We live in a day when the basic family unit is disintegrating. Divorces are rampant. Live-in relationships are the norm, and homosexual unions are being recognized by governments. It is right and necessary for the Christian church to both teach and model the Biblical concept of "family" in this age when the Biblical concept of family is seldom understood. However, one of the problems we face as Christians is misinterpreting what God calls the ideal home. There is a growing patriarchal movement among conservative Christian churches, a movement where men are taught that they should have complete "authority" in the home, and that they should "rule" over their wives and children. Many of these conservative Bible-believing Christians who advocate patriarchy honestly believe they are teaching Biblical truth. It is my intention in this post to show that patriarchy is not God's ideal, but rather, patriarchy is the result of God's curse on Adam and Eve. When God's grace appears in the home, patriarchy is expelled.When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, God pronounced judgment on them in Genesis 3:16-19. God first began with Eve:
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).Some conservative Bible scholars take the last phrase of v.16 to mean (1). The wife shall have a “sexual desire” for her husband (i.e. “your desire shall be for your husband”), and (2). The husband is to be the head, authority and ruler of the home (i.e. “and he shall rule over you”). These conservative scholars declare that God’s statement in v. 16 is how the husband and wife “should” relate to each other in the home, and how the home ought to be in terms of headship and governance. The man, they say, is to rule over his home; there should be no equality of authority since God established this patriarchal system from the very beginning.
However, other conservative Bible scholars rightly point out that the woman’s “desire” for her husband in Genesis 3:16 is not, at least linguistically and contextually, a sexual desire. One only needs to turn one chapter over to find the same word teshuqah, in Genesis 4:7, where it is also translated “desire." In the context of Genesis 4:7, teshuqah is used to refer to sin’s “desire” to control Cain. Thus, letting the Bible interpret itself, the word “desire” in both both Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 means “a desire to control.”
Likewise, the same Hebrew verb mashal, which means “to rule,” is also used in Genesis 4:7, just as it was in Genesis 3:16. Mashal is used in Genesis 4:7 to describe Cain’s efforts to rule over or dominate the sin that is “crouching at his door.” Again, when you let the Bible interpret itself, mashal is used in both Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 to describe someone who is having to fend off an attack; it carries the idea of warring for control or domination; a battle to see who will be ultimate "ruler."
Using basic principles of interpretation, one comes up with a very simple explanation of the consequence of God's curse on Adam and Eve - a consequence that has infiltrated every home since the beginning of time. Simply put, the woman will desire to dominate or control the man, but the man, perhaps even with superior strength, will fight hard to rule over and dominate the woman. Where the curse is present there is a constant battle for control. This is how things are because of sin, not how things in the home ought to be. The patriarchal societies of the world express the reality of male domination, and in certain western Christian cultures, patriarchy is often said to be ordered by God - as if God designed the home to be this way.
Likewise, in some cultures, such as the Kanu of South America, the women "rule" the home, and the men are the "servants." These women explain their domination of men in the home with the simple phrase - "the gods have made it this way." What both matriarchal and patriachal proponents need to understand, regardless of the culture from which they come, is that any system designed for "domination" or "control" of the other spouse is the result of sin and the curse on sin.
When the God of all grace gets a hold of a man and a woman in a marriage relationship, no longer will there be a fight to see who dominates and controls the other. Rather, there will be mutual submission between husband and wife (i.e. Ephesians 5:21 – “submitting to one another in reverence to Christ”). Mutual submission, with no thought of "control," is God's design for the home. It should be the effort of every Bible-believing church, pastor and teacher to instruct husbands and wives on the sinful nature of any husband or wife seeking to dominate the other spouse.
In fact, I like what Dr. Richard Hess, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Theological Seminary says in his comments on Genesis 3:16. Dr. Hess said all Christians should attempt to pull down any patriarchal (or matriarchal) system of domination and control in the Christian home, and then responds to those who object to any attempt to end patriarchy:
It is no more a sin to end this consequence of the fall than it is to use weed killer to end the promised weeds and thorns in the following verses. No, the emphasis (in Genesis 3:16) is on the terrible effects of sin, and the destruction of a harmonious relationship that once existed. In its place comes a harmful struggle of wills.I trust that conservative, evangelical churches will continue to proclaim and model God's design for the home. I just pray that we do a good job of understanding the subject ourselves first. Patriarchy is the result of man's sinful desire to control and dominate and should be, by God's grace, avoided at all costs.
In His Grace,
Wade
261 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 261 of 261Heb 13: 8-16 is between v 7 and 17 and is all about not being carried away by various and strange doctrines, to be established by His grace, of Jesus (who sanctifies and suffered as the sacrifice for our sin penalty) , the shedding of His blood, giving Him sacrifices of praise… and immediately to v 17. Then v 18-19 is a prayer request. To interject a “right” of authority and power over others cannot EVEN be intimated except that it has been misinterpreted from the original Greek.
The concept of “patriarchy” falls apart based on these scriptures when properly read from the original Greek.
Jon eludes to Titus 3:9 which is “But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions and striving about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.“
When SOOOO many women and marriages and churches are harmed because of the false doctrine of “patriarchy,” I hardly think it is a foolish dispute…. And so, since Jon brought up Titus, let’s look at
Titus 3:10-11 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”
"Hebrews 13:17 tells us that there are people who are over us, have rule, authority over us. Some will say... "Not so!" but to do so denies scripture."
Isn't it strange how that interpretation of Hebrews 13:17 contradicts other verses about not lording it over, the first will be last and all the 'one anothers' for the Body of believers.
So, I guess that means that those who drank the kool aid in Guyana were doing the right thing as their 'authority' who has rule over them told them to do.
But, I can see why you like that verse, Jon. But if you do a deep study on it, you will find the translators chose the most authoritarian words they could find but do not fit the whole pericope of the NT. Your thinking is not that different than the divine right of kings type thinking but it has no place in the Body of believerss.
"Have the rule over you" (KJV) was given as the meaning of hegeomai. It is used 28 times in the New Testament and translated variously as "count," "think," "esteem," "be governor," and other miscellaneous words such as "chief' and "leader."
It is significant to me that the King James translators used the strongest possible English words to translate hegeomai. Out of the 28 times the word appears, they elected to translate it "rule over you" three times: Hebrews 13:7, 17, and 24, thus, strengthening the concept that the Church officer had unquestionable rule and authority and must be obeyed.
If the Holy Spirit wanted to convey the idea that Elders had the authority that they now claim, He would have used the Greek word arche, which translates into "rule" or "power." One who had the authority to rule was archon, "a ruler" or "a magistrate.' By choosing hegeomai the Holy Spirit indicated that these men who "watch(ed) in behalf of your souls", were the leaders among them.
Obey"
According to W.E. Vine, the Greek word peitho means "to persuade, to win over, in the Passive and Middle Voices, to be persuaded, to listen to, to obey, is so used with this meaning, in the Middle Voice. THE OBEDIENCE SUGGESTED IS NOT BY SUBMISSION TO AUTHORITY, BUT RESULTING FROM PERSUASION" (emp. mine. An Expository Dic-tionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 3, p. 124).
The thrust of the word peitho is not one of submission to authority; it is one of listening to someone out of respect and taking their advice. A better translation of peitho in verse 17 is "Listen to," not "Obey them."
Peitho is sometimes translated "trust" in the King James Version of the New Testament and would have been an ideal translation in verse 17: ‘Trust them....’ This leaves the reader with a different flavor entirely than does the translation "Obey them..."
Sorry Jon, that verse does not give you the power you crave. And if you think this dialogue is simply about foolish controversies, then why are you here engaging?
BedB,
I still have not seen anyone on this blog discussion support that one person ought to control or be "boss" over another another. I have seen that idea trying to be made from those who do not like the idea of having someone in authority over another. The idea is being made as this is what authority over another means.
Go back and re-read the comments of those who support a patriarchal system and show me where they are wanting to be or claiming to be "boss" or in control. Now they are being accused of this but that is two different topics.
Colossians 3 speaks of submission of wives to husbands also.
Now please note I do not support dictatorship but servant leadership.
The whole picture scripture uses to show us the bridegroom and bride (Jesus and the church). I just can't imagine that we are equals with Jesus in our roles and responsibilities. But to stay with the comparison Jesus makes and use your conclusion... You got a better explanation of how it should be then Jesus, Himself... if you are right.
Bottom line is I disagree with your conclusion. Am I an evil chauvinistic pig because of it? To some... probably, but oh well.
I just can't imagine that we are equals with Jesus in our roles and responsibilities
Show us where "roles" are defined in scripture. Show us where Jesus defined responsibility as authority. And tell us what this verse means: "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way,..." (Heb. 2:17). Not equals with Jesus' humanity? Then why do men think they are His equals with divinity? (And don't try to say they don't; they keep trying to model husband/wife after Father/Son).
I could pick apart more of your evasive and incoherent comments, but why bother? You'll only reply "oh well".
THE DAY L's STARTED A BRAWL IN A CHURCH HALL:
an unfortunately true account of unmalicious mayhem
(you cannot make this stuff up)
I remember the time I started a huge brawl in a church meeting room. Yes, me, L's. I did.
Now you have to understand that I was a guest and went with a friend to her church for a special event: a woman who had written an article called "Bloom Where You Are Planted" was speaking. The hall was filled with moms and housewives and young married women.
Thank God, there was also the minister of this Church present.
The lady spoke this: that it was the duty of wives to do what their husbands told them to do, no matter what. She was, herself, a model of the perfect Christian woman, and very well-spoken.
But then I had to go and ask a question. And what happened next was nothing short of a free-for-all.
The question was this, and I addressed it to both the lady and to the minister: "But suppose your husband asks you to do something that is wrong or sinful: something that is against your conscience: what then? "
Whoah!
I can't remember the exact sequence of events, or who said what next, but I remember that everyone was talking at once, two ladies tipped their chairs over, someone stood on top of a chair trying to get attention, everyone was yelling and arguing.
It was a mess, and the poor minister had to intervene loudly to break it all up.
I was never so glad to leave a place in my life, I had caused so much trouble.
My friend told me later that there had been much controversy about whether or not to invite this speaker, and that I had, unbeknownst to myself, asked THE QUESTION that had been on many minds. (Oh will I never learn to keep my big mouth shut.)
So I know that women NEED to talk about these things: they want to do what is right, and when REALITY runs up against some perfectionist theory of what a scripture forces women to deal with against their better natures: then it gets very hard to sort out.
That was over thirty years ago.
Sometimes it's the QUESTIONS we ask that define who we really are and what we really need. Sometimes these questions bring a lot of controversy. But still we must ask. In time, the answers will surely come.
The Merciful Lord knows our needs.
Love, L's
The thing is, Jon, that Phillip is defending his own opinions by attempting to belittle those of us who dare to point out the sizable holes in them. He repeats religiously-popular untruths about egalitarians and our beliefs without providing anything other than his opinion as to why he thinks we and our beliefs are wrong. He's been given solid biblical evidence for why patriarchy is unwarranted in Scripture and why mutual submission is a soundly scriptural basis for marriage, but dismisses it all.
Applaud Phillip all you like, and repeat his railings against us if that makes you feel better. But it changes nothing about our beliefs or about the scriptural principles which form them. Far from belittling Phillip, we've attempted to engage him in discussion about those very scriptural principles. I make no apology for finding his non-arguments unconvincing. Strange that you would not distinguish the difference.
I will admit, though, to having had a little fun with his assertion that every relationship of more than one person requires a leader. It was so silly that I simply had to smile. Maybe you'd like to explain why friendships need a leader and how you would decide which friend should be that leader. Or is every other kind of friendship excluded from Phillip's assertion? I didn't catch that; it would seem to exclude an awful lot of relationships from his ill-considered pronouncement.
People shouldn't be belittled, egalitarians included. People should expect their statements to be scrutinized and disagreed with, if one is going to make them in public in a venue formed for discussion. If the statements are nonsensical, the one who makes them should expect to be told so.
Please define "servant leadership," Jon, and show explicitly where, in Scripture, husbands are ever commanded to lead their wives.
Please don't make the mistake that so many do, by saying that the Eph. 5:22-24 says so; it does not, and is explicitly addressed to wives, as a particular group among the whole body addressed in Eph. 5:21 (thus, husbands ARE told to submit to others, with no exemption toward their wives). Nor does Eph. 5:25ff tell husbands to lead their wives; it does tell them to love as Christ loves the church, as in numerous other commands in the NT all believers are told to love one another as Christ has loved us. Until you can show scriptural proof that a husband must be to their wives everything else that Christ is to the church, you cannot logically single out "leading" as legitimately pertaining to loving. Christ's kind of love, however, does indeed entail serving others despite his unique place as Lord to us all. So "servant," yes. "Leader," never commanded of husbands toward their wives.
(Just in case you were headed down that dead-end "servant leader" eisegetical trail...)
No time for more discussion, I am off to youth camp in the AM. I want to be a good servant leader and spend the week with our teens (boys and girls). I will be encouraging them to know God and follow His call upon their lives. I will be taking a page out of:
The Danvers Statement
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries. Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God's will.
Using it a a reference to help them understand scriptural teaching for their lives.
Logging off...
L's,
What a great story!
I laughed out loud as I read it.
Great question by the way!
Take it from me, you would be one lady we would love to have as member of Emmanuel!!
Wade
Jon, surely you can see that no egalitarian is claiming to be equal with Christ. We're simply disputing those who use our INequality with Christ to mean that wives have a similar inequality to their husbands in marriage. Husband and wife are head+body, a matched pair, both human, to reflect Christ in the unity Christ has with his Bride, the church. Nowhere in Scripture is a husband compared to Christ except in the christlike (chosen, self-sacrificial) love that he is commanded to give his wife (and as a fellow believer, she is also to give to her). A wife is compared to the church only in the submission (chosen self-sacrificial love) she is commanded to give her husband. All Christians are to love as Christ has loved, and all Christians are to submit themselves to one another out of reverence for Christ, who gave his life as a ransom for all. Husbands can't (and don't need to) be Christ to their wives in any other respect, nor do husbands need their wives to be the church to them, as though they are Christ, except in the submission we're all to give to one another. In other words, wives aren't exempt from submitting to the Christian brothers who are their husbands, and husbands aren't exempt from loving the Christian sisters who are their wives. Specific commandments to one don't by implication negate the general commandments given to all. Perhaps they do, though, according to religiously-popular but scripturally-lacking teachings like so-called Christian patriarchy. Such teachings simply fall apart when the proof-texts that form their defense are examined in the full context of the texts themselves and the whole counsel of Scripture.
I would ask again why mutual submission in marriage is considered such a threat by those who support patriarchy for Christians, but who have never even tried mutual submission themselves. If one spouse submitting to the other is such a good thing (and I know that it is), how much better and Christ-honoring it is when BOTH submit to each other, as Scripture tells us all to do!
Jon will never tell us what a "servant leader" is.
Here's my take on The Danvers Statement
and Servant Leader
Too bad the Danvers Statement is based on a pre-conceived notion that God never calls and uses women for certain tasks in the church, despite scriptural evidence to the contrary. One wonders how many God-called daughters of Phoebe and Priscilla and Junia those who swallow the Danvers deception have attempted to dissuade from obeying God instead of deceived human beings. Some, sadly, allow themselves to be sidetracked from obedience. Many others, though, find a way to obey despite such thwarting of God's will. And make no mistake; God does not relent from the call, no matter how stridently some attempt to out-shout God to these daughters. There are plenty of members of the body of Christ where obedience is not forbidden to the sisters simply because they're sisters.
"Servant leader" is pretty simple. Much of the time, it's religious-speak for "lead my servant." :)
Yep. It's also Orwellian doublspeak: love is hate, war is peace, leader is servant... yet for some odd reason, if a woman leads they don't call it "servant leadership" but "Jezebel".
Just wondering out loud. Is it possible, all the people who are vehemently against women being equal to men in marriage, there might be other reasons behind it. Besides scripture that is.
I can understand if it's purely scriptural interpretation. But name calling, is something else.
If a man pushes it's ok. But if a woman pushes it becomes evil?
I honestly believe if we are to become like Bereans, the world of science, politics and social sciences will improve tremendously with our skills.
ThyPeace, that's a question they all need to face. If their protestations were really from a desire to please God, then the truly humble servant of God would not hesitate to lay aside any perceived rights and privileges and only be concerned about serving.
The fact that they protest is proof that humility and service have nothing to do with it.
God is not please with people clinging to rights, even if He gave those rights. Paul often talked about having the right to support by the people he served, but he refused to exercise it. He could have given many orders but instead pleaded with people and appealed to example.
So how can anyone claim that they are "obeying scripture" by refusing to follow the examples of Jesus and Paul?
Thank you, WADE
If I was in Enid, I would most surely come and visit your Church. Thank you for the kindness of your words. Love, L's
”I still have not seen anyone on this blog discussion support that one person ought to control or be "boss" over another another. I have seen that idea trying to be made from those who do not like the idea of having someone in authority over another. The idea is being made as this is what authority over another means.”
Jon, I was raised in patriarchal hierarchical thinking. One person (only males) being boss over others (both male and female) in the sense of prescribing, controlling and giving or not giving permission to their activities is very much what patriarchy is about. The concept of husbandly ‘final say’ was born from patriarchal thinking. The concept of Pope-ish leadership was born from patriarchal thinking. All top down concepts of leadership arise from this thinking.
The fact that you do not support dictatorship is great. But others even while expounding servant leadership demonstrate a dominion that is not about serving but about being served.
I would imagine that taking a position between God and any person, male or female, would be a dangerous place. Especially if one made a mistake in interpreting God's will for another person.
I am so conservative I squeek but I know that with my wife and I "she ain't my momma and I ain't her daddy."
Christ is Daddy to both of us.
humbly
wtreat
Home patriarchialism is not sinful..I can't believe what I read today on the title of the blog but wondering if it is semantics. Some element of complementarianism implies also a patriarchial approach, but this means a matriarchal aspect exists as well though. Interestingly enough when Sarai's name was changed to Sarah this implies a matriarchal aspect. The aspect of the husband as "a lord" is what is NOT appropriate.
Apparently you have read nothing on this blog if you think marital patriarchy is not sinful.
Scripture after scripture has been explained to focus on mutual submission instead of patriarchal rule.... agape-love of the wife by the husband rather than his plan to rule over her and to be her leader.
I say this because my dad was not much of a spiritual leader in the home, he sent the rest of us to church. He never had belief in Christ until much later in this life. The spiritual leadership was very one sided. He was a very dedicated in other aspects that I still adire today but the biblical leadership is so needed with men like him.
biblical leadership
You mean leadership as defined by those who believe God gives the husband "final say". A flesh-based hierarchy.
The whole debate is defining what is "biblical", so simply calling one's view "biblical" means nothing.
Dear DebD, I think it is a matter of semantics. I am not using patriarchalism in a secular sense or even in regards to the wife but rather in the family. Abraham was a patriarch to his family and Sarah a matriarch.
Dear Paula,
Biblical leadership is having biblical wisdom, honor, and tender compassion with his family. Example, my dad would curse the Lord's name, if you need an example.
Ok, but the question is, do you think God assigns leadership on the basis of the flesh, or is it gift-based?
Niether it has to be developed and nurtured. Esther had developed qualities leadership as well as did Debra. A contemporary example Joni Tada, she went through a lot in her trials as well to where when she wrote the book Heaven, she actually amazed several male theologians with her insights.
Thanks.
But now I can't understand your first statement about "home patriarchy". What do you mean then? If you're saying that either the man or the woman can lead depending on who is better gifted in a given area, we egalitarians would agree with that. But if you mean something like the husband has the final say, we wouldn't agree.
Just having trouble figuring out your terms, because "patriarch" and "matriarchy" do not mean each leads where gifted; they mean either the man or the woman is the designated final authority on the basis of the flesh.
Also, sometimes the mother is better spiritual leader because it is a matter of development.
I have time for one more post now that church has ended and bags are packed. Off to bed soon to get the needed rest before the drive tomorrow.
Titus 2:3-5 (KJV)
[3] The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
[4] That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
hupotasso, hoop-ot-as'-so; (hupo) (tasso); to subordinate; reflexive to obey :- be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
Interesting to the discussion, at least for me.
If women can only teach women based on that passage, then men can only teach men.
Isn't that interesting?
I am really speaking in terms of the family as a whole. From that perspective, there needs to be mutual agreement not an unilateral approach. Children need to see mutual aggreement work in the home. I am not going to see my daughter being walked over by her husband when she gets married, she is going to be trained to think on her own as well.
If the stats are true where one study 50% of men in the next generation (under the age of 25), confess that looking at naked women on the web as NOT a problem, males should indeed be questioned by women.
I'm always glad when pro-patriarchy apologists bring up the "women teach other women" argument. It reveals a very serious flaw in logic: Nothing in Scripture limits women to ONLY teaching other women, or to teaching ONLY women and children. Yet many pro-patriarchy apologists assume such a limitation, as though for women, only that which is explicitly permitted is permitted for them, whereas for men, only that which is explicitly prohibited is prohibited for them. In other words, theirs is a hermeneutic of the widest possible permission for men, but the narrowest possible permission for women.
(And the issue of "women may only teach women and children" shows the incoherence of that hermeneutic in another interesting way. When it comes to teaching male children, try finding consistency as to what age a boy must reach before women are forbidden to teach him anymore. For that matter, try finding consistency in what they claim constitutes the "clear teaching" concerning what ministries women are and are not permitted in the church. There are at least as many different combinations of permissions and prohibitions as there are patriarchalists declaring them. Can women speak audibly? To whom, where, by whose authority, for what purpose, to what gender/age people...the variations are endless! The only fairly consistent thing is that the fruit produced by women in supposedly "forbidden" ministries is ALWAYS going to be dismissed as irrelevant. Perhaps that's because under that system, anyone's ministerial fruit is too seldom examined carefully, hence the bizarre, incoherent teachings from the men who lead such ministries; who's going to tell them they're straying far from the heart of the gospel? Whose authority are they willing to recognize, other than what they think is their own?)
(obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
Interesting to the discussion, at least for me.
Sun Jul 05, 11:16:00 PM 2009
Very interesting, Jon. Especially since it is the exact same word used for submit in Ephesians 5:21 that APPLIES TO YOU if you are truly a part of the Body of Christ.
The KJV chose to translate it as obey. Most other translations use subject or submissive.
I suppose this sort of thing works with your audience at church?
One ought to look VERY carefully whenever one's chosen proof-text contains the English word "likewise." Even without Greek study, it stands to reason that the verse(s) that preceed the "likewise" also pertain to the subject that follows it. How often we see proof-texters claiming the opposite, however.
"(And the issue of "women may only teach women and children" shows the incoherence of that hermeneutic in another interesting way. When it comes to teaching male children, try finding consistency as to what age a boy must reach before women are forbidden to teach him anymore. For that matter, try finding consistency in what they claim constitutes the "clear teaching" concerning what ministries women are and are not permitted in the church. There are at least as many different combinations of permissions and prohibitions as there are patriarchalists declaring them."
Mary, I have always gotten a chuckle out of the Talmudic rules some churches come up with on these questions.
One church allows audio on women but they most certainly cannot stand in that sacred pulpit. There is something mystical about the pulpit, I suppose.
Another church would allow video of a woman teaching (Beth Moore). And they have no problem with Beth Moore teaching men as long as it is not a real church service. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
And then there is always the Mrs. Criswell problem in the SBC who taught a large mixed gender SS class.
Of course they always say these women are under the authority of some elder or their husbands which makes it ok. I often wonder where they find that in scripture. I see nothing about Deborah, the prophetess and judge being under the authority of her husband. Huldah? Is there a new law in the New Covenant for such things?
I really do wish some would give us the cut off age for teaching boys/men. Any of you guys want to venture an age cut off?
I think a different sort of cut-off is in order.
How about, the boy is old enough to presume to teach his mother when he has amassed learning enough to surpass her knowledge, and wisdom enough to know how much he still has to learn.
We learn in order to teach what we have learned; we're blessed not to hoarde the blessing, but to become a blessing through the sharing of what we have learned. Both the learner and the teacher must be possessed of sufficient humility to recognize that only God possesses all knowledge; all of us have much still to learn. To refuse to learn from someone merely because she's a woman (or he's a man) is highly and unwarrantedly egotistical. Is God sovereign to choose the vessel through whom he will speak, or not? Really, that's what the "male-only" arguments boil down to. The inviolability of the "men-only" rule becomes more important than discernment of the will of God, or perhaps the former gets mistaken for the latter. It's easy to do, when one's most cherished misinterpretations of Scripture "prove" that God never, ever calls women to preach, or teach, or lead men, or lead boys over 13, or lead boys once they're weaned, or say anything in church, or in a "real" worship service, or teach future (male) pastors Hebrew, or ... or ... or ...
(Jesus' mother didn't check with Joseph OR her father first before saying "yes" to God. She was almost certainly his first teacher. And she did certainly have some serious influence with Luke in the writing of his Gospel. And she dared to push her Son to do something about the lack of wine at that wedding feast in Cana. And she didn't hide herself at home when her firstborn was dying for the sins of the world on the Romans' cross -- she, like the other women, went where all but one of his male disciples were too frightened or ashamed [or dead] to venture. Hmmmmmmm...no wonder Jesus was always on the outs with the Pharisees -- he was apparently tainted by a very independent mom!)
John Estes mentioned Titus 2:3-5 - where Hupotasso is unfortunately translated as "obey".
Actually, it does not matter if you use the word "obey" or "submit" or "go with the flow" when you translate the word "hupotasso" because one thing is for SURE - and that is that a husband and wife are to MUTUALLY "hupotasso" to one another.
(Ephesians 5:21 - submitting to one another.. and of course hupotasso is not even resident in Ephesians 5:22 even though the translators added "submit" - that messed everyone up, causing us to think that Ephesians 5:21-22 says, "in the Body of Christ, submit to one another, but in marriage, the wife only submits to the husband.)
So, wrong information - equals wrong results.
The Bible ONLY tells a husband to love his wife as Christ loves the church by laying his life down.
So, this gives us the "order" of mutual submission in marriage: a husband submits first by laying his life down and a wife responds to that by submitting back to him to the same degree that he first submits to her.
So, if you prefer the English word "obey" - then fine. I obey my wife first and then she has to obey me to the same degree.
Or submit: I submit to my wife first and she submits to me to the same degree.
Or "come into alignment under" - I come into alignment UNDER my wife first and then she comes into alignement under me to the same degree.
By the way, there is only one word that actually dictates an "order" of "rank" in marriage - but it is only ONE verse, so we do NOT build doctrine on it. That is the word "honor". It is the greek word, "time". (tee-may). It is in 1 Peter 3:7. A man is to honor his wife. This means to honor his wife as one who is higher in "rank" than him.
So, if you want to argue about "rank" - the ONLY scripture that talks about rank is one that tells us that a husband is to honor his wife as one who is higher in rank than he is.
However, we do NOT teach this idea as this is the ONLY scripture that suggests that a wife is higher in rank than her husband.
We also don't teach that a wife is to "fear" her husband, based on the word "respect" in Ephesians 5:33. It is used only ONE time in a horizontal, person to person plane. Everywhere else, it is "fear not" what man can do to you. Even Jesus said to "fear not, it is only me" and this was after he rose from the dead.
So, we don't teach that women are higher in rank than their husbands and we don't teach that a wife is to "fear" her husband based on Ephesians 5:33. Why? You cannot build a doctrine on one scripture. (No, the greek word for fear in Ephesians 5:33 is NOT the "nice" word respect that we use in America. It is FEAR and it is ONLY used positively when referring to God the Father.
Hupotasso? that is mutual.
Honor and respect? Since our americanized definition of honor and respect do not mean what the greek words mean, then we simply say that a couple needs to have mutual submission, mutual honor and mutual respect - and it is started by the HUSBAND offering these things first.
If a husband submits to, honors and respects his wife, then he can expect her, as a Christian wife, to do the same for him in return.
Oops - forgot to mention: We are the authors of two books that teach mutual submission, mutual respect, mutual honor: the only way to an outrageously happy marriage for the 99% of us who did not just "happen" to have a happy marriage because we were both just such wonderful people. Want to have an Outrageously Happy Marriage? Check us out! The books are "The Man of Her Dreams/The Woman of His!" and "Part 2: Livin' it and Lovin' it!" www.GodSaveMyMarriage.com
Jon, I wonder if you’ve confused the English meaning of submit with the Greek meaning of submit/hupotasso.
Hupotasso - arrange under. Most often used of someone telling someone else to submit to them. In the passive/middle voice (hupotassomenoi) it is where the subject makes the action of submission on themselves, which brings in an element of discernment and choice.
Hupakouo - listen, heed, obey. Used in both ways of just listening or of listening and heeding/obeying.
Hupotasso is used most often in the NT in the middle voice. Thus when we are admonished to submit ourselves to the local laws there is an element of discernment which means there are times we do not submit to local laws. In those cases it would be because they are asking Christians to do things contrary to what they believe God would have them do.
Wives are never told to hupakouo their husbands. They are always admonished to be submissive (hupotassomenoi) toward their husbands. It is their choice as to how, when, where and if. Their husbands are not admonished to tell their wives to submit or even to tell them how, when, where or if to submit. It is the attitude that is important. It must be one of arranging the heart toward IMO.
"So, we don't teach that women are higher in rank than their husbands and we don't teach that a wife is to "fear" her husband based on Ephesians 5:33. Why? You cannot build a doctrine on one scripture. (No, the greek word for fear in Ephesians 5:33 is NOT the "nice" word respect that we use in America. It is FEAR and it is ONLY used positively when referring to God the Father."
Thank you! So few get this. It is the same word for phobia. phobeo...to fear something...to tremble with fear.
It is also used in 1 Peter 3 and is used in a way that women married to unbelievers are so pure in heart that their unbelieving husbands will phobeo God.
Why this is translated as respect, I cannot fathom.
When asked which was the greatest commandment, Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. And a second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
(a wife is your closest neighbor)
Jesus also said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If a Christian husband cannot abide by these in his marriage and wants to demand that she submit to his authority and live under his rule, then it is Jesus he must argue with and not the bloggers. Patriarchy is a sinful desire.
****
Slavery and few rights or protection for women and children were the order of the day when the NT was written, continuing on even now (some parts of the world are worse than others) --- It is only recently that the "church" in America has apologized for slavery... but the patriarchal fight continues over women. Patriarchy is a sinful desire.
I have read through many of the 240+ comments on this thread.
No one has really responded to Pastor Wade's thesis of whether or not patriarchy is God's intention or a result of the "fall."
To which I would add that Galatians 3:28, along with understanding that we are to be transformed vis-a-vis our culture, rather than justifiers of culture (Phil. 3:17-21 and Romans 12:1-2).
Too, those of you who argue for egalitarian positions should look more to the big picture of scripture, particularly the NT, than getting caught up in the minutia of exegetical arguments and word studies.
I think that it is in the Big Picture, rather than the details, that you will find support for your arguments (especially if it is read through the lens of Jesus Christ)
We do try, Tim.
But we also know that if we don't follow up on comments concerning minutiae of grammar and semantic range, we are seen as careless or sloppy, unwilling or unable to go toe-to-toe on such things. It's a complicated game, this informal public debate.
That said, I have seen most of us egals make statements about that big picture quite often, usually around the "one anothers" of scripture, "not so among you", and the examples of how Jesus and Paul treated women.
"Patriarchy is the result of man's sinful desire to control and dominate and should be, by God's grace, avoided at all costs."
This surely must be joke.
""Patriarchy is the result of man's sinful desire to control and dominate and should be, by God's grace, avoided at all costs."
This surely must be joke."
No joke, Turrentinfan. All power has the potential to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why Christ encouraged us to become servants instead of desiring to be served.
Matt. 20:25 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.”
Thoughts of Francis Turretin & Reformed Apologetics > Biblical Model of Family Should be Avoided??.
I realize that there are many feminists (of both sexes) out there, but it is absolutely ridiculous to the point of absurdity to suggest that Christians should seek to rebel against God's mandate of patriarchy. The article that concludes with the comment above shows a lack of sense so profound that, at first, I figured that the author must be joking.
The article is wrong on so many levels it is tough to summarize them. ...
ThyPeace,
Interesting! I would say that Turretin’s article is wrong on so many counts it is a task to summarize.
1. He infers that God’s warning to Eve that her husband would ‘rule’ over her (mashal/harsh rule/dominate) is a support of patriarchy.
2. He states that Eve was created under Adam’s ‘headship’ a concept not found in Genesis.
3. He states that in Adam’s sin mankind fell, but must think that elevates Adam in some way. ??
4. What does the fact that woman was reformed from Adam’s flesh and bone (word is ‘side’, not rib) have to do with patriarchy or male dominion.
5. He engages the common misconception that women represent the church and men represent the Lord or God. This is a major deconstruction of the fact that men are to emulate the sacrificial love of God toward their wives, and women are to respect and support their husband in Biblical submission.
How long must the church reel under such poor exegesis, wounding so many of it’s men and women in the process.
Those who want to claim "headship" and "servant-leadership" (neither of these are in the Bible) in order to be "over" women need to check and see if they truly are "believers" in Christ.... for they are obviously choosing to ignore the intent of the scriptures based on the original Greek and Hebrew AND refuse to acknowledge that the Christian marriage is to have mutual submission and that the husband is to be agape-loving the wife. There is no room for patriarchy with agape-love and mutual submission.
NASB
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised
Per Scofield
[2] natural man
Paul divides men into three classes: psuchikos, "of the senses" Jas 3:15 Jude 1:19 or "natural," i.e. the Adamic man, unrenewed through the new birth Jn 3:3,5 pneumatikos, "spiritual," i.e. the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God Eph 5:18-20 and sarkikos, "carnal," "fleshly," i.e. the renewed man who, walking "after the flesh," remains a babe in Christ 1Cor 3:1-4. The natural man may be learned, gentle, eloquent, fascinating, but the spiritual content of Scripture is absolutely hidden from him; and the fleshly, or carnal, Christian is able to comprehend only its simplest truths, "milk" 1Cor 3:2.
1 Corinthians 2:14
Good question, DebD. I've asked a similar one many times, and the only thing even close to a response is along the lines of "We don't crave preeminence, we just believe God granted it to us".
Yet how can any interpretation fly so blatantly in the face of the reason Jesus came-- to free prisoners, to relieve the oppressed, to throw off the shackles of religious performance and social privilege-- and be from the same Spirit? It is a blatant contradiction, a mismatch of music and lyrics so to speak. To think God would grant spiritual gifts on the basis of the flesh alone is so nonsensical, so twisted, that I too must wonder how it can be accepted as a valid theological view, let alone one that speaks to both the Spirit and the Word.
Hey Paula,
You want to know the age of a male when his mother cannot teach him? The exact age is around 99. :)
That of course is not by Scripture but by the Holy Spirit.
“A child shall lead them.” (Isaiah 11:6)
All Pharisees would believe this child is MALE!
“Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said:…teaching as doctrine the commands of men.” (Matthew 15:7-9)
My cousin died in China at the age of 5 saying: “Mama, which one is our house?”
WARNING to those who believe women cannot teach men, DISREGARD the above because the child was female.
"Patriarchy is the result of man's sinful desire to control and dominate and should be, by God's grace, avoided at all costs." Nice to hear such a critique from within the church. You might be interested in my book, "Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy": http://tinyurl.com/desl9s
I am new to this blog..but have read with great interest all of the comments preceding...
AUTHORITY, we all understand that concept. Parent over children; Boss over employees; General over Private; Christ the Head of The Church; Master over Apprentice ..and so on...
Now, imagine a relationship in which two are "in charge" with equal right/authority to have the "final say". By way of example, I am currently out of work. Eventually, our money reserves will dry up, unless I find sufficient work to pay our minimal bills. Opportunities in our locale are almost non-existent. I have to choose between two available jobs, each with its own problems and opportunities. No other suitable Jobs are an option for me. I must decide soon. Unfortunately, I prefer one of these jobs over the other, and my wife is convinced that the other is best. Her position I do understand, but I do believe my apprehension of the critical issues here is more realistic. My wife does not trust my judgment here, and I do not share her assessment of the two choices. To not decide is not an option: a choice must be made soon.
How do we resolve this matter when we are at an impasse?
Or imagine a company with two presidents operating as co-regents, if you will. A dear friend was involved in a business where this situation existed. It did not work in the long run. Each, often, shared the opinion of
the other about a matter, in which case, the course taken was atisfactory to both. However, and after several issues of this type had arisen, it was discovered that this system could not work in the critical case where the two were not in agreement. The leadership structure eventually reverted to a more classic arrangement with a President, Vice President and so on...and one of the two left the company altogether.
The very first wife, Eve, is referred to as "a suitable help" FOR Adam. Paul, in one of his letters, makes some "politically incorrect" statements about the wife being deceived by Satan, and not the man. He charges
the women to remain silent in the church assemblies. It is very difficult to escape some definite Bilbical distinctions that are made between The Man and The Woman.
Having said all of that, there is no creature on this planet who is more "attractive" (in every good sense of the word) than the woman of "gentle and quiet spirit" (very pleasing to God, as the passage reads). I have met women of that type, usually very intelligent and articulate as well--but not necessarily, that are absolute
treasures. Unless a man is an ogre, and such are out there--my father was such a man--the woman with these quailities, will find that her husband will value her opinions, and regard them highly, whether he agrees with her. Nearly every man I know, and I am thinking of Christians, finds that the bossy, strident, insistent woman is a complete turn-off.
At any rate...
hellow William,
"How do we resolve this matter when we are at an impasse?"
You pray together or separate and discuss until you find a compromise, or God reveals another choice, or you come to agreement. Within this you will both mature in wisdom and understanding.
A company is owned by someone. You do not own your family and they are not at your disposal to work for your benefit as a company operates. A husband and wife are to so relate with each other that they become as one flesh, one entity. This takes some work, but is well worth the effort.
"The very first wife, Eve, is referred to as "a suitable help" FOR Adam."
Almost but not quite. It was Adam who had the need, need for what? but a companion. He was alone. The strong help, ezer, that God provided was to help in the man's aloneness because it is not good for humans to be alone. The woman God provided was like Adam in being equal , kenegdo, but different in that she was female. She is the balance he needs for his life.
"He charges
the women to remain silent in the church assemblies."
Those were not Paul's words but a quote from the epistle Paul was responding to. Paul responded in verse 36 negatively. IOW Paul did not approve of those words. As well, because they contained an inaccurate statement ("the law says"....there is and never was a Law that stated women could not speak in assemblies) that Paul would never have made the mistake of saying, it is confirmed those were not his words. It is confirmed in other ways that those were not his words: he approved of women praying and prophesying (preaching) in public, he approved of women teaching and leading, he praised women in ministry and for teaching.
"Having said all of that, there is no creature on this planet who is more "attractive" (in every good sense of the word) than the woman of "gentle and quiet spirit"...
God created in woman a creature of great inner strength, capable of strong leadership like the man, capable of understanding truth and dispensing it. Women are much more than pretty faces. And being 'silent' is often not pretty at all when there is need for truth and healing.
I'm just completely confused. I'm new to this site and I just listened to your sermon on Ephesians --wives and submission. Then I just read your article and some of your posts here on Patriachal headship. I wish the sermon had been given from the viewpoint of source other than the head of a team approach to be consistant with this article. I'm a confirmed egalitarian and have been living out the principles as outlined in DENNIS J. PREATOS article on Empirical Data in Support of Egalitarian Marriages and A Fresh Perspective on Submission and Authority. Your article is in tune with that thinking but the sermon seemed more complimentarian. But then I'm new to the site and maybe I missed something.
I really appreciate the thoughtful interpretations you have developed here, Wade. It's a powerful expression of the truths the Bible puts forward. I'm encouraged by your exegesis and I believe that you are right in your understanding of this.
I have seen in marriages that where there is a determination of one to rule the other because 'the Bible tells me so', there is at the very least a demotivation on behalf of the person in subjection. We lose so much when we determine that people have the right to rule each other, not the least being the dignity that our God affords to all of humankind.
Post a Comment