What are the three most convincing passages in Scripture that have helped to form your current position (of Complementarian, Egalitarian, or somewhere in the middle). Please feel free to explain/expound.
Comment guidelines
-
Recent Comments
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Blogroll (construction zone)
Bookshelf (construction zone)
Meta
Mark 16:9,10,11
John 4:1-42
Genesis 1, 2
(If not these, then Ruth and Esther and Matthew 1).
It’s the persons in Scripture, both God and those he made in his image male and female, who are the convincing ones. That they can and do speak convincingly in spite of their societies’ constructs of gender is just amazing.
Eph 5, 1 Cor 11, and Gen 1-3 seem to be pivotal.
I’m on the fence, sitting somewhere in the middle, struggling to figure out how Paul uses ‘kephale’ and why it is grounds for submission.
Okay, here goes that crazy quaker chick again. . .briefly, I confess, all the talk about “kephale” and latin, greek, etc. leave me, well, sometimes pretty confused. And, clearly, as evidenced here among us, words, even directly spoken, can be easily misconstrued. I’m more of an action gal. So, knowing I follow Christ (and therefore, the teachings of all who follow need align with Him), I go to the Gospels.
Luke 10:38-42 Martha has a beef with Mary because Mary is not keeping to her “place” in society. (I wonder if Jesus allowed Martha to speak at His feet, or did He require her to remain silent?) Jesus shuts this one down pretty quick.
Matthew 22:23-33 This gal marries a string of brothers and the menfolk want to know whose “property” she’ll be in heaven. Likewise, pretty handily shut down by Christ. (also, take note to the reference about heaven. . .lends me to believe that we’re not supposed to wait for heaven to live in the non-property state described. “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”)
And of course, John 8:1-11 That isn’t just about sexual immorality. And what about that annointing at Bethany?
It seems awful coincidental that Christ keeps butting up against societal norms for how women are treated. Jesus railed against “the law.” Remember, His rants are not against the Romans–He’s talking about Judaic Law–you know, the equivalent to the structures we raise up in the Church today.
I’m also a Walt Kelley fan (not known as a Bible scholar, to my knowledge) and Pogo said this in one of his comic strips, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” ‘:P
Matt. 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matt. 22:40
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Gal 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
James 2:8
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
1. The whole scope of scripture
What really did it for me was studying the Hebrew for ‘desire’… when the consequences for the fall were being outlined. This word “teshuga” can be traced back to early writings as ‘turning away’ and not desire or lust as it was translated later by some monk. it means ‘a turning away from God and to your husband’. We see this happen right away. God did not expel Eve from the Garden but she followed her husband out. We ASSUME God did not mention her because she is not important or because God declared her subordinate to man.
Of course, we can see the consequences of her turning away from God to her husband all throughout history. Ironically, it has hurt men just as much.
This word “teshuga” can be traced back to early writings as ‘turning away’ and not desire or lust as it was translated later by some monk.
That would be Pagnini, 1528.
I am not sure that we know exactly what that word means. However, Jerome translated it to the effect that “and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.” Gen 3:16 D-R So the Vulgate did not teach that woman was subordinate in creation. They felt it was enough that sin had subordinated her.
Romans 16
1 Cor 11
1 Tim 2
Lin,
What a useful note. . .I think there is a lot of truth in the understanding that women have chosen to follow man “out of the garden.” Men get a lot of flack for “thousands of years of domination,” but, we all know life is a two-way street. As I search myself to know God better, my own accountability is key. You have given me a great deal of food for thought. Thanks.
That is such a great point (for those who interpret Gen. 3:16 that way). Both genders are equally culpable—-even though one (the dominator) tends to get more flack, both are missing the mark.
“I am not sure that we know exactly what that word means.”
What about the translation of that verse in the Greek Septugant that many think the Apostles used?
“As I search myself to know God better, my own accountability is key.”
Amen.
Here is a great quote I heard just the other day:
“A woman’s heart should be so hidden in Christ that a man should have to seek Him first to find her.”
I don’t know who said it but it sure is true!
πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου καὶ αὐτός σου κυριεύσει LXX
In paraphrase form-
it says “turning back towards your husband.”
The Vulgate says,
under the power of your husband
The KJV
your desire shall be for your husband
The ESV footnotes,
your desire shall be against your husband
I don’t think it is useful to make theological pronouncements from this verse. I have read some complementarians who say that this verse says that a woman will resist the godly authority of her husband.
Of course, that is without foundation, but one cannot say exactly what it does mean. Most Hebraists accept the KJV.
I am pretty conservative in my approach to the original languages. I usually support the classic majority opinion of the best resources.
What a joy to read this thread!
I consider myself between the “camps” (still) but with a new and life changing understanding of my God given spiritual authority as a woman.
For me, the movement started with a promise which GOD impressed upon my heart as a personal promise of where HE was going to take me:
“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.”
2 Tim. 1:7
…AND two Greek Words I studied were key. I have provided links so as to keep this post short and not bore those of you who don’t care for original language studies (yawn?)
oikodespotes- ONE WORD from the Bible changed my life!
ouros- keeper (of the home, of the garden, GOD has kept me 1 Pet 1:5)
“your desire shall be for your husband”
This sounds like a command. “Shall be”. When it is a declaration of what will happen because of sin.
Can we not see the most plausible interpretation played out in history?
I am not sure that “shall” used in the KJV expressed anything more than the future tense. There is nothing else in the Hebrew, AFAIK.
I think everyone agrees that the history of humankind shows that men and women work hard, and men and women both experience desire. We should not try to rewrite history as if men only work hard and women only desire. We share a common hard life.
Suzanne,
I agree. I don’t see it meaning shall as in should.
What I find very interesting is that God doesn’t turn around to Adam to give him instructions on how to rule. All he does is tell Eve that things are going to become difficult in her relationship with her husband, and that childbirth will be painful. Two very, very important elements of most women’s lives.
The passages that keep me dangling between the complementarian and egalitarian position are:
- 1 Corinthians 11,2-12
- Ephesians 5. 22-33
- Colossians 3,18-19
- Titus 2:1-8
- 1 Peter 3: 1-7
- Galatians 3.26-29
- The way Jesus treated women.
- Mary becoming pregnant without having to consult her father or Joseph (her betrothed)Matthew 1.18-25
- God letting Rebecca know the future of her sons before their birth. Gen.25.22,23
Etc…
Like Sam C, I am struggling with the meaning of Kephale.
Actually, 1 Corinthians 11 is a good passage to study for this, I think, especially verses 11 and 12.
I believe a lot of teaching concerning these passages has supported oppression of women. There are things that complementarians teach that make my blood curl, but the basic doctrine that we were made to complement each other and with a different purpose in mind, I think is right. The problems begin when we start making assumptions and laws based on those assumptions.
JK Gayle, Merryquaker and Sue, good points to ponder.
I don’t disagree that there are fundamental differences between men and women. However, I do not agree that God created the fundamental dyad between two people to be a hierarchy. I don’t think that the ideal relationship between two human beings is a hierarchy.
I have read all the evidence on kephale, and have not benefitted from this so I won’t highly recommend it.
However, I can think of two documents that use kehpale in a clear way.
The first (n Philo, Moses 2:30) is that the kephale is someone who by some integral virtue is held up as an example. However, in this occurrence of the word, it is explicit that the person is not an authority over the other.
For example, Philadelphus, was the kehpale of his group of kings, because of his heroism. But his father was the ancestor of the Ptolmaic line. Why was Philadelphus called the kephale of his father? His father was powerful and was the founder of this family of kings, but apparently Philadelphus was considered more heroic.
In my opinion this meaning, more heroic, does not help us to understand the difference between male and female. For this reason, the person who is kephale, actually has to be more heroic, in actual fact. There is no sense in which the father of Philadelphus can be called the kephale, because he was the founder of that family.
Curiously, in another document, Cyril of Alexandria (died AD 444), De Recte Fide ad Pulch. 2.3, 268. Adam is called the kephale of the human race. There kephale explicitly does mean the “source.” The discussion makes clear that Adam was not the authority, in what sense was he the authority over his descendants? In no way. But he has kinship with other humans. And so man has kinship with woman. When man acknowledges his kinship with woman, then he understands the meaning of the word kephale.
These two documents are very helpful. It is sad to me that there are those who, taking the word kephale out of context, have said that as Philadelphus was “kephale of his people” so is man the ruler of woman.
The text does not say that, and so the rulership of man over woman is built on a falsehood and must be denounced as untrue. I personally no longer regard this teaching as Christian. It is based on false information. I have emailed the full context of these passages to the concerned people and they do not acknowledge the wrongness of teaching that man is the ruler of woman. It is tragic.
Sue,
Thanks for your insight. You’ve obviously studied this in greater depth than I have!
Just looking at the Bible (some people, including my husband, have to see evidence from the Bible and the Bible alone…) I found the verses on headship in 1 Corinthians 11 very helpful. There is NO mention of ruling or leading, but of who comes from whom!
I don’t agree with the teaching that wife is to submit to the authority of her husband because I don’t see the word authority connected to husbands anywhere in the New Testament. Nowhere does God give specific authority to a man to rule or lead his wife and keep her under. That’s a man made law, conveniently supported in some misinterpretation of Scripture.
Last night I read John MacArthur’s first sermon to husbands (CBMW, preachings) and my stomach was churning by the time I finally arrived at the point where he starts telling husbands what love their wives means.
a quote from the sermon:
“A clear principle then is given in verse 25, the husbands responsibility is to love his wife. It doesn’t say rule her, he already has that tendency, even a tendency to dominate her, to control her, to command her. The curse does that. He is told here he is to love her. She is submitting to him, he is to express love to her. It is the leadership of care. Yes he is the head of the woman as God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of the man, as 1 Corinthians 11 says. He is over her, she is to call him lord, as we learned in 1 Peter chapter 3. He is the stronger vessel, as Peter says. It is his responsibility to give direction and provision and leadership. But it is in a context of love…always in a context of love.” (end of quote)
Notice, he has to appease the men by telling them they are still the boss, the wife is to call him lord, he is above her….
He points out “she is submitting to you”, as though a woman’s submission is prerequisite for that love. He doesn’t make a point of it, but throughout the preaching he keeps reminding the man of his “headship”.
That word “head” is directed to the wives, as in saying: remember he was made before you, therefore show him respect (or something similar). It’s never directed at the husbands: remember you are the head. In fact, Paul reminds men that all men are born from woman, so if you like it, he pulls them down from their “headship” position a notch or two.
I do believe God wants wives to submit to and respect their husbands and acknowledge their “head” position. But I think that God also makes it clear that a man is supposed to love and lay down his life, submitting to his wife too and show her respect too.
Basically, I don’t see the meaning of leadership or lordship implied in headship.
Thank you, Ruth. That is the way I see it also. The problem is that “to be the head of something” is an expression in English that has the meaning of “head up” or be over something. But it did not have that meaning in Greek. So should we use the term “headship” in English? It depends on what one means by that term.
We are in kinship with men and while we give birth to men, we also owe our origin to men. It would be nice to feel that we were considered of the same nature as man. The enmity between men and women needs to be put down. But not by putting women under men. That is exactly the wrong answer. How sad.
Ruth,
Thank you for sharing that portion of sermon/teaching. Hmmmmm. There is a problem in this man’s words for me. He says, apparently, that women are to call their husbands “lord.” I don’t know exactly how he has arrived at such an odd conclusion, or how he justifies this scripturally. It seems to directly defy what I have read to be the command from the very mouth of Christ.
Let me be more specific. In Matthew 23:2-the end of the chapter, are some VERY HARD words for the religious leaders of that day. In verses 7-10, Jesus specifically tells us that such titles as “lord,” “teacher,” and “father,” are not to be handed out like candy. Verse 10 says specifically, “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”
Christ again sets this example through deeds in John 13:1-20 (the feet washing thing).
I feel very uncomfortable with this teaching of calling a brother “lord” (even as a husband). Not only is it (IMO) a questionable practice for a woman, but, in fact, dishonors the man’s relationship with his own Lord, even Christ. I would not willingly be a cause of stumbling like this, and we do know the seduction of pride in such conditions.
Is it possible that this man meant something else with these words? Does anyone know what scripture on which he bases such assertions?
Merryquaker, I think the teaching that wives are to call their husbands lord is based on 1 Peter 3.6
I don’t think Peter meant that as a rule. To me, he’s taken Sarah as an example of how wives should respect and submit to their husbands and not give way to fear.
What’s that submission supposed to look like? Go figure…
Does anyone know what scripture on which he bases such assertions?
May 20, 2008 6:46 AM
1 Peter 3:5-7
5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.
To me, he’s taken Sarah as an example of how wives should respect and submit to their husbands and not give way to fear.
I have never heard a good explanation for this verse. Clearly if a wife is afraid of her husband she should “give way to fear” and exit stage left. Is there any other option?
What could Peter have been thinking of? Was he trying to comfort women who actually did have just cause for fear?
Sue and Ruth,
I’m sure there is one, but I don’t have an answer to the “fear” question. To muddy those waters even further, doesn’t there appear to be conflict between these two instructions right in the same context?
1 Peter 1:1b-2 they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
AND
1 Peter 1:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
IIRC, in the Greek, they are all words related to PHOBEO as is the word often translated “respect” in Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence(PHOBEO) her husband.
Sue, I have been looking up some words at the Greek Lexicon on the Tufts University website. I am finding this very helpful in finding things overlooked by Strong’s. If you have a chance on your blog, I would be most appreciative if you could clarify the differences between Strong’s and the other lexicons.
eg. I looked up the two words which I posted earlier had such an impact upon me personally and I found the lexicon definitions at Tufts confirmed a very edifying interpretation of those words, while Strong’s definition comes across more muted. From the online greek lexicon resource of Tufts
University: oikodespot-eô and oikodespoteō from 1 Tim 5:14 to be master of a house or head of a family, to rule the household
I believe he was thinking of the unsaved in our immediate lives. His explanation to this whole concept starts here in 1 Peter 2:
9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
11Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. 12Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
Then he goes on to describe how we should be to those pagans in our immediate lives whether master, husband or wife. He is specifically focused on our dealings with unbelievers in our lives. Can you imagine a woman in a patriarchal society flouting her new freedom in Christ in front of an unbelieving husband?
The fact that he uses Sarah as an example of godliness does not negate the fact that God ALSO told Abraham to obey Sarah.
) Funny how some tend to forget that one.
Thank you. . .although, I guess what I’m really asking is “how can you draw calling your husband ‘lord’ from those verses?”
Clearly, the instruction is for women to please GOD with an attitude of disciplined, fearless faith (meek=power under control, quiet spirit=calm). . .the example of Sarah (IMO) is that she was disciplined and fearless even under subjected conditions of her day. . .verse six reiterates the need to be free from panic under sudden calamity–to have an angry husband who (in that day) was fully allowed to beat his wife with impunity for no reason at all. . .that could cause a woman to panic.
Verse one of this chapter sets the environment to which the instructions apply. . .”husbands. . .(who) obey not the word” and the purpose of this self control that those “without the word” may be won by the “conversation of the wives.”
So, once again, how does someone apply this to the BELIEVER’s marriage. . . oh, my, unless Christian men are no different than unbelievers. Context, context, context. . .if it contradicts Christ, we have somehow misinterpreted it. . . .I am at variance with this minister’s teaching.
Sue,
I see what you mean, and I agree. And I believe that a wife whose husband wants her to do things that go against her conscience shouldn’t do them in the name of any sort of submission.
Now you got me wondering why he put in that “with no fear”….
This is coming from an amateur culture-history lover, but I think it’s because Christian women married to non-Christian men were in a position to be VERY AFRAID.
Being a Christian was a crime worthy of death.
As a woman, you were required by law to obey your husband. As a Roman woman, you were required by law to worship the gods your husband worshipped. As a Jewish woman, you were required by the Jewish law of the day to, how to put it, *not* be a Christian.
So these women were in a position where they were in serious trouble for breaking the law, and, Jew or Greek, the penalty was death.
To top it all of, most of them were uneducated AND most of their husbands were taught to think that a good wife was a quiet wife. In other words, an intellectual argument was going to be tough to pull of, because even if a woman was educated enough to pull that off, her husband was conditioned to be deaf to anything she might say. (Think of what the male disciples said when the women came to tell them Christ was alive and you’ll get a feel for what the men were taught to think of the testimony of women).
So her best shot at, 1.) surviving, and 2.) maybe converting her husband, was to be quiet and sweet.
Show him that Christianity made her even better to be around than before and maybe he won’t report you to the authorities for being a Christian. And, heck, he might even become a Christian himself!
That’s what I think Peter was saying. We read it today and see it as an admonition. I think that women read it then and breathed a big sigh of relief. I think it encouraged them and lifted them up.
My 2 Cents.
Strong’s Concordance has the Thayer Greek lexicon which was made for the NT. It is considered outdated. The lexicon on the Tufts site is the use of the word for all ancient Greek lit. It is considered to be the best Greek lexicon available of all kinds.
The newest lexicon for the NT is the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich. BDAG. It is also good, but not available online.
Gem,
I have blogged a bit from the Liddell Scott lexicon today.
There is lots more along that line.
thank you, Suzanne. That was interesting and I agree with you that “brothers” is archaic in English in this day and age, as is the translation “men” when it refers to people of both genders.
I’m afraid that the grasp of Greek as “easy reading” is over my head at the BB blog (and my middle aged mind is stubborn about learning new skills- My children chastise me about depending upon them to program my cell phone). I’ll have to stick with my laborious “one word” word studies, (which I enjoy and from which I learn- and that tufts lexicon online is a great resource for novices like myself
)
Gem,
Sorry – maybe I should parcel things differently. But adelphoi could mean a girl and a boy in one family. It was never, even in the most archaic sense, the equivalent of “brothers.”
Would there ever have been a time in English where we would call Orestes and Electra “brothers.” Or Cleopatra and Ptolemy? Can they be called brothers? No. And yet they were adelphoi.
What really hurts me is that someone recently accused me of feminist presuppositions and someone else who was also in the thread gave assent to this, on this very point, that it is my feminist presuppositions which make me think that Cleopatra and Ptolemy would not be called “brothers” in English.
People label me because they don’t want to learn new things. People just want to believe that because something is traditional or said by enough people, then it is right.
And, yes, I too get my children to program my cellphone.
You parceled things fine. I should have said “brethren”, Sue. Last night I noticed in the ESV a (microscopic) footnote for “brothers” which says “or brothers and sisters” I thought that was ironic in the context-Rev 12:10(boldly leaving just “brothers” in there; excluding women; PERPETRATES what the verse decries: the serpent’s accusation of the sisters!!!)