I have recently “met” Paul Burleson and am really enjoying perusing through his blog, VTMBottomLine, as lately it’s touching on many egalitarian/complementarian issues. His most recent post, Who’s the Boss, hits on one my earlier (badly) attempted questions. I thought I would repost it here, with the particular re-asking-of-the-question in bold:
As I tried to show in my last post, this whole thing of who’s the boss?
became an issue between male and female only after the fall and the entrance of
sin. It was never a problem originally because there was only one boss. God
Himself. Then that fiasco that culminated in Genesis 3:16 which is the
description of what resulted between human and divine relationships. Down deep
every fallen individual wants to be in charge of their own life. So the process
of redemption began in time and on earth. [It had already had it's beginnings in
eternity. Redemption is no after-thought with God.]But, interestingly, God is now working with fallen humanity which
eventually sets up a culture or society that is also fallen. It is within that
context that God works to bring about His plan to restore relationships to their
original plan and purpose.God accommodates Himself to the culture produced and, in many ways, even
inspires His word [through men and centuries of time] using the words and the
meaning of words that are within that fallen culture. His revelation progresses
to the final word He gives in Christ Himself of course. [Hebrews 1:1] He defines
the full picture of redemption and gives conclusive meaning to all the Father’s
plan and purposes that are to be re-established through Grace. ["This is my
beloved Son..hear ye Him."]This is illustrated well in the account of Israel’s desire for a King. They
wanted one. They got one. Saul. You remember that, I’m sure. Later God gave a
better one..David..and the beat went on. Now remember, God’s plan and purpose
was always for Him to be their only Sovereign. But fallen culture/society [a
collection of the life strategies of fallen people] produced something other.
Even in a chosen nation like Israel. God worked within a Covenant relationship
with her, for sure, but He had to shape, protect, and even condemn some ‘bent
out of shape’ relationships with her along the way . But that’s where God
worked. Within that structure.Priests? The same situation. A High Priest was needed to bring about
redemption because of having to work with fallen humanity. Originally, God was
Sovereign, Lord, King, High Priest, Ruler, you name it..He was it to His human
creation. And, ultimately, Jesus would/will be seen as Lord, King, Master, High
Priest. You name it, He is it. The human king is not. The husband is not. The
pastor is not. [The father is NOT the Prophet, Priest or King of the New
Covenant home Jesus is].In the New Covenant, Grace restores those relationships to their original
intention and, eternity, at His return, will only bring it all home. This must
not be missed if we are to understand the New Testament.That brings me to the illustration of all I’ve said that will help us the
most, I think. It is the understanding of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 against
the backdrop I’ve just given. It is there [because we unfortunately try to make
a hierarchical interpretation of those passages fit with God's purpose in
creation when it doesn't at all] that major confusion is set up in New Covenant
relationships if we’re not extremely careful.We must remember that in scripture no one is commanded to “subject” anyone
under them. Originally that was not intended and would violate God’s plan. [This
is why slavery is so abhorrent. It violates God's original plan and purpose for
humanity although He worked within a fallen culture where it, unfortunately, was
the norm often times. The same can be said of gender slavery.] It is certainly
true that in the New Covenant kind of relationship we have in Christ, [a new
culture/society] because of Grace, that forced subjection certainly isn’t
allowed. That would obviously violate the forbidding of such as commanded in
Mark 10:42-44 and other places.Well then what is it the passages in question [Ephesians 5 and Colossians
3] are saying? That is what we turn to now.In Ephesians 5 and similar places
where there is to a “subjecting” [serving--hupotasso] it is in the middle voice
[Greek] which means to choose to serve. [In English we have the active and
passive but the Greek is more intricate than that.]For the Church or Body of Christ, it is never by fiat or because of a
demand by someone who is the ruler of someone else. There is but one Lord for
all believers.In fact, this whole section of Eph. 5 is not speaking about
authority or rule at all or even “who’s the boss.” It is addressing a serving
[subjecting] that is chosen from within the person doing the serving. In
Ephesians 5:21 it is everyone choosing to serve each other. This refers to male
and female, pastor and people, parents and children, anyone who is in Grace.
Remember this is the New Covenant. [The new culture in Christ.]In verse 22 the word “submit” isn’t even there. Verse 22 is connected to
verse 21 [there were no verse/chapter divisions originally, as you know I'm
sure] where it is used for all Christians toward each other as we’ve said.It is
only then that verse 22 describes the wife’s serving of her husband, with verses
25-31 describing the husband’s serving of his wife as Christ does the Church,
and all this is an outgrowth of all being filled with the Spirit. [verse 18] It
is this change of heart that comes because of Grace [remember that horrible
thing of Genesis 3:16 where everyone wanted to be the 'boss'] that is being
described and it continues to be described in chapter 6 of children to parents
[a different word is used here] and slaves to their masters.They were to choose to serve in a different way. From the heart as to the
Lord. The masters were to do likewise to the slaves.Of course there were those
in charge as the parents were of the children [that's why the different word]
and masters were of their slaves.But, notice, there is a lesser inherent condition where one is in charge of
another because of some unique lacking such as the maturity of children or the
non-freedom of the slaves. If men are to be in charge of women in the
family, what is it that is lacking in the female that makes male authority inherently needed?There is none.
And in Ephesians 5 or Colossians 3 [or Genesis 1 and 2 for that matter]
there is none indicated. It took the fall for the problem of lording it over to
arise as reflected in fallen cultures. No ruling or authority meant here at all.
It is serving that is at issue here. Not “authority.”The problem seems to stem from the meaning of the word “head” in this
passage. It isn’t speaking of “rule” or “authority.” It is speaking of
origination or source. If ruling or authority had been intended, the word
[remember His revelation was given in that Greco/Roman culture not ours] “arche”
[archon-Rom 13:3] meaning leader or ruler would have been used. Or even the word
“exousea.” [Rom 13:1-2] meaning “authority” would have said it. But the word is,
indeed, “kephale.” It meant to them the origination or source. [As God is to
Christ and Christ is to the Church and the man is to the woman.]In fact, it’s interesting to me the scriptures never declare the man to be
the “head” of the family but the wife only. Both husband and wife are the source
[head in the Greek way of thinking] of that family of the New Covenant. But had
the “authority” or “rule” of Christ of the Church or the husband of the wife
been intended other language would have been used. As, for example, in
scripture, [because of their culture understanding it this way] to “rule,” the
feet are used metaphorically. “To be put under [some one's] feet.” What did
“head” mean to them? As I said…origination or source.A side note of interest. In Colossians 2:10 we are told [told to all
christians] “In Him you have been made complete and He is the head over all rule
and authority.” In verse 15 it is pointed out He, by His Cross work, has
“disarmed all rulers and authorities.” So…we are to not allow ourselves to be
judged [a standard set and deemed violated by another] concerning food, drink,
new moons sabbaths or such because, as verse 19 says, all of us are connected to
the Head. [Christ] It is not saying He’s the authority over all authorities or
rulers. [Though He certainly is.] It’s saying He is the source of all
Authorities that exist. Now He has disarmed all and is the only source [head] of
life, nourishment, [rule and authority too for that matter reversing that
Genesis 3:16 mess] for all His people in the New Covenant established on Grace
in Christ.It is true that redeemed Christians are living in a fallen culture with
established “rulers” authorities” and will until He returns and are to obey
[serve] them. But it is inside out. It is a heart issue for us. Were we to
operate the Church or family that way, [with rulers or authorities by virtue of
position] we would be bringing our fallen culture into the meaning of scripture
and not be letting scripture alone be our guide. You can see, I’m sure, that I
do not believe the scriptures support a patriarchial approach to the family at
all. You have to bring fallen culture in as a foundation for that kind of view.
The sufficiency of the scripture is where I believe we ought to stand. Where
Christ is our Head AND Lord. [BossThat brings me to say this in
conclusion. The cultural context in which the scriptures were inspired used
language with their meaning not ours.I've said this ad-nauseam. To us, "head" means "boss" or "leader" or "one
in charge." Not to them. It meant origination or source. It is trying to
interpret the text with our cultural connotations rather than the original
connotation of their language that gets us into hot water with the intended
meaning of scripture, it seems to me.[A final aside. I've read where someone said, though I can't remember who
or where at the moment, that Aristotle believed the head was the source of male
sperm and it traveled down the spine to the genitals. Plato believed the head
was the seat of the soul which was, in his mind, a seed itself. He often used
'Kephale' to refer to the beginning of a story. Athena is said to have come from
her father's [Zeus] head. No wonder Paul would use ‘head’ the way he did. It had
the meaning of “source” to them and that WAS the truth God was speaking. Culture
does impact scripture but let’s be sure we know how, why, and which one is doing
the impacting.]
This post comes from The VTMbottomline Blog, and is reposted with permission from the author, Paul Burleson. I’m looking forward to the discussion in the comments box.
Thanks for posting that, Molly! It’s food for thought.
For a long time I’ve been pondering the meaning of headship and submission because, whenever I read the verses, I don’t see any command to “rule” or “lead”, just to love as Christ loved the church.
Very often I’m frustrated by the exhaustive studies of the “loving leadership” endorsed by Complementarians, because it seems like they read “lead your wife as Christ leads the church, and be prepared to love her as he did, should that be necessary”.
Does laying down one’s life not mean submission? Is it possible to understand that Jesus wants both spouses to learn selflessness in marriage? Isn’t in possible to understand that marriage is one more way that God has to shape us?
We are all called to be Christlike, but not in his authority, in his sacrifice. Therefore, submission-love is basically submission-submission.
I believe it’s in our mind that we connect submission-authority.
It has also bothered me to hear expressions like
-the husband is the head of the home.
- a husband should be prepared to step forward if anyone threatens his wife (lay his life down)
- a father is the priest of his home
Great thoughts on what influences what.
I totally agree that we read God’s word from our fallen perspective, but if we read it “in the Spirit”, how should it read? Should anyone be finding “rights” in the Bible that any other human being owes them?
I recently read ‘Speaking My Mind’ by Tony Campolo who writes in the chapter ‘Is Evangelicalism Sexist?’ under the subheading: ‘The S Word: Submission’.
He first discusses Eph 5:22-25 and then Phil 2:5-8 (where he says ‘doulos’ which is translated ‘servant’ would be better translated ‘slave’).
He then writes:
——
You can imagine that in the ideal Christian marriage, the wife might say to her husband, “Honey, my dreams and aspirations are not as important as you actualizing your dreams and aspirations. I am willing to sacrifice all that I am, and all that I have, to help you to become all God wants you to be.”
Then imagine him responding by saying, “Oh, no! It’s the other way around. I’m ready to sacrifice all that I am and have to help you to become all that God wants you to be. I want to give myself to helping you live out the dreams and aspirations God has made part of your calling.”
And then she says, “Oh, no! It’s the other way around,” and they have their first fight. It is the only kind of fight that Christians are allowed to have with each other, according to the Scripture that tells us to outdo one another in love, “but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil 2:3)
Needless to say, this interpretation of what Paul is saying in Ephesians 5 dioes not fly well in many evangelical circles, and especially among those who want to use the Bible to legitimate the oppression of women and make them secondary to men in the hierarchy of the family.
—–
I find myself cheering Campolo here because I have always been uncomfortable with the ‘who gets to rule’ argument and believe that it should be more like ‘who gets to serve the most’ argument amongst Christians who are commanded to love one another and to be humble with a servant attitude.
The only scripture that I have grappled with in light of this exegesis is 1 Peter 3, which in the NLT is translated: ‘In the same way, you wives must accept the authority of your husbands…This is how the holy women of old made themselves beautiful. They trusted God and accepted the authority of their husbands. For instance, Sarah obeyed her husband, Abraham, and called him her master. You are her daughters when you do what is right without fear of what your husbands might do. (1Pet 3:1a; 5,6)
I think that the next verse, again from the NLT, is very rarely commented on in the ‘who’s boss?’ discussions: ‘In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered’.
How do other commentators understand this passage of scripture in light of the current discussion?
I recently read ‘Speaking My Mind’ by Tony Campolo who writes in the chapter ‘Is Evangelicalism Sexist?’ under the subheading: ‘The S Word: Submission’.
He first discusses Eph 5:22-25 and then Phil 2:5-8 (where he says ‘doulos’ which is translated ‘servant’ would be better translated ‘slave’).
He then writes:
——
You can imagine that in the ideal Christian marriage, the wife might say to her husband, “Honey, my dreams and aspirations are not as important as you actualizing your dreams and aspirations. I am willing to sacrifice all that I am, and all that I have, to help you to become all God wants you to be.”
Then imagine him responding by saying, “Oh, no! It’s the other way around. I’m ready to sacrifice all that I am and have to help you to become all that God wants you to be. I want to give myself to helping you live out the dreams and aspirations God has made part of your calling.”
And then she says, “Oh, no! It’s the other way around,” and they have their first fight. It is the only kind of fight that Christians are allowed to have with each other, according to the Scripture that tells us to outdo one another in love, “but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil 2:3)
Needless to say, this interpretation of what Paul is saying in Ephesians 5 dioes not fly well in many evangelical circles, and especially among those who want to use the Bible to legitimate the oppression of women and make them secondary to men in the hierarchy of the family.
—–
I find myself cheering Campolo here because I have always been uncomfortable with the ‘who gets to rule’ argument and believe that it should be more like ‘who gets to serve the most’ argument amongst Christians who are commanded to love one another and to be humble with a servant attitude.
The only scripture that I have grappled with in light of this exegesis is 1 Peter 3, which in the NLT is translated: ‘In the same way, you wives must accept the authority of your husbands…This is how the holy women of old made themselves beautiful. They trusted God and accepted the authority of their husbands. For instance, Sarah obeyed her husband, Abraham, and called him her master. You are her daughters when you do what is right without fear of what your husbands might do. (1Pet 3:1a; 5,6)
I think that the next verse, again from the NLT, is very rarely commented on in the ‘who’s boss?’ discussions: ‘In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered’.
How do other commentators understand this passage of scripture in light of the current discussion?
linnet, I understand 1 Peter 3 in light of the culture, which commanded husbands, by law, to rule over their wives.
So in the same way that masters and slaves are instructed to be in a slavery relationship (yet slavery is not a pre-Fall ideal), patriarchy was continued, though admitting its existance in the culture is not the same thing as saying it is God’s ideal.
In reading through the history of NT times (through a multitide of sources), it was as if all the pieces came together (in regards to the “women passages). For example, in 1 Peter, we have Peter speaking to women who are with “husbands who do not obey the word.” What recourse do they have in their culture? They cannot talk to him about it, because a good wife is silent. That culture taught men to *not* talk with their wives—-a talking wife was shameful!
Not to mention that most wives were uneducated, and that men were raised to think of women as inferior, as ignorant—-they were uneducated because they were deemed unworthy to be educated, in otherwords. So is the wife going to be able to have an intellectual discussion with her husband about his behaviour and choices? No, and even if she could, he is predisposed to not be able to hear her.
When I learned those things, it was like 1 Peter 3 became a beautiful masterpiece. We are told in the NT to become “all things to all men, that we might win some.” That is what Love does. So Peter is telling women to be what their culture tells them they have to be, and do a GREAT job of it (that silent, obedient woman), so that maybe they might win their husbands to the faith.
1 Peter 3:8 gives instructions to husbands who ARE obeying the word, and I love what it says: that husbands and wives are equal before God, that if a husband is mistreated a wife (who is weaker, and seriously so, in that patriarchal world, therefore easily abused and mistreated), God won’t even hear his prayers!!! WOW.
He also tells husbands to grant their wives HONOR. Honor? Huh? Honor is supposed to go to the men, isn’t it? I mean, didn’t somebody write a book all about how husbands need respect/honor and wives need love? I didn’t know women needed honor too…?
*grins*
That’s my take on 1 Peter 3, the short version. 1 Peter 3 was formerly a *major* prop for patriarchy—-I read there that I was to obey my husband even when he was not “obeying the Word,” and to do so quietly, not responding back, etc, etc…I took it extremely literally. so when my interpretation was rearranged by study, it was really exciting to me.
Ruth,
Great thoughts…thanks for sharing them.
Off I run…
>Ruth, Exactly right–what’s with the one-way submission?
>Linnet, Campolo’s right that doulos is “slave” more than just “servant.”
>Molly, Thanks for Burleson and this “issue between male and female only after the fall and the entrance of
sin”!
Since then, there have been at least 2 brighter times in human history:
1. The time of Jesus: the first theologian was Mary of Bethany (as Carolyn Custis James shows so well); the first evangelist was Stella of Samaria (okay, we don’t know her name really maybe because her history was written by a man); the first apostle was Mary of Magdala (and we all know what the men have said about her; by the way, the men who would have been the first apostles had all, by their own admission, abandoned him and their belief of him–if one sold him out, the others went hiding in a room behind a locked door).
2. The 19th century after Jesus: Suzanne McCarthy points us to Marion Ann Taylor and Heather Weir, who point us to theologians, evangelicals, and ones sent by God who are women our 21 century church is just beginning to remember again.
A very arrogant thing for me or any of the rest of us to do, would be this: to neglect our debt to the women of these brighter times; and to assume that God does not want us now, right now, so like them to be light.
Molly,
I’m honored by the post and the link. Thank you.
I’m flying to Huntsville alabama for a week-end of ministry and am unable to join in the dialogue at this time. I will be able to in a couple of days. I want to say a word about 1 Peter 3 at that time but it certainly won’t give more insight than did your comment Molly. Good stuff.
I know many will disagree with my take on some things but it sure is fun to fellowship around the Person of the Lord and, at the same time, say what we are thinking about the scriptures. I’ll hold my understanding of some of these things lightly because there are good people on both sides. That always gives me pause.
But I am compelled to study and share what I’m learning along the journey. I appreciate your putting it out there in this forum.
Marilyn,
Now, this post (and Suzanne in comments on an earlier thread) argue that the person being referred to clearly is an authority figure, but it’s not the person’s authority that the word kephale references. If there is no authority connotation, then why are only authority figures considered to be “sources”?
To be completely clear, I have not seen citations of kephale in which it is used to clearly indicate authority over.
Let’s take the one example that Grudem chose as his preference to list first in Philo.
It refers to a king. The word kephale illustrates that he is the most illustrious of his lineage, of the kings who rule before and after him. This person, Philadelphus, is a king, but the word kephale does not indicate authority over.
However, when I investigated Philo further, I found that he used the word kephale for the one who would be a model worth imitating. This was a virtuous man. There was no mention of this virtuous man having authority over anyone at all.
So, ultimately, Philo, our best resource, uses kephale for the most illustrious or virtuous person without reference to governing authority. It just happened that the example Grudem chose mentioned a king. Grudem does not acknowledge that the other passage exists.
There does not seem to be any way to use this meaning of kephale in the scripture passages. Is the husband the model of virtue for the wife? This must be an earned virtue. So no, I don’t think so.
I have found exactly one citation in ancient literature contemporary with the NT where kephale is the “head” of the household. However, this refers to the person who leads the household. We know that as a fact, households can be headed up by women. This is simply fact in law today. I don’t think that there is anywhere in scripture that says that a woman cannot head up a household. Lydia, Nympha, and Chloe certainly did just that. There is a a word for head of the house and it is used for a woman in 1 Tim. 5:14, check the Greek.
So I believe that the scriptures cannot mean that only a man can head up a household.
There are two or three places where the meaning source is evident. I could comment on them some other time. It is a possible interpretation.
The vast number of times that kephale is used, the metaphorical meaning is derived from the context.
The question for me is this –
What relation does Christ have to man, that God does not have to man?
The answer can only be similarity not rulership. God is ruler over man, but God does not share a common nature with man. Only Christ does that.
So, I think in 1 Cor. 11 it means that God shares his nature with Christ, man with woman and Christ with man.
Then in other passages there is a head and body relationship. This is the metaphor to illustrate the unity of the church. We are one body in Christ. So there is a unity. But the man is not the thinking and speaking part of the woman.
God is not the thinking and speaking part of Christ. Christ is the logos of God, the expression of God. Therefore, God is not the expression of Christ. So man cannot be the expression of woman, and woman the silence of man.
In fact, each time we come to a passage, we must ask what God is trying to teach us about our nature as humans, about unity, mutual submission and nourishment.
Examples of Philo are here.
Molly,
thank you for that great explanation for 1 Peter 3.
It makes a lot of sense!
Marilyn, it sounds like you and I are in a similar position. We keep seeing the obvious (what the Bible says), but aren’t happy with the way it’s being defined.
I’m enjoying these discussions!
I may be completely off topic and very mistaken, but could it be that headship also implies, in some aspect, the one who initiates a relationship?
Christ left heaven, came to earth and paid the price for his bride.
Men are instructed to leave father and mother, cleave to wife and become one flesh with her.
It has made me think that there are no parallel instructions for wives. Could this be just one more sign of patriarchalism? In a patriarchal culture, where women were under their fathers’ authority and then their husbands’, there would be no need to instruct a wife to leave her parents and cleave to her husband.
But this instruction was first given in the garden, before the fall, which has lead me to believe it can’t be one more sign of partriarchalism.
I don’t know if I’ve explained this well….
I’ve also noticed that the instruction leaves out who is supposed to be the boss.
“But, in what sense is a husband the source of his wife? (My comp answer would be that if the word does means source, then certainly the head is the source of the instructions that flow to the body.)”
In 1 Corin 11, we see man as the source for women in creation. Christ as the source for the church. The we see the parallel taught that all men come from woman in childbirth.
Just some thoughts.
” If there is no authority connotation, then why are only authority figures considered to be “sources”?”
Culture tells us that men are automatically authority figures. Why do we assume it? Culture for 6,000 years has IMPLEMTED Gen 3 as a command instead of a consequence of sin to be avoided. Men did not avoid easier ways to toil in farming. But we know up until about 400 years ago a woman could be executed who sought pain killers for childbirth. That is culture interpreting scripture which is exactly what Grumden is doing.
So why do we assume this male only authority was intended by God? God worked within the culture all through the OT. He even had special laws for slaves. He did not have a law against polygamy. Does that mean both are ok? No, He worked within that sin culture, even after wiping them out in the flood, to show His Glory.
I get very nervous when we start equating men on the same footing as Christ or God in authority. This teaching is making it’s way into mainstream Christianity by the doctrine of the eternal subordination of Jesus Christ within the Trinity. They are promoting this doctrine to PROVE earthly authorities are inherent in creation because they are inherent in the Trinity. (They are not just talking about the Incarnate Jesus but the eternal Jesus as subordinate as if the Trinity does not have a united will as one Godhead)
Grumden is one of the big proponets of this doctrine.
It is very scary stuff. Beware. Anything that does not exhalt Jesus or lessens Him is very dangerous.
In a patriarchal culture, where women were under their fathers’ authority and then their husbands’, there would be no need to instruct a wife to leave her parents and cleave to her husband.
Ironic, huh, since Adam did not have a mother and father when God said this in Gen 2:24
Look at how it progresses:
23The man said,
“(Y)This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
For this reason?
what reason? They are to be joined as ONE FLESH in union. They belong to no one else but each other. I think we read into it when we try to connect this to Patriarchal culture. No where in Genesis 2 do we find God telling Adam he is in charge of Eve. That is read into it.
Lin,
I hear you. I don’t think it’s patriarchalism either.
Actually, the reason could be that a bridegroom is not complete without his bride. He has to become one with her, and to do be able to do that, he’s going to have to leave the safety of his parental home.
I’ve only given the verses thought because they are clearly addressing the men only. We have taken it to mean “for this reason, a person will leave father and mother and be joined to their spouse….” but I think that’s not right.
There is a a word for head of the house and it is used for a woman in 1 Tim. 5:14, check the Greek.
Wow, how interesting. I looked up the Greek in studylight.org and this is what it said:
oiÎkodespoteÑw: 1. to be master (or head) of a house
2. to rule a household, manage family affairs
To be master! So how can a man say he is head of the house? It’s not scriptural! *smile*
I think that Paul’s comment in 1 cor 11:
11 But among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. 12 For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.
Is almost like him saying, “women don’t lord it over the men because you came from man; men don’t lord it over woman because you came from woman. In the end sex is no issue because you’re equal because you both come from God”. Once we were born of woman but now we are spiritually born of Christ.
Thanks for your thoughts Molly, they do make sense.
At the end of the day it’s not about who’s boss but as Christians it’s about who can serve the other the most. So I submit to my husband not because he has some kind of authority over me, but because I must be in submission and dead to self as Christians ought to be one to another; considering each other as better than themselves. As equal heir of Christ with my husband we try to outdo each other in loving and serving one another – we ought not to argue about it but serve even if our spouse is not serving us…just as Christ did for us. Does this make sense? I’m not saying we already do this! We aren’t perfect, but is this not what all Christians should be aiming for?
Some quick thoughts. Interesting discussion.
There is a a word for head of the house and it is used for a woman in 1 Tim. 5:14, check the Greek.
Wow, how interesting. I looked up the Greek in studylight.org and this is what it said:
oiÎkodespoteÑw: 1. to be master (or head) of a house
2. to rule a household, manage family affairs
To be master! So how can a man say he is head of the house? It’s not scriptural! *smile*
I think that Paul’s comment in 1 cor 11:
11 But among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. 12 For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.
Is almost like him saying, “women don’t lord it over the men because you came from man; men don’t lord it over woman because you came from woman. In the end sex is no issue because you’re equal because you both come from God”. Once we were born of woman but now we are spiritually born of Christ.
Thanks for your thoughts Molly, they do make sense.
At the end of the day it’s not about who’s boss but as Christians it’s about who can serve the other the most. So I submit to my husband not because he has some kind of authority over me, but because I must be in submission and dead to self as Christians ought to be one to another; considering each other as better than themselves. As equal heir of Christ with my husband we try to outdo each other in loving and serving one another – we ought not to argue about it but serve even if our spouse is not serving us…just as Christ did for us. Does this make sense? I’m not saying we already do this! We aren’t perfect, but is this not what all Christians should be aiming for?
Some quick thoughts. Interesting discussion.
Grumden is one of the big proponets of this doctrine.
It is very scary stuff. Beware. Anything that does not exhalt Jesus or lessens Him is very dangerous.
Lin, it is not only complementarians that see eternal subjugation in Scripture.
Craig Keener is one – I wrote a couple of posts on the topic based on Keener.
The first is on John 5:18 in context
The second is on Keener’s take on 1 Corinthians 15:28
John Stackhouse is another.
They are both egalitarians and they both see that subordination appears in Scripture.
They also (and I agree) that the comp/egal debate can (and should) be discussed without the subordination issue.
As Stackhouse wrote, In short, I find this whole line of theological reasoning unhelpful to an investigation of gender. There are lots of good arguments to consider on both sides. But this isn’t one of them.
Again, there are folks on both sides of the comp/egal issue that see eternal subordination and folks on both sides that do not see it.
Exactly, linnet. (At least, in my opinion—*grin*). Leaving “husband rule” did not cause me to throw off the concept of submission. Christians are called to be a gracious and humble people, not putting their own interests first and not using their liberty as a stick to beat others over the head with.
As a married person, I am in a unique position. I get to love my husband—someone that God formed in his mother’s womb, someone that God is deeply in love with—-with God’s love, and I get to do so more than anyone else on this planet ever will.
Love involves respect. (You can’t love someone while disrespecting them, no?).
But Love doesn’t involve being a doormat. God loves *me* deeply, too. I can freely lavish a divine respect and honor upon my husband, *only* when I respect and honor myself. This means I am free to choose to give, and also free to choose to say, “I will not give here: this [whatever it is] hurts me deeply. Please stop.”
No longer do I have to check my gender before I act: is this in accord with Biblical femininity—is that in accord with Biblical masculinity? Now I just follow the non-gendered fruits of the Spirit and the non-gendered Sermon on the Mount. Males and females are called to be humble. Males and females are called to be gentle. Males and females are called to be meek. Males and females are called to be patient…
In this liberty, I find my work cut out for me.
Love demands much more of me than “Biblical Womanhood” ever did. Loving others with God’s love is practically impossible—at least “Biblical Womanhood” gave me a list of do’s and do not’s [don't work outside the home, have as many babies as you can, make your own bread, homeschool, always defer to your husband's will, blah blah blah].
And yet, even though it demands everything of me—far more than any list ever could, Love breaths LIFE into me, something the “Biblical Womanhood” club never did. Love never oppresses me, never tries to squeeze the life out of me, always lifts me up and up and up. It’s addictive.
Lin, since you brought up the eternal subordination debate again, can you please explain in exactly what way Grudem finds the doctrine helpful for the gender issue? Personally, I don’t read Grudem that much and a quote would be helpful.
Hi Ellen,
It is sad that people on both sides see eternal subordination within the Trinity (key word-eternal).
If you can, read Grumden’s lastest book on Evangelical Feminism. For another view, read Giles’ latest book Father and Son.
There are not alot of ready quotes…Grumden gets paid for his words as all authors do. But his theme has always been the same. And his main theme has always been the subordination of women and I believe he is interpreting the Trinity with that view in mind. Giles has carefully and methodically showed most of Grumdens quotes from tradition AND scripture in his latest book to be not only lacking in entirity but reading into scripture what is not there.
There have been other problems with Grumdens scholarship such as this and one reason he had to write this:
John Piper and Wayne Grudem. “An Overview of Central Concerns” in Recovering Biblical Manhood. (Crossway: Wheaton, Ill., 1991)
As a mea culpa for some faulty quotes and research.
This theme of subordination is found in his book concerning ‘ezer’ where he says that even God can be subordinate to us when He helps us. This is in reference to the fact that “ezer” in Gen 2 is also used to describe God in other passages in the NT.
My comment was simply a plea for all of us to be careful about decreasing or lessening the power, work and essence of Jesus Christ in any way. Yes, He was subordinate as the Incarnate Christ but to say that there is an hierarchy eternally within the Godhead is dangerous in its implications and must be thought out prayerfully.
With that, I would rather just agree to disagree, Ellen. And to encourage everyone to read both sides.
Blessings to you.
Lin, can you explain the subjection of Christ to the Father on judgment day per 1 Cor 15:24-28?
When does the subjection end (a Scripture reference please?)
Yes, He was subordinate as the Incarnate Christ but to say that there is an hierarchy eternally within the Godhead is dangerous in its implications and must be thought out prayerfully.
If it is truth, why would it be dangerous?
Have you read “De Trinitate” by Hilary of Poitiers – book 11 in particular?
We know from Scripture that the Son was submissive before the incarnation, during the incarnation and will be subjected in the future. If Scripture does not tell us when the Father will no longer act as the Father and the Son will no longer act as Son, who tells us that doctrine and if it is not in Scripture, why should we base our doctrine in that which is not in Scripture?
Ellen,
I really do not want to get into dueling verses/quotes. I just urge everyone reading to check out both sides of the doctrine of the Trinity and prayerfully seek the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
Blessings to you!
Ellen,
Jesus submitted to His Father’s authority as a human, absolutely, and on that, Scripture speaks very clearly. Philippians 2 speaks of his kenosis (outpoured life). It’s beautiful.
But does that kenosis typify Their relationship at all times? Phil. 2 seems to say that it does not, in so far as it presents the kenosis of Christ as a *unique* and *special* thing (a thing that signifies the depth of the Godhead’s love for us!).
If the operations of FAther and Son were always heirarchal, why does Paul emphasis the particular time when Christ emptied Himself of His equality with God?
My personal thoughts are that that very Scripture in 1 Cor. 15 says that all things will be summed up in God, that God will be the all in all. John 1:1 tells us that Jesus *is* God.
So I don’t find 1 Cor. 15 to be evidence for Jesus being kicked out of God.
I agree that Christ is distinguished from God, just as the Father is distinct, and the Spirit, etc. And yet we have clear Scriptural precedent that All of them *are* God.
So if God is made all in all, and some say that emphatically does not include Christ (because He’s lower on the totem pole), then we’ve got problems with our orthodoxy. Yipes!
I find in Scripture the evidence that the end goal of all this mess is union (through the Cross of Christ). Union in the Godhead, and union between ourselves and God.
We see Jesus as, “the name above all names.” Does He hand over this title because He is a God who is in Subjection? Or does He hand over this title to God because that’s the way God is?
From what I see, that’s how they are. “Love does not seek it’s own.” Verse 28 says that the Father subjected all things to the Son.
The Son could keep things that way. But the Son is equally God, and the Godhead seems to work in union, in cooperation, in fellowship, in oneness.
So the Son turns around and subjects everything and Himself to the Father, and so the circle goes. Jesus does not keep the rule for Himself. He does not seek Himself. God is love, truly.
So, back to the actual question of whether or not the Trinity operates in dominant/subordinate roles, I guess my deeply intellectual answer is: I do not know. But I do lean towards being veeery wary of folks authoritatively teaching that the Trinity is heirarchally organized.
One reason I am wary is that I worry that by assuming it does, we make God into our own image (in that we, humans, tend to operate in heirarchy far more than we do anything resembling unity). God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways are not our ways.
Organizing relationships hierarchally is a very *human* way. After the Fall, we saw it EVERYWHERE. All of a sudden, between Adam and Noah in the geneologies (that I find fascinating), we had someone with slaves—owning his own people, we had a man sitting his wives down and telling them the rules, and so it goes. This is not to say that all hierarchy is fallen, but to say that it is a big marker of human relationships post-fall.
I’d prefer to err on the side of saying Scripture is not crystal clear in this area. It’s not clear on the Trinity as a whole, for that matter: it’s a HUGE COMPLEX FASCINATING topic, one of which the finest theologians barely have a grasp on, because it’s SO outside of human comprehension in the first place. The LAST thing I want to do is to try to map it the Trinity authoritatively)!
Warmly,
Molly
I’d prefer to err on the side of saying Scripture is not crystal clear in this area
That is why I do not like to see the word “heresy” applied (and it has been applied).
Molly, it is continually brought up that those who believe that the submission of Christ is Biblical make Him “less God” – that is simply not true. I would ask where is it being taught that Christ is “less than” God? Who is teaching inequality?
Our minds cannot comprehend all that God is. Yet our human minds want to believe that there must not be a hierarchy within the Trinity because it is humans that cannot understand how a hierarchy between equals is possible.
So I don’t find 1 Cor. 15 to be evidence for Jesus being kicked out of God.
Where is that being taught?
Seriously. Who is teaching that Christ is “kicked out of God?” (smiley or not)
As easy as it is to apple “heresy” to those who teach hierarchy (although heresy is not being taught) – it is just as easy to accuse those who deny the diversity within the Trinity by denying the priority of the Father.
There are two heresies that Hillary of Poitiers denied. Sebellianism and Ariansim.
One denied the diversity of Persons, the other denied the unity of Persons.
Within the Trinity, there is NEITHER a hierarchy without unity NOR a unity without hierarchy. I cannot comprehend all that the Trinity is, but where Scripture tells me that there is order, there is the One generating and the One generated, that there is unity in the diversity and order of the Person, then I will accept that, regardless of whether I can understand it.
I ask a simple question. Show me in Scripture where the diversity of Persons of the Trinity end.
“In verse 22 the word “submit” isn’t even there. Verse 22 is connected to
verse 21 [there were no verse/chapter divisions originally, as you know I'm
sure]”
This is where I think chapter breaks and verse numbers really messed us up in our understanding of the ‘whole’ counsel of scripture. We would never read any personal letter like we do the Epistles.
I read how chapter breaks and verse numbers came to be and it freaked me out. 1st came chapter breaks in the mid 1500’s then a printer, of all people, in Paris (later 1500’s), decided to add verse numbers. (I think his name was Stephanus)
He added them in while riding on horseback from Paris to Lyons! His son wrote later that he just put them in randomly to make it easier to find passages.
While there are advantages to having verse numbers, I really do think the disadvantages outweigh them!
)
I ask a simple question. Show me in Scripture where the diversity of Persons of the Trinity end.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking, Ellen. I’m sorry. Can you clarify?
On the subject of the Trinity at large, btw, while I obviously lean away towards a permanent eternal hierachal organization within the Trinity, I’m not really interested in going to bat for that position (nor am I interested in going to bat for the other side).
The more I study the Trinity, the bigger and more complex it gets. I’m feeling less and less inclined to make any big bold statements about “how it works.”
Warmly,
Molly
I’ll clarify again.
I also stand in awe of the Trinity – and if there is not hierarchy there, then there is not. On the other hand, if there does appear to be Scriptural reference to a hierarchy within the Trinity, it would be most kind if there were fewer references to “kicking Christ out of the Trinity”. And references to heresy and things of that sort.
We see in Scripture that the Father was always the sender and Christ and the Holy Spirit were the sent Ones.
We never see the Father as the One Sent. We don’t see the Father as the One following the direction of the other two persons of the Trinity.
We know that the Son was sent by the Father, telling us that there was obedience in cooperation before the incarnation (in the agreement to being sent.)
We know that the Son was in submission to the Father during the incarnation.
We know that the Son is at the “right hand” of the Father now – a place of equality, yet under the authority of the One at whose right hand He sits.
We know from 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 that Christ will be in subjection to the Father on the last day.
If we are to reject any notion that Christ will be in submission to the Father in eternity, are we simply to believe that because that is more comfortable – easier to accept than hierarchy? Or does Scripture tell us of the end of Christ’s submission?
If Christ is in submission to the Father – past, present, and future – on whose authority do we believe that there is no submission in eternity, if Scripture doesn’t tell us when the submission ends?
If Scripture DOES tell us that it ends, where?
Keener sees hierarchy within the Trinity – and eternally so.
John Stackhouse sees it, saying, So all that the complementarians are incontrovertibly left with is a Trinity that “proves” that hierarchy sometimes can be a good thing and can be present among equals. And we all already knew that. (I bolded that last part because I read here a lot that there can be no hierarchy among equals.)
People on both sides of the comp/egal discussion see hierarchy within the Trinity. Yet yesterday I ref again where you make a comment about “jesus being kicked out of God” – which is NOT what is being taught.
If you want me to fully embrace the doctrine that there is no hierarchy within the Trinity, when I (and Keener and Stackhouse) see it, you need to show me in Scripture where it ends.
The more I study the Trinity, the bigger and more complex it gets. I’m feeling less and less inclined to make any big bold statements about “how it works
Your comment reminded me of this story about Augustine:
He was walking one day by the seashore. He was thinking upon the mysteries of religion, particularly that of the Trinity. He came upon a little boy who had dug a hole in the sand. The little boy was busily occupied running to and from the great ocean emptying water into the hole.
Perplexed, he asked the little boy: “What art thou doing, my child?”
The child looked at him and said, pointing to the vast ocean: “I want to put all that water into this hole”.
Amused the great man smiled patronisingly and said: “Little boy, you have no hope of doing that because the sea is so huge and that hole is so small.”
Before his eyes the child turned into an angel and said to the learned man: “Not more impossible than that thy human mind should understand the mind and ways of God”. The angel vanished, leaving Augustine a humbler and wiser man.
—–
This reminds me again of 1 Cor 13:9-10;12
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
—–
As our Pastor preached today, Jesus never prayed “let them be right” He prayed “let them be one”. It is better to be one than to be ‘right’. For after all, only God is right and we only see a tiny part of the picture here on earth. Makes us rely on Him more. It was a desire for knowledge that got us cast out of the garden in the first place.
Paul taught that love was the better way, there are some things that will never be clear until we are gathered up into Heaven at the end. At the consumation of the marriage between church and Christ.
It’s so cool to discuss and pray about what God means, and sometimes we catch a wee glimpse of the glory, but our tiny minds would never cope with it all. Sometimes we need to step back and say “I really don’t know about that…but isn’t it fun finding out?” It might be part of the reason Jesus says we should be as little children, for little children, they don’t know everything and don’t even try but it’s so much fun finding out about things and making wonderful discoveries about God.
That’s how I see it anyway…and as ever I could be wrong!
The more I study the Trinity, the bigger and more complex it gets. I’m feeling less and less inclined to make any big bold statements about “how it works
Your comment reminded me of this story about Augustine:
He was walking one day by the seashore. He was thinking upon the mysteries of religion, particularly that of the Trinity. He came upon a little boy who had dug a hole in the sand. The little boy was busily occupied running to and from the great ocean emptying water into the hole.
Perplexed, he asked the little boy: “What art thou doing, my child?”
The child looked at him and said, pointing to the vast ocean: “I want to put all that water into this hole”.
Amused the great man smiled patronisingly and said: “Little boy, you have no hope of doing that because the sea is so huge and that hole is so small.”
Before his eyes the child turned into an angel and said to the learned man: “Not more impossible than that thy human mind should understand the mind and ways of God”. The angel vanished, leaving Augustine a humbler and wiser man.
—–
This reminds me again of 1 Cor 13:9-10;12
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
—–
As our Pastor preached today, Jesus never prayed “let them be right” He prayed “let them be one”. It is better to be one than to be ‘right’. For after all, only God is right and we only see a tiny part of the picture here on earth. Makes us rely on Him more. It was a desire for knowledge that got us cast out of the garden in the first place.
Paul taught that love was the better way, there are some things that will never be clear until we are gathered up into Heaven at the end. At the consumation of the marriage between church and Christ.
It’s so cool to discuss and pray about what God means, and sometimes we catch a wee glimpse of the glory, but our tiny minds would never cope with it all. Sometimes we need to step back and say “I really don’t know about that…but isn’t it fun finding out?” It might be part of the reason Jesus says we should be as little children, for little children, they don’t know everything and don’t even try but it’s so much fun finding out about things and making wonderful discoveries about God.
That’s how I see it anyway…and as ever I could be wrong!
linnet’s nest,
That was a cool story. I’m on the same page.
Ellen,
It doesn’t really matter who sees it and who doesn’t, because there are good solid names on both sides of the spectrum. Has my quoting of the Athanasian Creed’s strong rejection of hierarchy changed your mind on the way you see the Trinity, for example? Sure, who “sees it” vs. “who doesn’t” is interesting, but still doesn’t help us find out what is actually true.
I cannot prove how the Trinity works, anymore than I can prove egalitarianism is God’s way (any more than you can prove complementarianism is God’s way, anymore than a Calvinist can prove her theology is God’s way, anymore than an Armenianist can prove his theology is God’s way, anymore than a Catholic can prove his theology is God’s way…). It may feel like “proof” to us, but the other person may see it from a completely different angle. I know a lot of good hearts and minds on every side. Name-dropping only serves to help us draw lines and fortify our defenses. It rarely does anything to actually further the argument or better eachother’s understanding.
So much depends on what paradigm we bring to the table, because that heavily affects how we interpret the Scriptures. It doesn’t matter what Scriptures I give you: I cannot “prove” to you something that you are (seemingly) completely closed to considering.
I would say the same for myself, except that I am *guessing* from my interactions with you that you are closed, whereas I know for a fact that I am.
Fact: I am currently closed to the idea that patriarchy is God’s way (after having embraced it wholeheartedly, studied it and taught it to others for 8 years). I am currently closed to it being God’s ideal, in the same way that I am currently closed to human slavery being something that is God’s ideal. I’m not saying that I’m right or wrong for being closed—-I’m just stating a fact regarding where I’m at, at present.
I will point out that in both cases (slavery and patriarchy), my “closed-off-ness” comes from a thorough and lengthy digging around in the whole of Scripture, NOT just because one day I decided I didn’t like those things anymore. But regardless, if I am to be fair, I have to say that I am completely closed to considering complementarian/patriarchal theology as God’s ideal.
Because you seem to be the same way, except for coming to opposite conclusions, I am 100% not interested in engaging in trying to “prove” anything to you.
In the same way, it would be a waste of your time trying to “prove” anything to me. 
That said, please DO enjoy stating your case and the areas you disagree with the post, giving your reasons and dropping names, etc. Just because I don’t feel like debating doesn’t mean your side can’t be adequately represented. Have at it, woman!
Warmly,
Molly
Btw, in regards to me wondering about the hierachal Trinity camp saying that “God is all in all” proves that Jesus is in a lower hierarchal position (from which I say it appears Jesus gets kicked out of “God,)” I think it is the dangerous highwire that hierarchal Trinitarian thought dances on.
For example, in discussing that subject with the Evangelical Theological Society, Denny Burk of CBMW says,
“The form of God is something that Jesus possesses by virtue of His deity while the equality with God is not.”
This is exactly why the Athanasian Creed drew a line in the sand when it came to making some members of the Trinity be above or beneath other members of the Trinity in a hierarchal line.
HT to Cindy Kunsman, this post in particular:
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/04/drawing-lines-in-sand-regarding-trinity.html (where you can hear Denny clearly say the above).
Molly,
I’ve returned from Huntsville and have enjoyed reading all the wonderful comments.
I had a thought about the Trinity thing. Rather than seeing a hierarchial system where one [in the Trinity] is above all, I do see an equality bowing to the way/will of each along the journey. [An admitted anthropomorhic way of stating it]
For example, when Jesus is said to have received ‘all authority’ it was, you remember, His prayer that He would have a restoration of the ‘glory’ He had before and that was what had been set aside in His humiliaion. He requested it of the Father BECAUSE Jesus did ALL He did during those thirty-three years as MAN submitted to the Father. A restored glory was His after accomplishing His work as our obedient last Adam/Second Man. Included in that glory was the use of His previous ‘all authority.’
But He did say to Peter He could call for legions of angels and the whole thing would stop. [Thus excercising His previous Divine authority] Jesus was either speaking in hyperbole or telling the truth. You know which I believe it was.
This would have been a glimpse of the Father bowing to the way of Jesus had He chosen it. He did not and aren’t we glad. He chose to serve out the full plan of redemption.
You recall when Satan tempted Jesus in Luke 4 he said “command this stone that it be made bread.” [Jesus WAS hungry after that forty day fast.] I couldn’t have done that at all. He could have. That was a temptation to use His Divine authority. But Jesus responded “It is written MAN shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.” [Speaking of Himself at that moment being man submitted to the will of the Father.] This all reminds us that the submission of Jesus to the Father was in a different fashion as man than it was as Divine Son.
Molly, as you have well said, the Trinity is a mystery that cannot be fully understood. But to assign to that reality an hierarchial system that lacks total freedom and equality while yet choosing to personally serve [which is what biblical submission is for all believers] is untenable for me.
I’m jotting down in my ‘thinking out loud’ style and it may not make sense, but it sure is fun. Thanks for the forum.