I want to add to David’s preceding post. I think I’m seeing more clearly what it is that bugs each side (not that there are simply two) in this debate the most.
It bugs complementarians when people connect them with abuse, subordination of women, etc.
It bugs egalitarians when people suggest that they are not “biblical” or are working from a feminist agenda.
I’m sure I’ve over-simplified, but these are themes that I see coming up time and time again on this blog.
I wish that neither side would call themselves the “biblical” position, or at least I wish that each side would say “We believe our position is biblical, but we fully recognize that the other side believes they are more so.” Of course, there are extremes of each position which are unbiblical, in the sense of subjugating, demeaning women, or of dismissing the value of men in women’s lives, etc. But we must be careful not to caricature people when they are truly attempting to be biblical and follow Christ in the lives, marriages, churches, etc.
We can’t resolve differences unless we quit thinking of the other side as unbiblical, when the other side is trying to be faithful to Scripture as they understand it. I know, for a fact, that there are complementarians and egalitarians, both, who do so.
Why don’t we, on this blog, work even harder to stop judging the other side, and try to listen to each other, what each side believes supports their position.
No one has a monopoly on spirituality nor sin.
And it’s not “all relative” either. I’m tired of hearing that, if you disagree with one position then you are accused of believing that “it’s all relative”.
Wayne,
If we’re honest, I think all of us view our position to be the more Biblical view. After all, if we didn’t, we wouldn’t hold the beliefs that we do! So, I admit it. I think the comp position has much more Biblical support than the egal position. However, I also view the comp position that wives are equal heirs of salvation, but subject to their husbands in a way that husbands aren’t subject to wives, to be a Biblical paradox. Like all Biblical paradoxes, it’s so hard to live with both parts of the paradox. Bonnie put it well a few posts ago, when she said that both camps have overcorrected. Too often, comps ignore a wife’s equal worth before God. Too often, egals ignore the gender distinctions that the Bible makes. We need to live with both sides of the paradox.
I joined this list to learn. Related to this, I have two questions about the egal position that haven’t been addressed in the three of four months that I’ve been following the blog. So, here goes:
FIRST QUESTION
I Peter 3:7 and Galations 3:28 make it clear that a Christian husband and Christian wife are equal in the eyes of God with respect to the doctrine of salvation. Both are Christians, saved by grace, through faith. Why do either of these texts support mutual submission in marriage? For example, a Christian employer and a Christian employee are equal heirs of grace, but their positions relative to each other within the context of an employment relationship are very different.
SECOND QUESTION
From my understanding of egal doctrine, egals don’t make gender distinctions in how husbands and wives relate to each other. There is to be mutual submission, mutual love, and mutual respect. (And, yes, husbands and wives both need love and respect.) Yet, Biblical texts on marriage make gender distinctions in how husbands and wives are to relate to each other. Take, for example, Ephesians 5. He is the Head/She is the Body; He Sacrifices/She Submits; He is to love her; She is to respect him. To me, these commands imply that there are to be significant gender differences in how husbands and wives interact with each other. Do you agree? If so, what are those gender differences to look like in real life? I don’t want to know only your definition of Head. I also want to know how your definition impacts your relationship with your wife.
THIRD QUESTION
Egals repeatedly assert that none of the Biblical texts on marriage tell husbands to exercise authority over their wives. I agree. The Bible redeems marriage. A husband’s focus is to be on sacrificing for his wife, not on exercising authority over her. But, that isn’t to say that a husband doesn’t have authority over his wife. More than one text tells wives to submit (i..e., to act in a way that acknowledges that their husbands have authority over them) without a corresponding command that husbands are to submit to their wives. Why aren’t the commands to wives to submit evidence that husbands have authority over wives?
Thanks! These truly are the issues about egal doctrin that I don’t understand!
Marilyn, thanks for your good questions. I sense that you are here as a learner as I am. I sure don’t have answers to all of the paradoxes or difficulties in understanding some of the Bible passages.
You wrote:
Too often, comps ignore a wife’s equal worth before God. Too often, egals ignore the gender distinctions that the Bible makes.
It’s the assumption or belief that the Bible teaches gender distinctions that many egalitarians believe is incorrect, as I understand what they teach. I’ve been studying the Bible all my life. I was raised as a complementarian. But in recent years, as I have had to study the Bible even more carefully, I am now not at all sure that the Bible teaches gender distinctions, other than the obvious ones we all agree on, which are biological. Paul telling women to submit to their husbands could be viewed as part of a gender distinction, except that it immediately follows the command for everyone in the Body of Christ to submit to one another. There is no teaching in the Bible that tells husbands to stop submitting to their wives, as they, as part of the Body of Christ, are commanded to do (Eph. 5). As for why, then, it was necessary for Paul to include a specific command for wives to submit to their husbands, I only have an opinion. And opinions do not create Bible teaching. They are only interpretation. In all of this, it is important that we distinguish between what the Bible actually teaches and how we intepret what it teaches. And that’s not easy.
I joined this list to learn.
Wonderful. I think many of us are here as learners. Some are here to try to convince the other side of the correctness of their own position, and there is nothing wrong with that, per se, as long as we are gracious and non-judgemental about it, something that we struggle with on this blog. All sides struggle with it. But I think the effort is worth it. Not many blogs or forums allow each side to speak fully. Some people may not feel they can speak fully here, but we truly try to make this a place where that can happen.
FIRST QUESTION
I Peter 3:7 and Galations 3:28 make it clear that a Christian husband and Christian wife are equal in the eyes of God with respect to the doctrine of salvation. Both are Christians, saved by grace, through faith.
Correct.
Why do either of these texts support mutual submission in marriage?
They don’t. Different passages of Scripture have different purposes. Some emphasize one important point, some another. You are correct in pointing out that being equal in value does not logically call for mutual submission. Neither does it speak against it, of course. We have to look at other parts of the Bible to see if there is teaching on mutual submission.
For example, a Christian employer and a Christian employee are equal heirs of grace, but their positions relative to each other within the context of an employment relationship are very different.
Well said.
SECOND QUESTION
From my understanding of egal doctrine, egals don’t make gender distinctions in how husbands and wives relate to each other.
I believe that is correct, based on their understanding of what the Bible actually teaches.
There is to be mutual submission, mutual love, and mutual respect. (And, yes, husbands and wives both need love and respect.) Yet, Biblical texts on marriage make gender distinctions in how husbands and wives are to relate to each other.
Again, this last sentence is where the disagreement comes. I guess I should ask you, at this point, if you would mention any Bible passages which “make gender distinctions in how husbands and wives are to relate to each other.” I’m not aware of any, at this point in my study of the Bible, although I was taught that all my life.
Let me illustrate what I am trying to say by telling how our children used to understand what we parents would say to them. My wife and I have four wonderful children. We believe it is important to affirm and compliment our children when they do something well. And we have, and still do. We would say, “Daughter/Son, I really like the way you expressed yourself in that English class essay today.” Whoops! We’d get this response from someone else, “Well, you must not like my essay!” But is that what we said? No, not at all. Saying one thing does not necessarily imply that something else is not true. Telling wives to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22) does not mean that the command to everyone to submit to each other (Eph. 5:21) is no longer in effect for husbands. And telling husbands to sacrificially love their wives (Eph. 5:25) does not imply that wives are not to sacrificially love their husbands. There may be a difference in emphasis in what is explicitly stated and what is not, but we can’t know for sure based on argument from silence. It may have been that Paul felt it was especially necessary to explicitly tell wives to submit to their husbands for some reason. And Paul obviously felt it was important to tell husbands the degree to which they are to love their wives.
Take, for example, Ephesians 5. He is the Head/She is the Body; He Sacrifices/She Submits; He is to love her; She is to respect him.
All correct. But note, again, at least for the last two points that we can’t assume the converse from what is explicitly stated. That is, just because husbands are explicitly told in some passages to love their wives does not mean, using the argument from silence, that wives are not to love their husbands. Similarly the respect command. A command to wives to respect their husbands does not logically imply that husbands are not to respect their wives.
To me, these commands imply that there are to be significant gender differences in how husbands and wives interact with each other.
I understand what you are saying.
Do you agree?
No, not if you are basing your belief on logical implications based on silence, as I have tried to illustrate earlier.
If so, what are those gender differences to look like in real life?
I don’t know if the Bible teaches any gender differences, so I don’t know what they should look like in real life. If, however, you are right, that the explicit commands to husbands and wives reflect divinely intended gender differences, then I would have to think a lot more about what those differences would look like. I suppose, for a start, that a husband would need to keep telling his wife through words and actions she can understand (in her love language) that he loves her, and loves her so much he is willing to sacrifice and even die for her. That is the kind of love I want to have for my wife. (But she also wants that kind of love for me; so, we don’t have a gender difference there.)
And wives need to express their respect for their husbands in ways that the husbands can understand and feel (according to their own respect languages). But, of course, you won’t be surprised to hear me say that I have great respect for my wife. She had administrative gifts that I do not have. However, she never lords it over anyone. She is a humble servant leader. She never “usurps” authority.
I don’t want to know only your definition of Head.
OK; or was that a typo, that you *do* want to know my definition of head. If you don’t, please don’t read the rest of this paragraph (grin), and if you do, keep going. The Bible itself only defines head in terms of who or what a head relates to and how a head relates to that thing or person. The Bible never tells us that a biblical “head” has authority or is a leader. It does tell us that a biblical head has unity with its body. It does tell us that husbands, as heads of their wives, are to sacrificially love their wives, as Christ loved the Church. That’s all the Bible explicitly tells us. Now, there may be other truths about biblical heads which they Bible does not explicitly teach us. But I don’t know how to learn such teaching, if it hasn’t been made explicit for us. I’d welcome any ideas from you on this.
I also want to know how your definition impacts your relationship with your wife.
Well, I fall short of living out what I believe. I confess that. But my wife will confirm to you that I try never to make any decision without the two of us discussing it together. Sometimes we go with her idea, sometimes mine, sometimes some combination of the two, and sometimes something different that we both hadn’t thought of before but is better because, well, because we are acting as a head and body unity.
I’m taking a break from work to write this, so I’m sure there are many things I’ve left out.
Please feel free to followup. And where I’ve made mistakes, or even if you think I have, please do point them out.
Marilyn,
You ask good questions, I will give my egal understanding. This is an area that takes study of BOTH sides, IMO.
1a. 1 Pet 3:1-7 are about believing spouses with unbelieving spouses. The “if” in 1 Pet 3:1 is the kind of conditional in Greek that assumes the condition, it is not iffy at all. However, a believer is to marry another believer, so these cases are (supposed to be) the exception.
1b. Gal 3:28 is about being in Christ, this is what it means to be a believer; if someone claims there is something to being a believer that is not covered in Gal 3:28, I do not think I want it as I cannot imagine what it would be. In other words, Gal 3:28 is very broad in its scope (and also very radical in its egalitarianism, no one said anything like it for centuries).
2. Eph 5-6 is a big subject, a key insight is that all the 6 examples (wives, husbands, children, fathers/parents, slaves, masters) are SUBORDINATE clauses to Eph 5:21 and are examples of working out Eph 5:21 mutual submission in 1st century culture. The head/body metaphor is one of unity. There is a lot more but this will do for now.
3. Because the submission is mutual. This is seen more explicitly in Eph 5:21-22. In the Greek Paul refines the verb in Eph 5:21 “submitting to-one-another” and this verb carries down into Eph 5:22. Also, that the “to-one-another” is mutual can be seen from the mini-chiasm in Eph 5:19-21 in the form ABB’A’ where Eph 5:19 pairs up with Eph 5:22, the intended mutuality of the verbs is very clear in this case.
The question that I continue to ask, that seems to be missed…
Why, every time that husbands and wives (specifically) are instructed in how to be good husbands and wives (specifically), they are instructed differently. Since we relate to our spouses differently than we relate to others around us, it makes sense that we are instructed differently, but husbands are never taught in Scripture to specifically submit to specifically their wives.
Ellen wrote:
The question that I continue to ask, that seems to be missed…
Ellen, I haven’t missed it. I agree with you on many points, and most of what you’ve just said here. I do disagree with you when you wrote:
“husbands are never taught in Scripture to specifically submit to specifically their wives.”
Here is why I disagree. I’ll put it in the form of a syllogism:
1. All members of the Body of Christ are taught to submit to one another (Eph. 5:21).
2. Christian husbands and wives are members of the Body of Christ.
3. Therefore the explicit command to husbands (as members of the Body of Christ) is not invalidated by the command to wives to submit to their husbands.
A command to one group does not necessarily mean that the command is not also expected of another group. If Paul believed that husbands should stop submitting to a Christian sister if he married her, and if he felt that was an important point for us to believe, I would think he would have said so. I tried to explain my thinking on these matters of the argument from silence and explicit teachings in my preceding comment. I assume that you read it, but disagree. And that’s OK. It really is OK for us to disagree. There is 99.4% (like Ivory soap!) of the Bible that we agree on.
I also agree with you that commands to husbands and wives need to be obeyed.
So we are in agreement on almost everything. And I assure you, again, that I and many others do read your comments. And I appreciate your insistence on explicit teachings of the Bible. I agree with you on that. That’s why I’ve tried to explain why I believe that the Bible explicitly commands husbands to submit to their wives, as well as wives to submit to their husbands.
I agree with Wayne, and go even further in my response 3 above. The verb in Eph 5:22 is omitted and by the rules of Greek grammar the verb is carried down from Eph 5:21. That verb is a new construction by Paul “submitting to-one-another” (the Bible is allowed to define/refine its own words). So the literal translation is
“The wives (submitting to-one-another) to the own husbands as to the Lord.” or in English “Wives, reciprocally submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”
Again, folks say it far better than I can…the notion of gender distinctions in how we relate to one another (30 odd years later) makes no sense to me.
I simply do not understand what the gender distinctions are.
We relate to one another lovingly and respectfully, deferring to one another, thinking of one another as we make those necessary but ultimately small decisions when apart…and then just generally checking in to see what is needed.
Please know that I’m not trying to be difficult here, but I honestly do not understand the dynamics under discussion.
“I simply do not understand what the gender distinctions are.”
I don’t either besides the obvious biological ones. But the biological differences do not have anything to do with intellect. And, I am not a liberal, nor a feminist nor pro homosexuality.
What is biblical womanhood exactly?
Wayne,
Thank you so much for your direct and thorough answers. Your replies have given me a much, much better understanding of egal doctrine than I had before. As we all know, it takes time to draft posts and respond to comments. I’m VERY appreciative of the gift of your time. Thank you!
I find it legitimate to take a position that silence can be overinterpreted. In the comp world, I see this so frequently in interpretations of Titus 2:5b (i.e., the phrase “workers at home”). Rather than viewing this as a statement about areas in which younger women can particularly benefit from encouragement and instruction by older women, so many comps view it as an exhaustive list of what a woman can and can’t do. For example, this passage is often used to support the argument that women shouldn’t work outside the home. I’ve even heard it used as an argument against older women leading Bible studies comprised solely of other women (i.e., if God wanted older women giving younger women doctrinal instruction, Bible teaching would have been enumerated in Titus 2).
Nonetheless, there are lots of passages in the Bible about marriage. The vast majority of these passages give instructions to one gender without an equivalent set of instruction to the other. I have to admit that I find it very dissatisfying that a central egal assumption appears to be that in forming a doctrine of marriage, just about every passage in the Bible that speaks directly to marriage should be dismissed because we have no way to interpret the passage. (Ephesians 5:21, for example, is not about marriage.) Am I misunderstanding you?
Wayne wrote above: “We can’t resolve differences unless we quit thinking of the other side as unbiblical, when the other side is trying to be faithful to Scripture as they understand it.”
I have a few comments.
1. I believe EVERYONE here is trying their best to understand and follow Scripture. We can only follow it as we understand it and so we all need to act in faith based on our understanding.
2. I believe if both spouses are very mature Christians (not in age but in Christlikeness) then it will not matter much which understanding for marriage is held, egal or non-egal.
3. As Ellen has pointed out, choose Christian maturity in a spouse as much as you can; this will make your life nicer than otherwise.
4. We can each try to explain our understanding of the relevant verses, but it is ultimately up to each individual what they believe.
Wayne,
One more thought. I think that an egal position that makes gender distinctions would be more defensible. For example, consider the following. Consistent with the egal position, both men and women need equal portions of love and respect. But, husbands (wives) find it more difficult to love (respect) their wives (husbands) than vice versa. Consequently, God gives special instructions to husbands and wives because their core sin issues differ. Now, I still don’t agree with the egal interpretation of Ephesians 5:21. But, I would find something along these lines to be a doctrine that does a better job of encompassing the complete Biblical text. However, I think there may be some internal contradictions in what I’ve just proposed. (If the needs are the same, why do the core sin issues differ?) Is there any egal thinking along these lines?
Also, do you really mean to say that the only difference between men and women is that only a woman can give birth to and breast feed a young child?
Marilyn wrote:
I have to admit that I find it very dissatisfying that a central egal assumption appears to be that in forming a doctrine of marriage, just about every passage in the Bible that speaks directly to marriage should be dismissed because we have no way to interpret the passage.
Wow, I would find that dissatisfying as well. Can you give an example of any time when any of these passages have been dismissed? Did you sense in my own writing that I dismissed any of these passages?
(Ephesians 5:21, for example, is not about marriage.)
Hmm, notice that when Paul wrote (or dictated) this letter to Timothy there was no verse division between 21 and 22. Neither is there a verb in verse 22. Verse 22 is simply a continuation of verse 21. The entire section beginning at least with verse 21 is about submission within the Body of Christ. Christ marriage occurs within the context of the Body of Christ. We cannot divorce (appropriate word here, eh?!) these verses from each other. Relationships within marriage are to reflect biblical teaching just as much as non-marital relationships. Yes? How can we separate verse 22 from verse 21, especially since it is all one long sentence?
Am I misunderstanding you?
I don’t know. I’m not sure what you are claiming or suggesting. I’d be happy to make another try here if you’d be willing to clarify a little more. Sometimes I’m slow to catch on.
It bugs egalitarians when people suggest that they are not “biblical” or are working from a feminist agenda.
Wayne, It bugs feminists when it’s assumed that they’re the only ones with an agenda.
Imagine writing such a sentence as yours above in 1848 except saying it this way: “It bugs abolitionists when people suggest they are not ‘biblical’ or are working from a feminist agenda.” Indeed, the abolitionists who fought the misguided notions of ‘biblical’ slavery were the same ones who worked hand in hand with feminists and their agenda. Followers of Jesus who fought against slavery, and followers of Jesus who supported equal legal recognition of women in the U.S., did not put their Bibles away when accused by Christian slave owners of being less than biblical or of working with a common agenda together. But, to be sure, the pro-slavery side did have an agenda. Why disparage feminists? (And some of us even think Jesus was an abolitionist and a feminist. What kind of agenda is that?)
Wayne, the “specifically” is there for a reason.
If Paul meant for husbands to submit to their wives in an identical way that that wives are to submit to their husbands, why do we not see a passages that (specifically says “husbands, submit to your wives as the church submits to Christ”?
Especially when he was writing in a culture where the wives were already submitting and the husbands were not…why did he neglect to tell the husbands to do something that they would not have been doing in their culture, while telling the wives to do something that they were doing?
I remind my son to take out the garbage…”well duh…I do that every week and you don’t have to remind me”. But when he’s out of town, I DO have to ask my daughter, because it’s not something that she normally does. So it would make much more sense to me to see Paul telling the men something “new” – which he does not, when he is specifically addressing husbands, not the entire flock.
Wayne,
Yes, I did hear you dismissing most of the passages in the Bible that explicitly address marriage. I can tell that you found the word “dismiss” to be pejorative. I apologize. Let me try again, because I truly do want to understand the argument. It will be difficult for you to continue our discussion if I’ve given offense.
Let me try to explain how I read what you wrote. You said:
“There may be a difference in emphasis in what is explicitly stated and what is not, but we can’t know for sure based on argument from silence. It may have been that Paul felt it was especially necessary to explicitly tell wives to submit to their husbands for some reason. And Paul obviously felt it was important to tell husbands the degree to which they are to love their wives.”
When I read this, I heard you saying that because we can’t be sure why Paul wrote what he did, we’re going to form a doctrine of marriage that doesn’t reference the vast majority of Scripture on marriage. I see from your reply, that you’re not setting aside these texts. Husbands and wives are to follow those commands. But, you’re arguing that we can’t infer the absence of a command to a husband from the explicit command given to a wife. Am I now accurately stating your position?
If so, I have three concerns. First, gender-specific instructions comprise the majority of the passages in the Bible on marriage. These gender distinctions have to mean something. I’m bothered that egals offer no explanation for the gender-differentiated instructions that Paul gives. Second, I don’t think Paul was silent. If the only instructions in Ephesians 5 were about the role of a wife in marriage, the silence argument would carry weight. But, Paul wasn’t silent with respect to a husband’s role! He gave commands explicitly to husbands, and none of them include submission. Third, doesn’t your argument apply to just about every passage of Scripture? For example, in Ephesians 6, children are instructed to obey their parents, and parents are instructed to not exasperate their children. Is it really feasible to argue that Paul’s silence might imply that parents should also obey their children?
Ellen asked:
If Paul meant for husbands to submit to their wives in an identical way that that wives are to submit to their husbands, why do we not see a passages that (specifically says “husbands, submit to your wives as the church submits to Christ”?
I would guess we don’t because then the analogical head-body patterns would break down. They are head-body, not leader-obeyer.
If I didn’t cover something in your comment, please forgive me. I’m rushing to respond at least a little before I have to sleep. It’s my bed time. We can pick up anything I’ve missed tomorrow when I’m awake (and that takes awhile after I get out of bed!!).
Paul is speaking to the assymetrical relationships that existed in Greek society and were presented in this format in Aristotle. Paul then says that the husband is the kephale. He explains that by this he means that the husband is to sacrifice for the wife, as the wife submits to him. He has more resources at his disposal than she does, so he sacrifices his right over them for his wife, and she is to respect him for this and be grateful.
This is the import of a similar passage in Clement, where the strong give to the weak and the weak render thanks to God. It is important to understand that the strong or the husband does not earn the right to demand obedience by sacrificing.
Did Paul reinforce or negate the hierarchy that was in place in Greek culture? It is actually hard to say. The word kephale is not a normal word for leader as it is in English. Submission is very much an expression of mutuality in the early church. Does Paul explicitly say that the husband is the authority over the wife? No, he doesn’t. The husband and the wife are in different positions vis-a-vis the other. He has the legal and financial power and she does not. Therefore, the steps each must take towards a Christian relationship are different. He sacrifices, but she cannot sacrifice. She has no rights to sacrifice, she already has nothing much in terms of power or resources. So she submits, which is the original mutual command. There is no mention of “lead” and “follow,” or “make decisions” and “obey.” It does not say that.
Marily wrote:
But, husbands (wives) find it more difficult to love (respect) their wives (husbands) than vice versa.
Where does this claim come from, Marilyn. What is support for it?
I can tell that you found the word “dismiss” to be pejorative.
You’re right. I was startled by it after you presented yourself here as a learner. It sounded like a statement from someone who was rather convinced of what she was saying and willing to judge someone else’s statements. That’s what we’re trying to work on here on this blog. And I’m one of the greatest sinners. For so much of my life I have judged others who do not believe as I do. But God has been shaking me and letting me know that has to stop, because it is not his way of kingdom building.
I apologize.
Apology accepted. And I’m sure there are many things I need to apologize for. I’ve got blind spots like everyone else.
I see from your reply, that you’re not setting aside these texts. Husbands and wives are to follow those commands. But, you’re arguing that we can’t infer the absence of a command to a husband from the explicit command given to a wife. Am I now accurately stating your position?
Yes, I’m glad we didn’t stop but clarified. How helpful clarification is for loving, non-judgemental communication among Christians.
I find it legitimate to take a position that silence can be overinterpreted.
Oh, for sure. I wasn’t clear enough that I was referring to passages in which the silence is relevant, not to Scripture in general. We want to maintain the context of passages when understanding parts of those passages. Eph. 5:21 sets up the context for Eph. 5:22. There is really not a “silence” about husbands submitting to their wives. It’s a part of 5:21. That that kind of “literal” (but not real) silence I prefer to talk about. BTW, much of this is new for me and I truly am a learner. My wife and I have been working through the Bible passages for several years as learners. She promised in our wedding vows to “obey” me!! I don’t believe I fit into either a comp. or egal. mold. I feel, like Suzanne Sumner, that each side needs to become more humble and approach the biblical texts with greater study and care that we are not bringing our own assumptions to them.
(If the needs are the same, why do the core sin issues differ?)
Do they? Where does that concept come from? Maybe it’s true, but we need evidence to know whether or not to believe it.
Is there any egal thinking along these lines?
I don’t know. There are many books I want to read, but I’m a slow reader and my job takes a lot of time, so I don’t get a lot of reading done.
Third, doesn’t your argument apply to just about every passage of Scripture? For example, in Ephesians 6, children are instructed to obey their parents, and parents are instructed to not exasperate their children. Is it really feasible to argue that Paul’s silence might imply that parents should also obey their children?
No. And, again, it’s probably my fault as much as anyone’s for not being exhaustive in my responses. It’s not simply silence that argues, but silence in its context. And even there, we need to be very careful about arguing from silence. It often doesn’t work.
In this case, there is absolutely no indication or hint from any of Scripture that parents are to obey children. The closest thing would be the mutual submission of Eph. 5:21, but that is submission, not obedience. The Greek words for these words are different. Wives are never taught in the Bible to obey their husbands, for instance. But children and slaves are taught to do so. If wives are made to think they are to obey their husbands, we need to get back to the Bible and put aside our teachings until they align with the Bible.
There are many other hermeneutical principles, most more important than an argument from contextual silence.
Mutual submission is clear in Eph. 5:21. Everything else we believe must be within that framework which is also supported by many other passages in the Bible which tell us how we are to behave toward one another within the Body of Christ. None of them are gender based. The gender based instructions are extremely few (but not unimportant) compared to the non-gender based teachings of the Bible which are for all Christians, regardless of race, gender, social status, etc. Hmm, sounds a lot like some of Paul’s other teachings which might explain why it was necessary for Paul (and Peter) to remind wives that even though they were spiritual equals, they were still to honor their husbands by submitting to them. And husbands, you’re not off the hook, because you’re still under the command of Eph. 5:21.
Gotta sleep. At least I hope I can after writing all this.
Marilyn,
I would say that one is arguing from silence by suggesting that Paul was giving all Christian husbands and wives a “role.”
Let me try to explain (briefly, which I’m not known for—ha).
The culture of that day had a male-rule structure. Wives obeyed their husbands. Husbands were the bosses. Slaves did what masters said, masters told slaves what to do. Yadda yadda yadda…
I’m not sure that Paul was approving slavery for all time when he told slaves to obey. (Someone would be assuming a lot of they felt that Paul’s words meant that, and they have made those assumptions through history, but it’s NOT in the text).
One way to interpret Eph. 5 is to say that Paul was handing out roles for all Christians for all time. That is one way.
But another way to read Eph. 5, an egal way, would be to say that Paul may have been turning the existing practice of male-rule on it’s head, by telling wives to continue to obey the law, but telling husbands to love their wives as Christ loved His wife: meaning, love her so much you are willing to lose for yourself if it means she gains.
This would have been a radical notion to the cultural ideal of women living *for* husbands. Christ lived *for* the church, not for himself. Likewise, Paul told husbands to do the same.
When Paul tells wives to submit, he’s not doing anything all that different than what’s already happening. But Paul does not say for men to lead their wives, OR to view their wives as a creature to lead. In this way, Paul radically departs from the cultures. Instead, he tells men to do one thing: to love. And not just to love, but to love as Christ loved, which was the kind of love that involved a life of radical sacrifice, a death, and then upon resurrection, a love that pulls Her up with Him and “seated us in heavenly places with Him.”
The letter of Ephesians does a LOT of talking about the way Christ loved us.
So, truly, nothing is being dismissed in Eph. 5. We are trying to consider the passage in the way that the original readers likely would have heard it, and trying to draw meaning based on the context of the letter. These things aren’t the attitude of someone who is dismissive.
Warmly,
Molly
Hmmm…you guys did a lot of talking while I was slowly getting that post typed (in between chatting with my daughter, etc)… Sorry…I was referring to waaay back in the conversation. I see now that there was no need for my comment above.
Suzanne (Sue), thanks for that reminder that Bible passages are written within cultural contexts. It’s something that is often missed when we just read the Bible and don’t consult study Bible notes or something else that helps us understand the background in which biblical statements are made.
And yet this fact should not be taken to the other extreme, the claim that someone is trying to say that the teachings of the Bible are all relative, relative to different cultures, different times, etc. At a minimum, the principles which are being taught in each passage are surely universal. Trying to distinguish between what is largely a local instruction and a more general instruction takes a huge amount of study, humility, discussion among biblical scholars, etc. I’m grateful for the careful work of biblical historians who help us understand the contexts in which statements are made in the Bible.
I wish, oh, how I wish that Paul could come back and tell us how he would phrase some of his teachings within the context of modern societies where women can own property, can work outside the home, can vote (but that has been fairly recent, actually), teach in higher educational institutions, and even hold public offices.
I suspect some of the basic principles would be the same, but I would guess that the specific phrasings would differ because the women have been freed from much of the bondage of the past (such as lack of suffrage, but much suffering!), etc.
Wayne says:
Why don’t we, on this blog, work even harder to stop judging the other side, and try to listen to each other, what each side believes supports their position.
and. . .
That’s what we’re trying to work on here on this blog. And I’m one of the greatest sinners. For so much of my life I have judged others who do not believe as I do. But God has been shaking me and letting me know that has to stop, because it is not his way of kingdom building.
and more . . .
Apology accepted. And I’m sure there are many things I need to apologize for. I’ve got blind spots like everyone else.
and then…
I don’t believe I fit into either a comp. or egal. mold. I feel, like Suzanne Sumner, that each side needs to become more humble and approach the biblical texts with greater study and care that we are not bringing our own assumptions to them.
Wayne, None of us wants to sin, to judge, to troll a blog, to be pigeon-holed into some inflexible position on an extreme “side.” I appreciate your personal statements and your efforts here to understand to and make clear, in love!!
I wish, oh, how I wish that Paul could come back and tell us how he would phrase some of his teachings within the context of modern societies where women can own property, can work outside the home, can vote (but that has been fairly recent, actually), teach in higher educational institutions, and even hold public offices.
This is a key statement. I am not Muslim but was reading with my family (my wife, my son, my daughters) some of the things the Koran says that the Allah through the Prophet says to women and about women. And recently I heard a woman wearing a burqa speak to college students of the “feminism” of Islam. Her claim was that Mohammeds wives but submissive women in the Bible and in the Koran were freer than modern women must be burdened with responsibilities outside the home. This particular woman identifies herself publicly as in the US from a particular middle eastern country where she would not be able to speak publicly in this way. And in this country there is still the silence on purdah, the silence on child marriage, the silence on watta satta, the silence on honor killings, the silence on marriage to Koran. I say “still” because there are feminists in Pakistan (and those such as the now-silenced Benazir Bhutto, who also spoke on campus here), speaking out and working against such loyalty to an inflexible “scripture,” their word from God, which requires ultimate submission.
Please understand I am not trying to draw unfair comparisons. I am not trying to suggest that egalitarians or complementarians or feminists or middle-ground Sumnerians here in the U.S. in Christianity here share the context of the Pakistani Muslims.
What I do want to say is we all here have come a long way towards living as created, male and female, in God’s image together. Hopefully, our acknowledging that together makes for a little safer discussion on this blog.
(You know, Wayne, that I have a hard time with Sarah Sumner’s call because I think she’s after a Hegelian synthesis of the two sides. I do think we can love one another without having to agree. I do appreciate your calling us to listen. I do see you doing that here. And yet listening with intent does not mean we should go along with the intent. I’ve said too much here, but I really am trying to find our common ground).
As Gordon Fee and many others point out, interpretation is a 2 step process:
1. Exegesis: What did it mean to the original reader? The Bible needs to be read in context.
2. Application: Knowing what it meant, how do I apply that today? The Bible is meant to change us.
P.S. My post of Jul 30 4:25 PM is an attempt to show that the husband is EXPLICITLY told to submit to his wife via the reciprocal submission.
I guess I still wonder why…in a culture where it was expected that men would rule, why Paul didn’t say that was not a good idea.
Sometimes silence does speak. The Israelites were worshipping idols and God told them: don’t do that.
Where God’s people are doing something and God wants them to do something different, He tells them: don’t do that.
In a culture where men were in control and women were already submitting – why did God not tell them to turn that culture on its head and for husbands to submit to their wives?
Husbands are instructed differently than wives. Every time that husbands are instructed on how to be husbands and wives are instructed on how to be wives…they are instructed differently.
One difference is that the instructions to (specifically) wives include submission and the instructions to (specifically) husbands do not – ever. The silence is deafening.
Ellen:
You make clear points but God has turned much on its head and continues by grace to change us and our cultures.
>Husbands were instructed… [past tense]
>Slave owners were instructed…
The biblical view is not static. Thankfully God loves the whole world and not just one nation, not just the one culture. I think this is a point of agreement for us. The point of disagreement is what we consider present tense regulation. No?
Ellen,
As I point out, Eph 5:22 when understood that the verb brought down from Eph 5:21 is mutual DOES say that husbands are to submit to their wives.
So there is no silence.
Also, there were NO limits put by Aristotle on what a husband could order his wife, we find examples of a husband telling his wife to keep a newly born baby if it is a son and abandon (kill) the baby if it is female and this was just the way the culture was. But Paul puts limits on a Christian husband. So in cultural context, it was revolutionary.
Don, “husbands, submit to your wives as the church submits to Christ.” Chapter and verse of the (specifically to husbands) passage?
J.K., I’m not much into trajectory hermeneutics. I believe that the canon is closed and what God wanted to say is in Scripture. I’m guessing that you would say the same thing, just applying it differently.
Christ and the church are still around, as is marriage. I believe that for a wife to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ still reflects what a Christian marriage should look like.
And in the absence of any clear and specific for husbands to submit to their wives in that specific and identical way, the silence speaks.
Why didn’t God tell the polygamists in the NT to get rid of their extra wives? (Where would they go?) Why didn’t God tell Philemon to free Oni? Why don’t we see God telling all slaves to be freed in the NC? Why didn’t God tell us in the NC to overturn unjust rulers such as Nero or Caligula? Why did He tell them to submit to Caligula or Nero as their civil authorities?
As in the OT, God works through the present culture. He did not turn it on its head. The Body of Christ is to be different than the world where people seek to have authority over others. the Body of Christ is about servanthood. Not leadership.
He did tell us NOT to be like the Gentiles who lord it over others.
I’m not much into trajectory hermeneutics. I believe that the canon is closed and what God wanted to say is in Scripture.
I do not believe in telling slaves to obey. I do not believe we have to obey a king or queen. I do not believe America belongs to England. I do not believe that worldly authorities should never be challenged or changed.
Ellen,
My claim is Eph 5:21-22 says the husband is to submit to the wife when understood from the Greek text according to Greek grammar.
Eph 5:22 has no verb, so it inherits it from the previous clause, that verb is “submitting one-to-another” so Paul DOES say that the husband is to submit to his wife. What Paul is doing is something radical, he is using a Greek word but refining the meaning in a Kingdom way. The Bible gets to do that, as I am sure you know, it gets to define/refine the words it uses and WHEN IT DOES, we are to uses those meanings; when it does not we are to use the normal language usage meanings.
Also, a husband’s love for his wife is an example of his submission to his wife. This can be seen as it is a subordinate clause to Eph 5:21 in the Greek. This can be seen in the Transline NT by Magill, for example, where the implications of the Greek sentence structures are brought out.
On Eph 5:21-22, my take is the REFINED verb “submitting to-one-another” is what is brought from v. 21 into 22. The Greek is hypotassomenoi allelois. Paul is making a new construction not seen before by putting these 2 words together, in doing so he is making the verb symmetrical. That is the subject (wives) and object (husbands) are related in the same way, that of mutual submission. So in the reverse of the symmetrical verb, the object becomes the subject and the subject the object and a husband is to submit to his wife.
Another aspect is that Aristotle wrote that a wife is to obey her husband, but Paul does NOT write this, in this case the silence SHOUTS, but one needs to know what the 1st century culture was to see the contrast. That is, the expectation would be “obey” (just like children and slaves are to obey according to Aristotle), but Paul omits this and my take is the omission is obviously deliberate, it is so jarring in context.
So, ON THE SURFACE (what the government censors are looking at), it appears that Paul conforms to Aristotle, but the deeper meaning is that he turns Aristotle upside down from the inside out and this is what the Ephesian believers are supposed to discern.
Today we find some who just take the surface meaning as the whole meaning and miss the deeper meaning. But we KNOW we are not to take the surface meaning of the slave verses. Who today would not be repelled by the idea of telling a slave to “obey your master” yet that is what the verse literally says. So just as we find a deeper meaning to those verses in the same pericope, we are to find deeper meaning in the whole pericope.
FWIIW, the submit verb in Eph 5:24 is one-sided as this is just an example of the general principle established in Eph 5:21.
Some may claim that “one-to-another” MIGHT mean “some-to-others” and this might be true, but the chiasm in Eph 5:19-21 shows that JUST AS the verb in v. 19 is understood mutually, the paired verse in the chiasm is v. 21 and so the verb should be understood mutually.
Kurk and Lin identify a key sticking point in this debate. Kudos to them. It’s the question of Christ and culture (see H. Richard Niebuhr).
For example, most Christians consider Paul’ teaching about the veiling of women in worship to be culture-specific and no longer relevant today. The question is, where to draw the line?
That is where Christians differ among themselves, and it is natural that they do. Indeed, it is typical among Protestants to build a denominational identity around such differences. Thus you have denominations that seek to be true blue comp (the SBC, for example), and others that seek to be true blue egal (the UCC, for example).
I am a Protestant, but I think it is hopelessly sectarian to make second-order issues a matter of make-or-break in terms of fellowship.
Paul on headcoverings is greatly misunderstood, with additions to Scripture in many translations in trying to make sense of it. The key verse is 1 Cor 11:10 which in the Greek simply means she has authority on her head (to decide what she wishes, whether to wear a headcovering or not in church). So in the Greek the principle is simply a woman can decide for herself.
I am a Protestant, but I think it is hopelessly sectarian to make second-order issues a matter of make-or-break in terms of fellowship.
I like this blog because it is good practice in communication with people who disagree rather strenously (which resembles my marriage at times
) And I think Wayne, Letitia, Molly, David, and others here provide us an excellent role model of gracious communication.
These days I see things much less black and white than I used to when I was trying to live hard comp ideals. (I'm another squishy middler…) And I really think that God allows these things to be deliberately veiled so that we must dig deeper in the Word and press deeply into HIM. The very process of digging,learning, discussing is sanctifying.
I was struck by a deeper look at the list of "works of the flesh" in Galatians 5:19- 21. The majority of them have to do with one's attitude/demeanor in the face of disagreement. Some of the Strong’s definitions are-
<2189>- hatred, enmity
<2054>- variance, strife, debate, wrangling
<2205>- emulations, zeal, fierceness of indignation, fervent mind, ardor in embracing pursuing or defending anything
<2372>- wrath, passion, heat, boiling anger
<2052>- strife, contention, putting oneself forward, being selfish
<1370>- division, dissension
<5355>- envy
<139>- heresy- a body of men following their own tenets, dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims
Do you see that? Debate, wrangling, division, ZEAL!, passion, contention, dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims. Sounds like what passes for the “Christian church” doesn’t it? YIKES!
Sadly, we Christians (myself included) are sometimes guilty of such “zeal” about some pet issue of our particular branch of Christianity… that we succumb to the “works of the flesh” in defending the “rightness” of our position. I looked up cross references for some of the “works of the flesh”. I found this:
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies <139> among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
WOW! There must be heresies among you!
WHY?
“that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”
What does it mean to be “approved”?
I think learning how to talk to each other with grace and mercy is a key. Blogs like this are great practice! Thanks Wayne!
Why didn’t God tell the polygamists in the NT to get rid of their extra wives?
maybe because polygamy isn’t “sin”.
Why did God tell David that if all of Saul’s wives had not been enough…God would have “given him more”?
Do you wish to stick with “just the facts” when it comes to Genesis 1-3…but want to follow a trajectory when reading Ephesians 5?
Ellen,
FWIIW, I do not think I follow a trajectory on Eph 5-6, and I try to show how there is a deeper meaning behind the surface meaning.
Would you tell a slave today that he must obey his master? There are some countries where slavery is legal or at least done a lot. If not, how do you decide not to do so?
Would you tell a slave today that he must obey his master? There are some countries where slavery is legal or at least done a lot. If not, how do you decide not to do so?
Seriously? That is a loaded question. And the answer would depend on the situation.
I have discovered that there are about 4 different types of slavery.
- punitive – this is not much in play today, but it was in Scripture: I have this example.
California: a “soccer mom” was loading stuff into the back of her car and was rear ended by an “illegal alien” (undocumented immigrant) – who happened to be driving under the influence of alcohol. This wife and mother lost the use of her legs and looks forward to many months of rehab and the expenses incurred not only as part of treatment, but also with living as a person with impairments.
– instead of being shipped back to Mexico – again – after being caught driving drunk – again – what if this man were put in a place where his labor contributed to the income of the woman for a time, in order to help with medical expenses?
I do believe that I would tell him to pay his debt to that woman.
- prisoner of war – and forced labor is permitted (and regulated) by the Geneva Convention.
Yes, I would tell a prisoner of war to obey that earthly authority, within the bounds of Scripture and law (not to go outside the Geneva Convention)
- debt slavery indentured service to pay off a debt owed.
Would I tell an indebted person who had the opportunity to work to pay off a debt (and if that were legal) to obey that authority? Yes, I believe that I would, if it was a legal debt (that would exclude people tricked into borrowing money to come to the USA, only to find themselves impossibly indebted to their new “boss”)
- chattel slavery – which is what we think of as “slavery” today.
The kidnapping of a person (any person) for the purpose of selling them into slavery is sin. We (as a society) should absolutely fight that and free those slaves. We should work to make this slavery absolutely non-profitable. The person enslaved?
I think that I would tell them to obey for as long as they are in the situation (which is an illegal situation) – and to get out of the situation and I would do whatever was in my power to make that happen. That sort of slavery is illegal and I find no reason to counsel a person to stay in a sinful situation.
I suppose I will be greatly vilified for being of the opinion that forced labor that is in place legally should be obeyed – in the first three categories that I mentioned. Chattel slavery (kidnapping slave trade) was condemned as sin in both the New and the Old Testaments and (since it is Scriptural to call this sort of slavery “sin”, I have no problem doing so).
Why didn’t God tell the polygamists in the NT to get rid of their extra wives?
maybe because polygamy isn’t “sin”.
Why did God tell David that if all of Saul’s wives had not been enough…God would have “given him more”?
Do you wish to stick with “just the facts” when it comes to Genesis 1-3…but want to follow a trajectory when reading Ephesians 5?
July 31, 2008 3:21 PM
Polygamy was intended by God? Or was it God working within the culture for His purposes?
I believe if both spouses are very mature Christians (not in age but in Christlikeness) then it will not matter much which understanding for marriage is held, egal or non-egal.
This is the conclusion that I am rapidly coming to…(though my “christlikeness” is certinly questionable)…largely because there just does not appear to be any great divide in the collective understanding on this board of how husbands and wives are to treat one another.
It seems to me that the biggest differences lie in the language used to describe the interactions between spouses…frankly, I’m really not seeing any great distinctions in the interactions themselves.
So the question remains…what are the profound distinctions?
I read through this thread earlier and didn’t have time to respond, but would like to, and, not remembering who said what, or exactly what was said, will respond to what I think was said!
It seems to me that much is made of what both the wife and the husband are supposed to do in very simplistic terms, i.e., submit, and give one’s life for (or love), as well as to say that to submit means to submit to an authority, without really grasping just what that authority is, and what the life-giving and submission really are. First of all, I read what both the husband and the wife are to do as following from all believers submitting to one another. I do not believe, as Grudem does, that Paul changes direction in Eph 5:22, since v. 21 supplies the verb for v. 22. The “husband” verses then follow on the “wife” verses, and the pattern goes on as he addresses parents and children and masters and slaves.
All three of these relationships are ones in which abuse of power is common; i.e., the more powerful oppresses the less powerful, and the less powerful reacts by rebelling (and then the more powerful reacts by oppressing…). I think that Paul is saying that the more powerful must cease being harsh and domineering and instead seek to humbly serve the less powerful, and the less powerful must cease being resentful and rebellious and instead humbly and honestly serve the more powerful. More specifically, parents must not exasperate their children, and children must obey their parents when it is right to do so (“in the Lord”) – honoring them always. Servants are to serve their masters properly and honestly, as unto Christ, and masters also “with good will do service to the Lord,” since Christ is the Master of both, and is not partial. (paraphrase)
I’m sure it was counter-cultural for Paul to tell husbands to give themselves for their wives, nurturing and cherishing them as their own bodies. In our own culture, we think of nurture as a feminine rather than a masculine thing, but there it is in v. 29. Yet this is seldom discussed. And yet such a thing is not so strange when you think of the attitude of young “star-crossed” lovers, the males of whom have no problem desiring to give of themselves completely for their beloved, nourishing and cherishing her, while she desires to give herself completely to him. I think this reaches the heart of real, actual gender difference – husbands give themselves for, wives give themselves to.
It was also counter-cultural of Paul to tell parents to be gentle, understanding, and kind to their children, and for masters to respect and honor their slaves.
Polygamy was intended by God? Or was it God working within the culture for His purposes?
I cannot say, but I do know that Scripture never calls is “sin”. I also know that in leverite marriages, exceptions were not made for a man who was already married.
Another thing I know is that it is our culture (not necessarily the rest of the world) that sees polygamy as a negative thing.
I (and this is more or less rambling…) I used to know a plural family. The husband and the second wife came to the States from another country where polygamy was practiced. The first wife stayed behind, as she had a more secure extended family.
The second wife (her real name is unpronounceable, we called her Rebecca) had been married to her current husband’s brother. She had been forced (along with their children) to watch the military beat her husband to death. In that country, a Christian unmarried woman was at risk and Martin’s first wife suggested that he take his sister-in-law as a “sister wife” for her. Together, they raised a dozen children.
Am I to say that is “sin”, if the Bible never does?
Kinda hard to march out that “marriage is one man and one woman” if we’re making these kind of statements about polygamy.
Ellen,
Thanks for your responses on slavery and polygamy. I learned some things and it is obvious you have studied these areas.
Am I to say that [polygamy] is “sin”, if the Bible never does?
The Bible never says marrying a half-sister or a first cousin is sin either.
It never says slavery is sin.
What am I to say about that?
The Bible never says that Lot giving his daughters over to the Sodomites was sin, either.
Kinda hard to march out that “marriage is one man and one woman” if we’re making these kind of statements about polygamy.
August 1, 2008 5:58 AM
Tammi, Bingo. One Flesh union is kind of hard with more than two, huh?
What in scripture is proscriptive and descriptive? Is polygamy proscriptive?
Kinda hard to march out that “marriage is one man and one woman” if we’re making these kind of statements about polygamy.
Uh…yeah. And I don’t.
When I was with the church that I mentioned, I learned that there are quite a few denominations that are “squishy” on the polygamy issue when they send missionaries.
Thanks for your responses on slavery and polygamy. I learned some things and it is obvious you have studied these areas.
As part of a philosophy course. My professor was an African-American (Christian) woman and my papers ended up being part of the discussion curriculum in the class. Imagine my groan when my assignment was to use Hume’s critique of rationalistic ethics to prove polygamy right or wrong. So you are very welcome…and yes. I have studied.
It does say that whoring out your daughters is wrong and I suspect that Lot would fall under that category.
Tammi, Bingo. One Flesh union is kind of hard with more than two, huh?
Why? If Scripture calls plural wives “wives”, why should we not?
What in scripture is proscriptive and descriptive? Is polygamy proscriptive?
If you mean PREscriptive, that would mean that we MUST have plural marriages so no, it is not PREscriptive.
But neither do I find it prohibited.
The Bible never says marrying a half-sister or a first cousin is sin either.
The farther we get from the fall, the more our DNA pool is messed up. If we consider that Adam and Eve’s children have few to choose from (as did Noah’s grandchildren), we might have to consider the half-sister/first cousin proscription a necessary thing from a breeding standpoint, not a sin standpoint.
What was Abraham’s relationship to Sarah? That was a union that was very blessed.
It never says slavery is sin.
What am I to say about that?
See my comment on the four types of slavery.
What in scripture is proscriptive and descriptive? Is polygamy proscriptive?
If you mean “proscriptive” as in “unlawful”, I cannot find it.
If you mean “PREscriptive”, as in “you must do it”, in general terms…no.
In specific term – there are three cases that I can say…most likely, plural marriage would have been prescribed.
- leverite marriages make no allowance for a first wife
- the mandatory marriage of a man who has slept with an unattached virgin also makes no allowance for a first wife.
Since polygamy was lawful, if the intent was not plural leverite marriages, the law would have made an exception.
FWIIW, I teach that 2 cases Ellen cited in my marriage and divorce class. It is important to see what Moses actually did teach, which many do not know or know the implications.
I do think Jesus clarified all this that monogamy is God’s best.