Kristen

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.