are in a competition; it means that there are two parties in the debate.
Better luck with your next post.
NN
2010-05-28
To Susanna (384)
Your quotation from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is correct: “A good argument is one whose conclusions follow from its premises; its conclusions are consequences of its premises.” The point is that an formally invalid argument DOES NOT follow from its premises.
Your arguments are not formally valid. There are two valid syllogism forms:
1) Modus Ponens – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens
2) Modus Tollens – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
There are two formal logical fallacies for syllogisms:
1) Your first syllogism committed Affirming the Consequent – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
2) Your second syllogism committed Denying the Antecedent – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
Hope these help
Charis
2010-05-28
Dave,
To understand the unique/one way vulnerability of women sexually, even though its old, this sure rang true to me!
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/lesson%206.htm
And now, excuse me, the two youngest of my 8 children are ready to read from Chronicles of Narnia before bed.
NN
2010-05-28
To SM (364)
I am afraid that if we cannot find common ground on a simple factual true/false statement:
The apostle Paul gave different instructions to husbands and wives. (Eph 5:22-30, Col 3:18&19, etc.)
Then I really can’t figure out what what common there is at which we can start this discussion.
I shall make one parting remark since you keep talking about ‘how the word eros is not in the Bible.’ And seem to have missed my response on the matter (361) –
Do you believe in the “Trinity”? Pray tell, where is that word used in Scripture?… Of course it isn’t, so there must be cases in which we believe concepts to be Biblical even when the word itself is not used in Scripture. [a more formal discussion of this was given in (377)]
Before closing I wish to recommend something for your consideration (you may do with it as you please) about methods of Bible study that was once recommended to me by one of the Christians who I most respect. – It is often very easy to ready a sentence and get very caught up in our prior presumptions about theology and miss the content of the sentence itself. It is often very useful to simply diagram the sentence: what is the subject, what is the verb, what is the direct object, etc. This will often keep us more centered upon the text itself, and has very curative effects upon cultural and personal biases from creeping in.
Kristen
2010-05-28
★
Ok, finally getting back to this:
NN said:
“Let us apply the reasoning which you just outlined to a parallel passage of scripture, we’ll pick 1st Peter:
1 Pet 2:13 ~ “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme”
1 Pet 3:1 ~ “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives”
First of all, I don’t know if you realize that your tone comes across as condescending. “We” didn’t pick 1st Peter, you did. I think perhaps you are accustomed to presenting your point of view in a teaching, rather than a discussion, format. I prefer the courtesy of: “I would like to pick 1st Peter, if you don’t mind.” Thanks for your consideration.
But leaving that aside and going on to your point:
“Applying the same reasoning we say that “wives should submit to their husbands in the same way that christians are to submit to human governance. But this is quite different than your proposed reading of Ephesians. And since two contradictory statements CANNOT both be true (again a fundamental axiom of logic) – we must find a hermeneutic which produces a consistent understanding for both passages.”
The two passages are different, but reading Ephesians in terms of mutual submission is not contradictory with 1st Peter. Keeping in mind that both are written to Christians living in a Greek-speaking culture in which authority of husbands over wives, and of the emperor over everyone, are assumed, the two books still have completely different focuses. Peter makes it clear what his purpose in writing is, in 1 Peter 2:11 – “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims. . . [have] your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works which they observe, glorify God. . .” It is from there that he goes on to tell these “sojourners” to “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” He then goes on to speak of slaves who are under the control of non-Christian masters, and how the slaves should behave as Christ did, even when their masters are unjust. It is then that he goes on to say, “Likewise, wives, be submissive to your own husbands.” Peter is addressing how Christians are to behave towards those non-believers who are in authority over them. Wives are to submit to their husbands due to the governing authority husbands were considered by the culture to have over wives. The passage then goes on to talk about how unbelieving husbands (“who do not obey the word”) will be influenced by this kind of submission on the part of their believing wives.
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians has an entirely different focus. His whole letter is about what it is to be “in Christ.” The relationships that Paul focuses on are not about Christians-to-unbelievers, but about Christians-to-Christians. Though Paul also assumes the existence of the cultural authority of husbands over wives (as he does also the authority of masters over slaves, etc.), he is NOT talking about relating to those worldly authority structures– he is talking about how Christians “in Christ” should relate to one another. Christian-to-Christian relationships, then, are to be characterized by mutual submission in which those in power lay down their power, and those who are not in power are elevated. Christian relations to the world, and Christian relations to one another, are different. This does not mean they are contradictory with one another. In one passage husbands and wives, masters and slaves, who are all assumed to be Christians, are told to “submit to one another.” In the other passage wives and slaves, who are assumed to be living in a hostile culture, are told (along with all other Christians who are “sojourners” in this culture), to submit themselves to the governing authority of husbands and masters just as Christians submit to all worldly governing institutions. If the husband is not Christian, he cannot be expected to let go of his cultural privilege and lay down his life, submitting even to death, for his wife. If the master is not Christian, he cannot be expected to “treat in the same way” their slaves as their slaves have just been told to treat them. Therefore, this kind of mutual submission is not mentioned in 1st Peter.
Going on to your last question:
“Which leads us back to my question, but let me rephrase it for you: For any command given – it is a transcendent principle being applied to a specific context. How do you distinguish between the transcendent principle itself and the particular adaptation of the principle to the present context? And, as a sub-question – how do we tell this without forcing our own present cultural biases onto the text.”
It is of course always difficult to avoid forcing our own present cultural biases onto the text– whether they are biases that come from modern secular culture, or biases that come from modern Christian counter-cultural responses. But I would say that the best way to distinguish between the transcendent principle and the adaptation of the principle to the present context, is to study to learn about the original context. An understanding of the original context will help us understand original authorial intent– and when the authorial intent is God-inspired, understanding that intent will lead to an understanding of the transcendent principle.
TL
2010-05-29
oops, I forgot to close the italic brackets in Charis’s quote. Can you fix that Cheryl?
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-29
Ah, my dyslexia is getting worse with sleepdeprivation! Betrowed should be “betrothed”…
Charis
2010-05-29
And that is probably completely unclear!
I have an blog post with pictures and a song which I think illustrates how Ephesians 5 reflects eros
http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/submission/submit-as-to-the-lord/
Charis
2010-05-29
Dave,
Thank you for at least attempting to understand but never mind.
pinklight
2010-05-29
Hmm…I’m sure eros was just at the core of the patriarchal marriages that existed in Paul’s day.
pinklight
2010-05-29
We don’t care about misspellings. and you misspelled more than that. LOL
lol, cute , yeah Sue! ;P
pinklight
2010-05-29
Thank you for answering my questions, Tiffany. I can hear you better in your response.
pinklight
2010-05-29
just a thought. still trying to wrap things up here this weekend, but consider I’ve stuck around for 400 comments, what’s another 100?
lol
Tiffany
2010-05-29
SM- once again I don’t want to discuss this in terms of authority. Please take a minute and read the posts I referenced and address my quotes from there.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-29
I have more to say but didn’t get finished. I will try to answer the rest of your questions tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.
Charis
2010-05-30
Dave (472),
You died to self, laid down your life, and washed your wife’s feet.
May your tribe increase!
You can get an idea here of how my marriage worked before I renounced husband obedience and idolatry. http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/biblically-does-submission-equal-obedience/
NN
2010-05-30
To Charis (481)
Marriage was never intended to be a bed of roses for the husband with an ever obedient (slave) wife. If it was, God would have stopped at monkeys or dogs (who can be trained in obedient servitude) and Jesus would not have told the shocked disciples (3 times in one spot!) they better seriously consider. remaining eunuchs rather than the take on the rigors of marriage Matthew 19 1ff
I could not possibly agree more. If we are to interpret that Ephesians 5 & other passages imply ‘authority’ on the part of the husband – then we must more strongly still examine what it says about the enactment of this ‘authority.’ Simply looking at the phrase “as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for her” I think captures it all. Christ’s authority (being God) did not enact itself by demanding respect and punishing us in our failure to give it; He didn’t look at us and say “Sorry, you should be mine and you failed and that’s your problem – it’s too bad but your just getting what you deserve (though we did fail and it was our problem).” Rather, in the Highness of His authority – He chose to serve us and give His own life in sacrifice for us.
If the ‘authority’ of the husband is to mirror this then we must take it to mean quite the same thing. The only proper use of the husband’s authority (indeed of any human endeavor) can be to reflect God. And we are told that in marriage we are to reflect the relationship of Christ and the Church – that husband’s are to take their authority seriously; not to consider how they can be served but how they can serve. Parva sub ingenti, my life for theirs.
Will this be hard – most certainly. Certainly, resting on the bent back of a slave is a natural temptation to humanity – but it is service for which we are made and this in the end it will be what is of most good to us and our greatest satisfaction. To quote the Weight of Glory –
We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so
contains an appeal to desire… Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us…
(I highly recommend this short essay to anyone – http://www.verber.com/mark/xian/weight-of-glory.pdf)
Tiffany
2010-05-30
SM re497- you are understanding that perfectly.
re496, going to have to come back later to answer that.
Tiffany
2010-05-30
Kay- thanks for wanting to continue, and if I had the time to stick around to make sure peoples questions were answered I would. But I don’t.
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-30
NN, How about this:
a) God has authority because he is God.
b) God love because he is Love
a) Man has authority because he is _______
b) Man loves because he is _________
Susanna Krizo
2010-05-30
Could someone please explain quickly how the whole eros-argument goes, I want to include it in my next book.
Tiffany
2010-05-30
Cheryl- I am really only still checking by in for you. If you have anything else to add, please do. Otherwise I am out.
Charis
2010-05-30
I would not call what a husband has “authority over” and I noticed that Tiffany objected to that term as well. A husband has “authority to” nourish, cherish, etc.
Whatever God CALLS one to do and to be,
HE is ready willing and able
to equip and empower one
to do and to be!
And I think when NN and Tiffany are saying that biblical authority is different than worldy authority, they are saying something that Jesus said:
But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
So a woman who is servile toward her husband is usurping his authority. BTDT for many years!
http://hupotasso.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/rolereversal.jpg
Tiffany
2010-05-30
Charis- yes, quite right.
Charis
2010-05-30
Suzanne,
Regarding eros, perhaps this will help?
from “Steel Magnolia” by Mary Kassian
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Steel-MagnoliaThe first man called himself “Ish” and the woman “Ishsha.” This appears to be an extremely clever and profound play on words. The sound of these two Hebrew words is nearly identical-Ishsha merely adds a feminine ending- but the two words have a complementary meaning. Ish comes from the root meaning “strength” while Ishsha comes from the root meaning “soft.”
The implication becomes clearer when we observe the biblical meaning of a man’s “strength.” Strength refers to a man’s manhood- his potency, virility, and procreative power (Psalm 105:36; Proverbs 31:3; Genesis 49:3). By contrast, a woman’s “softness” has to do with her pregnability, penetrability, and vulnerability (in a very positive sense). One commentator has suggested English equivalents of “Piercer” and “Pierced One.”
The bodies of male and female reflect this idea. A man’s body is built to move toward the woman. A woman’s body is built to receive the man. But the pattern goes beyond the mere physical difference between men and women to encompass the totality of their essence: The man was created to joyfully and actively initiate and give. The woman was created to joyfully and actively respond and receive. The woman is the “soft” one – the receiver, responder, and relater. The man is the “strong” one with greater capacity to initiate, protect and provide. Each is a perfect counterpart to the other.
pinklight
2010-05-30
You are blurring what authority is to try and reconcile your theology.
I think this is the final point.
pinklight
2010-05-30
Jesus is saying NOT TO SEEK AUTHORITY.
Amen to that!
Do comp husbands in general seek authority?
pinklight
2010-05-30
I sure hope you are consistent!
Are you claiming that comp theology is consistent (of all things!), Mark?
pinklight
2010-05-30
Where is it explicitly stated in Gen 1-3 that we are identitically equal?
Are fraternal twins not equal, Mark?
Charis
2010-05-30
Dave http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/#comment-12398
Carolyn Custis James wisely observes in her blog entitned “hesed and submission” http://www.whitbyforum.com/2007_11_01_archive.html
What helped me to deepen my understanding of these important words—hesed and submission—was to throw out Webster’s Dictionary and consult instead the dictionary according to Jesus.
When one consults “the dictionary according to Jesus”
authority bears little resemblance to the world or Webster’s definition.
Charis
2010-05-30
Correction- in 527 I meant to address Susanna Krizo
SM
2010-05-30
I forgot to check back to include the complete comment reference on my last post.
It was 505 (NN).
Cheryl Schatz
2010-05-30
Dave,
if authority has to have its meaning changed to fit in with what Jesus meant, then we need to find a new word, not re-define the old word.
BINGO! (That means you win the prize in Canadian slang)
Marg Mowczko
2010-05-31
Hi Cheryl,
I believe that God’s ideal in relationships, including marriage, is mutual submission.
I have written an article on submission that (among other things) looks at what Peter instructed “civilians”, slaves, wives, husbands and young men about submission (in 1 Peter). The article is at http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/submission-in-marriage/
Just thought you may be interested
Charis
2010-05-31
Dave (555)
I find that frustrating, as egals will do that with other words. They will take the lexicon listing and choose the definition they like.
Scripture interprets scripture. If JESUS says “this is what authority is to look like” I’ll take his word over Webster’s every time.
If you are stuck on Webster, then I choose to do the egal thing and I select from the listing the definition “POWER”. Husbands have POWER. Egals can deny that till they are blue in the face and it doesn’t change it. Husbands have POWER to deeply wound their wives, to pierce them. OR they have POWER to return to the Garden of Eden- to lift their wife up beside them to share dominion – Ephesians 1:20-22, 2:6
And though wives have POWER too (to wound their husbands in various ways) I THINK based on a wife being SUBJECT TO HER HUSBAND IN EVERYTHING AS THE CHURCH IS SUBJECT TO CHRIST that husbands have greater power to wound their wives than vice versa. GOD KNOWS a woman’s characteristics and vulnerabilites.
Its amusing to me that scientific research has proven the differences between men and women but the drumbeat continues that they are the same.
Kristen (535) http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/#comment-12407
The woman (later named Eve) responded differently when confronted with her decision to eat the fruit. http://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/adam-and-eves-response-to-their-failure-compared/ Cheryl has noted this and blogged on it before.
Ever since, like their anatomy, women tend to internalize shame (accept blame) and men tend to externalize shame (blameshift). Scientific research confirms this. Here’s a link: Women guilty of feeling too guilty, study shows
Many men, on the other hand, stay emotionally detached, study suggests
pinklight
2010-05-31
The NIV adds the words “be considerate” in verse 7; but in the Greek, these words are not there. It simply says “in the same way live with your wives”, implying submission from them also. Think about it. (Compare the very similar language in 1 Peter 3:1,7 and 5:5.)[2]
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/submission-in-marriage/
Very interesting, Marge!
pinklight
2010-05-31
Blog-livingroom
lol
🙂
pinklight
2010-05-31
Charis,
Husbands do have power but I don’t think this is the kind of thing that comps are laying claim to – power to hurt and damage.
Charis
2010-05-31
Dave (555) and Cheryl (556)
Did you read Carolyn Custis James post? I think she expressed it better than I and she is one of your own (an egal)
The Dictionary According to Jesus
I guess we will have to agree to disagree that Jesus’ definition and practice of authority involves all those things that you claim from Webster’s.
Charis
2010-05-31
TL,
With all due respect, you will need to do some more homework on the meaning of a passive greek verb. Its something for which there is not an english equivalent so it takes some effort to wrap one’s mind around. Wallace and Mounce have well respected Greek Grammar. Here is their definition from : http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/grklnk.html?SUBMIT=Greek+Grammar+Menu
C. Passive Voice
In general it can be said that in the passive voice the subject is acted upon or receives the action expressed by the verb. No volition – nor even necessarily awareness of the action – is implied on the part of the subject. That is, the subject may or may not be aware, its volition may or may not be involved. But these things are not stressed when the passive is used.
Charis
2010-05-31
nn pointed out in a previous discussion the exact form of the PASSIVE VOICE hupotasso verb used of the subjection of wives to husbands is used of the subjection of devils to apostles.
I would hardly call the subjection of devils to apostles “voluntary”!
In the interest of time I will post the link to my blog on this which links back to nn’s comments on a previous thread on Cheryl’s blog and then I am done here. I start summer school tomorrow- Anatomy and Physiology and that will be occupying my mind for the next two months. Here is the link: http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/irresistible-submission-of-devils-to-apostles-and-wives-to-husbands/
SM
2010-05-31
That should have read:
“elsewhere in scripture.”
Mark
2010-05-31
★
Kristen,
“You are not submitting to “one another” but only to “some others.”
That’s right, because I’m not going to submit to the 12 year old youth kid in the same way I would to my pastor. It is illogical to demand a complete mutuality submission between all relationships within the body of Christ- you wouldn’t know who the adults are from the children, the elders from the younger etc etc. I will serve a 12 yr old, but not submit in the way the verb is used.
As regards consistency I have to disagree (surprise, surprise). The comp position is consistent in word-study, context, fuller revelation in the Bible. The egal pos insists on a meaning for ‘submit’ that does not exist, ignores the numerous times wives are told to submit to husbands (not vice versa), and ignores the fuller biblical revelation of husband/wife teaching.
In regards to the meaning of ‘submit’, I’ll stick to the professionals on this one-BDAG is particularly useful
Now James 3 is puzzling. Which verse? Where is the VERB translated ‘submit’ which is in relation to Eph 5:21. I sure can’t see it. Maybe you mean ‘eupeithes’ in verse 17, but that is not the same verb used in Eph 5:21 or any other NT command for person A to ‘submit’ to person B. I find it hard to dialogue when we are not even on the same page to begin with.
So I appreciate your challenge, but it appears you are redefining NT words to fit your theology. James 3, is in no way related to the relevant discussion on Eph 5:21. So let me challenge back, where is the verb ‘submit’ used in the NT (other than Eph 5:21 which is under discussion) which gives the ‘clear’ meaning that authority does not exist. This way we will at least be able to agree on the ‘meaning’ of the word before ascending on the context to understand it. Sure the context determines the meaning, but we at least need to know the ‘possible’ meanings before we look at the context so we don’t import false ideas into the passage. Since this is Paul writing, maybe you can find another instance where Paul uses this verb non- authoritatively. Or do you believe that all of Paul’s references with this verb have a ‘re-defined’ meaning that was foreign to his culture?
Cheers
P.S To all egals- when we are called to ‘love one another’ do you take this to mean you love your husband/wife the same as your neighbour, your child the same as your sister in Christ? In other words does the relatioship define how ‘one another’ applies?
Charis
2010-06-01
Mark (614) I’m not going to submit to the 12 year old youth kid in the same way I would to my pastor. It is illogical to demand a complete mutuality submission between all relationships within the body of Christ- you wouldn’t know who the adults are from the children, the elders from the younger etc etc. I will serve a 12 yr old, but not submit in the way the verb is used.
The verb in Eph 5:21 is in the passive voice. Check it out for yourself at http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm
Its a description of the mutual subjection/dependence of Body life and there is another witness in 1 Cor 12:12ff.
For illustration, suppose your son was the 12 yo and he was cutting, taking drugs, etc, then the fact that you are “one body” with him would bring on a great deal of pain and distress because in BEING SUBJECT to him, when he is struggling it affects you.
Charis
2010-06-01
Jane,
Sounds to me like you see the body dynamic, how the pain of some is affects the whole (because of our mutual subjection, interconnectness, and interdependence ala Eph 5:21 BTW). I think you would identify with this fellow blogger’s observations: http://newcovenantbeliever.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-body-of-christ/
Kay
2010-06-01
SM,
A lovely thing about Cheryl’s blog is that she doesn’t divide us into different leagues. 🙂 I’m glad!
Kay
2010-06-01
“The verb in Eph 5:21 is in the passive voice. Check it out for yourself at http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm
Its a description of the mutual subjection/dependence of Body life and there is another witness in 1 Cor 12:12ff…”
Charis,
Another good illustration @616!
I hope you don’t mind me adding more of 1 Cor. 12:
“But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.”
Susanna Krizo
2010-06-01
★
Oh Mark, I just love it when you comps write like this! I know you are a smart guy, you just have swallowed a bit too much of the comps’ cool aid (isn’t this American saying an interesting way of putting it?)
So, let’s look at your argument:
“You implied that John 1 was ‘explicit’ enough to show Jesus is God. A few months ago i went to a Christadelphian seminar designed to rebuttle the orthodox view of Trinity. The man was quite convinced that ‘word’ did not have to mean what a orthodox christian would have it mean. He used semantics for the word, lexicon definitions, contextual matters etc etc…
so the point is this… it may be ‘explicit’ for you but for a cult it is not!”
Yes, what you wrote is true… for a cult! They are known to twist words and change meanings, which is why they are called a cult. Christians however cannot and will not do so. If the Bible says the Word was God, it means the word was God. It does not mean he was a god, or an angel or any of that kind. It means what it says.
May I suggest that as far as Eph 5.21 is concerned it your understanding of the word hypotasso (submit) that is the problem not the word itself. I.e. if everyone cannot obey, then perhaps the word does not mean obey? If you cannot squeeze it into your theology, perhaps it is your theology that is the problem?
You wrote: “What is termed ‘explicit’ enough will depend on one’s own Biblical theology and bias’ on the theology.”
I will say Amen to this for I agree that what the comps consider explicit depends on how it supports their theology. I.e. Junia is not a woman, but if she is, she is not an apostle; Phoebe is not a deacon, Deborah is not a judge, but if she is, she usurped the title herself; women should not work, but if they have to (single moms and widows), it’s ok. etc.
You wrote: “So to me the teaching of the Bible is quite clear and explicit to support a comp position but for you, the opposite is true. How does anyone reconcile this?…Consistency in biblical exegesis, hermeneutics etc which i think is far better on the comp side…not perfect but better.”
Ahem… consistency in biblical exegesis….? Ok, so the comps have a great hermeneutic when they say men have authority over women although the Bible never says so? That mutual submission does not exist although the Bible says it clearly? A minute ago you wrote that what one believes is clear depends on one’s theology. I.e. you may think the Bible is clear, but you have also admitted that it is clear for you because of your own bias: you want it to support complementarism. If we cannot agree what the Bible says explicitly, then we have no change of having a conversation with those who disagree. This is how cults are created. Either the Bible is clear or it isn’t. It cannot be clear to you and not clear to me, unless you want to support the belief that God enlightens the hearts of only some? Naturally I agree that translations often confuse the issue, wherefore it is so important to go back to the original.
You wrote: “Your little history lessons are fascinating but irrelevant to our topic. After all, you haven’t mentioned that egalitarianism has NEVER been an orthodox position and it’s incline is intrinsically intertwined with the sexual revolution, women’s liberation and post-modern philosophy. Please at least be consistent in your history if nothing else.”
My “history lessons” are irrelevant but yours is relevant? I have never said that egals have not been the orthodox position because it blatantly false. Tombstones, letters, inscriptions etc, all testify that the church had female clergy and that it did not disappear until the 13th century (even Catholics admit to this). It coincides perfectly with Thomas Aquinas twofold subjection in which he made the woman subject to the man from creation due to Aristotle’s philosophy. May I again suggest that you have absorbed a bit too much of comp theology with its revisionist history? Egalitarianism is not an offshoot of secular feminism from the 70s. Women fought for their rights already in the 19th century. Seneca Falls convention (1848) was held in a Methodist church, during which Christian women concluded they needed to get the vote and set out to do so. Did you know that New York revoked female suffrage in 1777, a year after the declaration of independence? As I said before, comps have done a magnificent job of convincing the world that egalitarianism is only about 40 years old. Not so. The early church upheld the equality of all humans.
I find it interesting that all comps come with are these same arguments: a) there has never been a female clergy b) egals. was formed in the 70’s. What about the 1900 years between 70 and 1970? They do not provide any info, which is of course because very few of them have ever touched a history book. Mark here is not an exception.
You wrote: “As regards your other statements…freewill…not really relevant to this post. I only mentioned them to demostrate the explicit/implicit argument or lack of…that is all.”
Of course… when a comp argument is defeated, it becomes irrelevant. Like female inferiority. As late as 1870, Barnes was adamant that God created the woman inferior to the man. In 1970 all theologians agreed: women are not inferior, we are all equal. Why the change? Because women got the right to vote in the twentieth century and began to change laws, but also because it was proven that girls did better in school than boys (which is still true). But because it would have been impossible to say that girls were smarter than boys, we got a sexless intelligence and the inferior woman had to go.
Susanna Krizo
2010-06-01
Hi Lydia! No I have not seen that book, but I do know of his theology from the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. His theology is so warped that it is not even funny.
pinklight
2010-06-01
What has been the comp reaction to this: they simply ignore all the evidence and keep on insisting that there has never been a female clergy.
For sure.
Susanna Krizo
2010-06-01
Mara, I will do so as soon as I have put baby down for a nap.
Pinklight, yes, it is a whole lot of something! You really need to dismiss about 1800 years of church history to avoid it.
Susanna Krizo
2010-06-01
Kay, what you wrote mirrors this:
The man’s authority is not in the, but must be accepted.
Mutual submission is in the Bible, but must be rejected.
Kay
2010-06-01
Hey Dave,
Glad you’ve had time to check in on your “peeps”!
Susanna Krizo
2010-06-01
★
TL, I think you are right. And it is interesting that the Free Methodists, who broke away from the Methodists over slavery in 1860 (since the Methodist church refused to speak against it) were the first ones to approve female clergy in 1911. Where were the dreaded secular feminists? Sixty years in the future! And how about this one: the Methodist church approved female clergy in 1956 during the “glory days” of homemaking. Were they influenced by secular feminists? Hardly, since there weren’t any.
Mara, here’s an excerpt from chapter 11 my book “When Dogmas Die”
Weinrich claims in his essay Women in the History of the Church that the “utter paucity of instances adduced where women were given or took the function of public preaching and teaching confirms” that only men ought to be leaders in the church. But if women were excluded from leadership in the patristic era, how much evidence of their previous existence in the clergy would be left for posterity to read?
Until the Nag Hammadi library was found in upper Egypt in 1945, the only source of information about Gnosticism were the scanty remarks found in the writings in the early Christian writers. Tobias Churton describes why the condemned material had to be hid in the middle of the fourth century.
Athanasius we know was in hiding among the monks of Upper Egypt in AD 356 during a temporary ‘turn-about’ in his episcopal career. It was perhaps his observation while hiding there that furnished him with a view that ‘some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, but the subtlety of certain men, and should afterwards read other books – those called apocryphal.’ Now, if these texts were buried in response to a heresy ‘clearout’ at the time of broadcasting of the letter, then it was almost certainly the work of monks, in particular those monks who had most to lose from being associated with the condemned literature. If condemned heretics, such people would suffer excommunication and the accompanying divorce from Christ’s interests. Furthermore, the books would, according to practice be burned. We are observing a stiffening in the regime governing the Coptic (that is, Egyptian) Church. … As we shall see, the books buried in the middle of the fourth century would not fit in with the Creed. They had to go.
Although the extant literary evidence of women in leadership is scanty, we do not need to rely solely on written testimonies, for some of the extant evidence of female leadership in the church is found in tombstones and buildings, which are not as easily destroyed as burnable books.
Ute E. Eisen describes two inscriptions within the mosaics of the chapel of St. Zeno which mention episcopa Theodora, the mother of Pope Paschal I (817-824). Her husband, Bonosus, did not possess a sacerdotal title and therefore episcopa does not refer to a bishop’s wife. In a picture she is depicted with a rectangular halo, which was used for persons of high rank, such as bishops; saints were depicted with round halos. Over the halo, the word episcopa is inscribed. The attempts to interpret the mosaic have created an array of suggestions. Some have made it an honorary title for the mother of the pope, who was seen as taking the position of a wife by her son’s side. Others have made her into an abbess, although an abbess was never called episcopa, the title “abbess’ being well known. And yet others have tried to claim an interpolation, which is farfetched since the inscription is found twice, in different locations. No one has suggested that Theodora could have been a bishop, for women just are not supposed to be bishops in the church; instead the title episcopa is frequently omitted in the verbal reproductions of the inscription.
Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek describe an inscription in mosaic in the Basilica of St. Augustine in Hippo, North-Africa, after the era of Vandal occupation which began in 431. The inscription reads, “Guilia Runa the prebyteress (presbiterissa), rest in peace, lived for fifty years.“ And John Wijngaards describes a tombstone from Delphi, Greece, of a woman deacon which states, “The most devout deaconess Athanasia, established deaconess by his holiness Bishop Pantamianos after she lived a blameless life. He erected this tomb on the place where her honored [body?] lies.”
Yet, the most undeniable evidence of women in ecclesiastical leadership is found in the Bible. Because the women leaders found in the Bible challenge the dogma of the woman’s subordination, the women in question have either been ignored – or transformed into men. Junia has become a controversial biblical figure because Paul calls her an apostle (Rom. 16:7). A footnote by the editors of the Early Church Writer’s collection provides us a vivid picture of how scholars have dealt with Junia’s identity.
The more probable view is that Andronicus and Junias [not Junia as Chrys., certainly not if his interpretation is correct; that a woman should have been an apostle is out of the question] are designated as distinguished, honorably known among (by) the apostles. (So De Wette, Philippi, Holmann, Meyer).
Schreiner is candid in his essay The Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership about the problem Junia’s identity poses for complementarist theology.
Of course, if Junias was a woman apostle (Romans 16:7), then a tension is created between the apostleship of Junias (If Junias was a woman) and the other arguments adduced in the chapter, for apostles were certainly the most authoritative messengers of God in the New Testament.
He concludes that the passage is unclear and therefore no decisive decision can be made based on the information given in the Bible. Schreiner is not alone in his indecision for also Grudem writes that we cannot know if Junia was a woman because “the evidence is indecisive,” and therefore we cannot be dogmatic about the name. Although both Grudem and Schreiner wish to ignore Romans 16:7, Grudem does not consider it sound hermeneutic, “If someone says, ‘I am not going to base my decision on these verses because nobody can figure out what they mean anyway,’ then he has essentially said that those passages cannot play a role in his decision about this question.” Grudem must remain indecisive, despite his own advice, for if he claims that the name is ‘Junias,’ he must provide proof, which he cannot, for according to Eldon Jay Epp, “After all, the masculine Junias was asserted (I would say invented) when no evidence for such a masculine name could be found, a circumstance still unchanged.” On the other hand, if he admits Junia was a woman, he must explain how she could have been a bishop for he quotes Epiphanius, “Iounias, of whom [hou] Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria.” Epiphanius used the masculine relative pronoun (hou), but in the endnotes Grudem admits that he is perplexed that Epiphanius designates also Priscilla as a man.
Grudem quotes also Rufinus’s Latin translation of Origen’s commentary on Romans which has “Andronicus et Junias,” a Latin masculine, singular nominative. However, Epp cites Caroline Hammond Bammel’s critical edition on Origen which explains that Iunias (“Junias”) is a variant reading from a twelfth-century manuscript subgroup E, which also includes Iulia (“Julia”) as a variant. Earlier manuscripts from the ninth century all have Iunia (“Junia”). In addition, Hraban of Fulda (780-856) cited Rufinus’s translation of Origen literally and the name we find in his text is Junia.
Both the King James Version and New King James Version have Junia, as does Erasmus’s New Testament (1516). The Greek manuscripts all have Junia, except for five that have the variant Julia. In addition, some manuscripts have Junia in Romans 16:15 (where the name Julia appears), a variant which can be explained only if both of the names were feminine. Because of these variants, even Julia has become a male name in the hands of translators and commentators. Aegidius (1243/47-1316) is usually considered the first one to call Junia – and Julia – a man. However, by far the greatest influence over the identity of Junia has been Luther who brought the male Junias to the masses through his German translation of the New Testament (1522) and his Lectures on Romans.
That Junia was a woman is thus established, but was she was an apostle? Grudem attempts to make Andronicus and Junia “messengers” in the broad sense and he provides two examples: 1 Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:25-6. But his case is weakened by the fact that the “brother” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:23 was chosen by the churches to join Titus as he traveled to Corinth to prepare the offering gathered by the Corinthians. Andronicus and Junia were in Rome and no mention is made of them traveling as representatives of the Roman church, or any other church, to distribute offerings gathered. Similarly, Epaphroditus was sent to Paul by the Philippian church to bring him their gift and to care for him in prison (Phil. 2:25-26). Paul mentions that Andronicus and Junia were “in Christ” before him, making it very possible that they had seen the risen Christ, which was one of the qualifications for apostleship.
Epiphanius writes that Junia whom Paul mentions became a bishop of Apameia, which further strengthens the case that Junia was an apostle, for the offices of an apostle and bishop were identical in the Early Church (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1): “But deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose apostles, that is, bishops and overseers; while apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascent of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the Church.”
An early witness to Junia’s identity is Chrysostom who did not only call Junia a woman –he also thought she was an apostle par excellence.
“Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.” …Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion (?????????) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”
Yet, for some Junia cannot be an apostle and a woman at the same, regardless of the evidence for “if the phrase means ‘distinguished apostles,’ ‘Iouninan is a man…On the other hand, if the name is female, the phrase means ‘of note in the eyes of the apostles.’” Grudem does not dare to call Junia a man for the lack of evidence, but neither is he willing to call her a woman and give legitimacy to the existence of a female apostle and bishop. In a last effort to support his indecision, he writes that Junia was not a common woman’s name in the Greek-speaking world, which is true since it was a Latin name.
(Here ends the excerpt)
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more