Questions About Women….
I have a few questions that I seriously wonder about, and I guess they get back to the issue in my mind of whether the view of women submitting to men is something that was put into place after the fall as part of the curse, or is it the way women and men were always intended to relate. Here are my questions:
* Did Eve submit to Adam before the fall?
* Will women submit to men in heaven?
Thoughts??
March 7th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
The second question first - NO. There will be no marriage in heaven (can’t remember where this is found, offhand - Jesus said this to the Pharisee who wanted to know whose wife the seven-times married woman would be), we will all be in the presence of the Lord, and all of us will be under His direct authority, and His alone.
As to the first question…my heart wants to say no (and support it by saying they both were in the presence of God and directly under His authority). But I can also make a case for a yes answer, given that Eve was created as a helper fit for Adam, and some of the other verbiage in the garden account. Though I do have to say I’ve heard some really, really strange ideas people have about what that whole account means.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The way I’ve been taught about it, the idea is to submit to strengths and protect weaknesses. So I would say the answer is yes to both, but not because of anyone’s gender.
About the heaven one…to my knowledge (which isn’t extensive) the only talk of women submitting in the Bible is in regard to husbands. So if we’re not married in heaven the whole “submission” thing goes out the window except in the context I mentioned above.
Possibly an oversimplification…but I like it simple when possible. =)
March 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Where is the verse where Paul says something about how Adam was created first, and how that implies everything? That would be before the Fall…
Funny, Paul’s the one who teaches grace so clearly, and yet I can’t figure out what he’s really saying about women and how it figures in with the rest of the Bible.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Gen. 1-2 does not show clear and implicit heirarchy between Adam and Eve.
…Unless we want to interpret “ezer” (helper) to mean a lesser-than or a submitter, that is.
In which case, we have to say that God is a lesser-than, because He did a lot of “ezering” in the OT.
What we DO know for CERTAIN in the Gen. 1-2 account is that Adam and Eve felt they were *one.* If someone things that oneness implies that their must be a dominant and subordinate, so be it. But I don’t. All I know for CERTAIN is that the first time hierarchy in marriage is mentioned, it’s during the Fall (Gen. 3:16).
Btw, I used to use Paul (or what Paul *seemed* to be saying) in order to interpret Gen. 1-2. When I finally let Gen. 1-2 interpret itself, everything became a lot more clear. Seems like a better idea would be to let Gen. 1-2 interpret Paul. So, that’s what I do now.
(Taking into account the ultra-patriarchal culture of the time, I don’t think Paul was advocating patriarchy, though I once did. Now, I think he was just speaking to people in the context of the world they lived in. Letting Gen. 1-2 be the grid for interpreting Paul really helped me see his words in a whole new light).
March 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Ignore the spelling errors.
*grinning sigh*
March 7th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
The scripture where Paul ties creation of Man (male & female) with roles in the church is 1 Timothy 2.
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+2
The Sadducees asked Jesus about the resurrection (they didn’t believe in it!) by posing a hypothetical question about 7 brothers all marrying the same woman (widowed 6 times!) in Mark 12:18-27. Note that the “marrying” part was only a portion of Jesus’ reply.
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Mark+12%3A18-27
So, I’m the lone man commenting - and I HOPE that in the New Heavens and Earth I will still have some continued relationship with MY wife who I dearly love! I can’t imagine eternity w/o her companionship or that of my other loved ones like my Dad who died a few short weeks ago!
March 7th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Another thought… before the Fall, Adam & Eve both were without SIN! So, IF there was any submission (I did say IF), it was from one sinless being to another; which is markedly different since the Fall because all of our relationships are now tainted by our sin, original & recent.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I tell you, you need to listen to that sermon link I sent you if you haven’t already (the one on the Bucket List for husbands and wives).
Also, and this is my perception since the Bible doesn’t offer a lot of information on what Heaven is going to be like–I think our focus will be on glorifying and praising God in heaven. I.e., we aren’t going to be thinking about/concerned with a lot of the issues we experience here on Earth. Down here our focus seems to be on self (to me, a result of the fall). In Heaven, I just don’t think that will be the case since we will be in the presence of the Almighty God–our focus will be on the One on Whom it belongs.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
* Did Eve submit to Adam before the fall?
Isn’t it true that 1 Timothy 2:13-14 gives as Paul’s reasons for his prohibition regarding women teaching or exercising authority over man as 1) the order of creation and 2) the dire consequences of a reversal of leadership roles? If so, both of his reasons refer to issues before God’s sentence is laid down in Gen 3:16 and are not the “result” of the fall.
It is interesting as well to consider Romans 5 and Adam’s federal headship. Isn’t it because of Adam’s sin (not Eve’s) that the whole human race is guilty of sin, judged, condemned, and in need of a new representative head–our precious Lord Jesus Christ?
Also, consider a different look at Genesis 3:16. I know that it is popular to see the second half of the verse, “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you” as part of the curse on the woman, but isn’t it possible that it is simply a statement of the continuing state of circumstances in which she will now have pain in childbearing?
I can see God giving pain in childbearing as a curse, but did God really curse marriage? I don’t think so. (can elaborate if needed)
Is it possible that everything including marriage is intended to reflect ultimately the gospel? Isn’t it interesting that in Ephesians 5 after Paul talks about roles of husbands & wives he quotes Genesis FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. And then he comments, This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
Marriage itself I believe was intended primarily to preach the Gospel. Its all about Christ and His relationship to His church. And it appears that was not an afterthought illustration used by Paul but actually the true thinking of God behind Genesis 2:24.
Is there headship and submission in the relationship between Christ and His church? There seems to be evidence to support that.
With this framework of thinking as we approach the creation account where Adam was given a responsibility to tend the garden, then God creates a woman to help him, are we far off base to assume that this would carry with it some level of headship & submission.
It is true as Molly says that the word “helper” in and of itself does not force one into seing a subordinate role, but it is a lexical fallacy to suppose that “helper” has to have the same meaning and significance in every context. In the passages where God is called “helper” we would want to ask the question, “In what sense is He a helper in this context?” We ask the same question of Genesis 2.
We are not bound to say that our interpretation of “helper” in Gen 2 must mean what God is when He helps in another passage.
(As an aside, it would be interesting to know Molly if you would advocate letting the OT interpret the NT rather than the other way around as a standard principle of interpretation)
So, Karen, I think are many reasons to see headship and submission as a creation design, rather than a result of the fall.
* Will women submit to men in heaven?
Well, as I postulated above, I think that headship & submission in marriage is not a man/woman thing as much as it is a Christ/church thing. As long as marriage exists I think it will need headship/submission to reflect the Gospel properly.
The male leadership in the church issue appears to be related to God’s order in creation and an Adam/second Adam (Christ) thing. Therefore, it will continue until the new heaven & the new earth, the new order of things in a redeemed humanity.
So, we don;t really know whether there will be submission down gender lines in heaven. Although some type of submission of people to people does seems to exist. It is patterned in the angels & in revelation you have saints having responsibilities over others. So, who knows? Maybe then women will rule? I’d submit to whatever Jesus wants to do.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
i am not biblical and i have no verses but to me-women don’t submit to anyone-vice versa!!! women and men are created equal and that is how it should be…that is how it is my house anyway.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Please correct me if I am wrong, but nowhere does the bible say that *women* are to submit to *men*. It does say that a woman is to submit to one man, and one man only - her husband.
This is not a result of the fall (my opinion) but so that marriage will be a “picture” of the relationship between Christ and his church.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:36 am
I’ve always pictured heaven the way C.S. Lewis painted it in “The Last Battle”-a beautiful country, the way earth was meant to be before Adam messed up. Anyway, in this beautiful country I don’t see a need for any “submission” on the part of women because Christ and God and the Holy Spirit are going to be right there-we’ll all be in submission to them.
As for before the Fall, I don’t think women were necessarily in submission-I think Adam wasn’t whole, wasn’t complete, until Eve was formed (I chuckle when I think that this was never said of Eve, that I can find).
Interesting query, though, chewymom. I had never thought of that question before.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Preface with I am not a biblical scholar…
But if you look at creation it’s interesting that God created the animals, creatures with their mates. He didn’t create all the males in the world and then add their mates. Just a thought.
I’ve heard there will be no marriage in heaven so to your #2 question no. I’m with Rebecca - heaven will be a new earth (like N.T. Wright states) like earth was supposed to be.
#1 question is a toughie but only because we have 21st century American eyes. I want to consider this question with the audience in mind, to whom Moses (or whoever) and Paul, later, wrote. But thinking it through with your #2 question - if heaven is a place much like the first place was meant to be then you have the answer. But then again how to you define submitting? I think in the U.S. we get so wrapped up in negative feelings for submission, especially for women. It’s abused, ill-defined, misunderstood. It’s required of all believers, not just the gals.
I think the 1 Timothy and Romans 5 passages are totally misunderstood, hence - controversy. These MUST be read in context. A simple, literal interpretation DOES conflict with the rest of scripture so we CAN’T settle for that simple reading. There’s something deeper there that hasn’t been discovered.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I think Eve did submit to Adam….and Adam sacrificed himself for her. Ephesians clearly commands both, however I don’t think it’s an issue of authority. I think it’s basically a similar relational action…wife lifts-up her husband as he, in turn, lifts her up. When marriage functions in this way, there’s not an authority system, just a mutuality of honoring and selflessness. It’s just understood in terms of “submission” and “sacrifice,” even though the husband’s action is virtually the same as the wife’s. Since there was no sin in the Garden, I think Adam and Eve probably did this very well…she submitted to him, not out of a sense of his authority, but out of love and selflessness…and he sacrificed his desires to accomplish hers. As far as in heaven, as said before, no marriage in heaven…but I think our relationships will still function with mutual lifting of one another above ourselves, so I’m sure that will look like mutual submission/sacrifice. For a more detailed version (and much better explanation) of this view, I would highly reccomend Sarah Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church. It’s a very scholarly as well as narrative work of her personal journey as a woman theologian in the evangelical world, definitely more of a middle-ground between the extreme camps.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Barb,
How does a simple reading of 1 Tim & Rom 5 conflict w the rest of Scripture?
Has a deeper meaning that hasn’t been discovered yet? Really? Do you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture?
Perhaps you are looking for a creative way to avoid the obvious.
If it is true and clear that God designed it so that a woman cannot teach or have authority over a man and that husbands have authority over their wives could you accept that?
March 8th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Brian - I think scripture is understandable. When I say deeper meaning I mean one must look at the context - what was going on that encouraged Paul to write those words which do seem to conflict (that may be too strong of a word) with other persons (women) in the church who were teaching - ie. Priscilla and Junea who were teachers, apostles in the church.
When I say a simple interpretation I mean interpreting without looking at the context. I don’t think the interpretation is obvious.
If it is true that a woman cannot teach or have authority I would accept it - I’m not trying to be creative in my rebellion. It just isn’t clear. And I don’t think this is an issue that leads to separation of fellowship. It’s an issue that we must agree to disagree.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Barb - Thanks for your clarifications. I will certainly assume the best about your intentions. I agree that it shouldn’t cause separation of fellowship, it is not the Gospel, but it does tend to cause a practical separation in ministries. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to allow for both interpretations to be ‘practiced’ in one church. It would seenm that one group would have to defer to the other. But I’d be glad to hear ideas of how that would work.
As far as agreeing to disagree, sometimes ‘practically’ again we have to just end conversations, because we don’t get anywhere, but I think we at least need to try to reason together to attempt to come to one mind for greater unity in the body. And for those who are questioning like Karen, we need to engage in ongoing dialogue to make sure the issues are clearly presented, Of course, allowing the Lord to lead her.
Regarding the example of women teachers in the church, first, it is clear that women are permitted to teach certain people in certain contexts, it just seems that 1 Tim 2:12 in context prohibits them from teaching in a public gathering of the mixed church together for the purpose if instruction.
I like a good commentary by Joyce Baldwin, or a book by Henrietta Mears, or Elizabeth Elliot, Martha Peace, Liz Fitzpatrick, or Eta Linnemann. I enjoy good robust discussion and Q & A over doctrine with the ladies in my fellowship group or in private social settings. I can learn a lot from them.
Hopefully, any woman in Priscilla’s situation, hearing that a teaching had a great deficiency in His understanding Jesus would explain things to him. But there is nothing that suggests she was a public teacher in the church’s mixed assembly or exercised authority over any men.
For the example of Junea to contradict the simple reading of 1 Tim 2:12 one would have to cross many hurdles. 1) Which reading of the text is right? The present edition of the Greek New Testament has a masculine noun as the correct reading. So is it Junea or Junias? Is it even a woman’s name? 2) If it is a woman’s name, what does “outstanding among the apostles” mean? Is it that she and Andronicus are outstanding in the opinion of the apostles, or that they are actually part of the apostles? 3) if it is a woman’s name and she is an apostle in the context, what does apostle mean? Apostle could refer to the office of apostle like the twelve, the gift of apostle, or the wider usage of the term that simply means messenger like 2 Cor 8:23 where those that were trusted messengers of the churches to carry the collections were called apostles in the sense of messengers. Surely there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that it would contradict the simple reading of 2 Timothy 2:12.
Are there other passages it contradicts?
Regardless, it seems that up to now Karen has not expressed disatisfaction with the traditional “interpretation” of 2 Tim 2:12, but rather the demeaning “applications” that have been propagated in traditional churches.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I mean 1 Tim 2:12
March 8th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Y’all, thank you so much for this dialogue! It has been interesting and helpful. Honestly, I am not sure what I think. Here’s where I am with the issue: I grew up in a PCUSA church. During my college years, I was very much influenced by a couple of baptist churches that disagreed with women in authority or teaching roles, and that believed in wifely submission in marriage. I had never really thought through the issue before, and everything I learned came from the baptist friends. They explained to me what they believed, and they explained to me how the PCUSA came to their conclusion that it was okay to allow women to preach. And basically the explanation was that they threw out parts of scripture.
So although I grew up with women as complete equals to men in every way, I have never studied the issue as it ought to be studied. I let the opposition tell me how to interpret Scripture, but I never let my own denomination or those who agreed with them have a rebuttal.
Now, because of the way male leadership is being carried out in my personal life, I find myself questioning my own views. I need to understand and be sure of what I believe, and I no longer think that the PCUSA (and others like them) have just chosen to toss out scripture to justify a cultural position with complete disregard for the Bible. There is more to it than that–there is a different way of interpreting Scripture. I want to understand that. I want to hear the different sides speak for themselves–not have one group tell me what the other believes, or what I *should* believe.
I read the book Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. It was really helpful in my quest for understanding. I did not come to any final conclusion after reading it, but I do feel like I understand more about the two positions.
So that’s where I’m coming from with this and where I am now–which is basically nowhere! LOL! Anyway, please carry on with the dialogue. It is helpful!
March 9th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Karen, I think that as you research the PCUSA’s evolution on this issue you will find that the change was not based much on a different way of interpreting Scripture but on social issues. Here is a quote from a PCUSA female pastor who is concerned over the fact that their denomination’s position is not driven by Scripture.
“Bendroth notes that the Presbyterian Church was motivated to consider women’s ordination by the secular question, “Why should Christian ministry be the only profession barred to women on the grounds of their sex?” Moved by concerns of human rights and “fairness”, our debate centered more on the social correctness of opening the door to women in ordained ministry than on the Biblical witness of the essential nature of women’s ministry within the body of Christ. Bendroth writes, “Empowering women was a way to make good institutions better- more democratic, more inclusive, and more faithful to American ideals.” It made sense. It was the right thing to do.”
Rev. Anita Miller Bell
Minister at Large/Philadelphia Presbytery
http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=125
I think history shows that this change was also wrapped up in the modernist/fundamentalist debates over the doctrines of Scripture and the essentials of the Christian faith.
If you want to read a good exegetical work on the crucial text 1 Tim 2:12 check out Women in the Church: An Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 edited by Andreas Kostenberger.
This work provides a biblical defense of the traditional complementarian position. Each chapter has been thoroughly revised to make the book’s substantive arguments more accessible, and a new chapter of pastoral application has been added. Contributors include S. M. Baugh, H. Scott Baldwin, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, Robert W. Yarbrough, and Dorothy Patterson.
also see Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood edited by John Piper & Wayne Grudem.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, Brian. I think that one of the biggest mistakes I have made though is having one “side” tell me what the other side believes. At the church where I grew up, the senior pastor’s daughter is now one of the ministers. This church DOES take a stand within the PCUSA against homosexual ministers, so they (and this minister’s) opinion about women is not based solely on convenience or social whims of the day. I need to (and plan to) contact this minister directly and hear what she has to say. I guess I liken it to the years I spent listening to Rush Limbaugh tell me what the “liberals” thought. I should have been asking THEM what they believed, and let Rush tell me what HE believes.
In the same way, I am seeking to go to the source to understand the belief and theology behind the opinion. I feel like I know the complementarian position pretty well, although clearly I have not reasoned it out in all areas of life. I’m not saying I won’t study that further, but I feel like right now I need to come to understand the egalitarian position.
Ultimately, what Scripture teaches is of utmost importance to me. But wow–I would really hate to be part of making an entire people-group subservient to another–and using the Bible to justify it–if I wasn’t absolutely positive I was understanding Scripture correctly. Kind of like with slavery. Woe to the Christians who justified owning another human with Scripture! Now it is so clear how very wrong that was, but 200+ years ago, it seemed very Biblical to many Christians.
NOT saying that this is the same issue….But it’s one where I want to be sure I am comfortable with what I have always believed, and I want to be sure I still believe that my “old” way of understanding those passages are correct.
And Brian, can I just say that whichever view is correct, I think yours and Myra’s marriage is such a sweet example of how Jesus and his bride relate to one another. I appreciate that about the two of you!
March 9th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Chewy,
Like you, I had always been told (in my PCA church as a young person) that the reason the PC(USA) allowed for women’s ordination was “they don’t believe the Bible.” During my college years I worshiped at a PC(USA) church, and again just a few years ago our family was welcomed in by a PC(USA) church after we’d been chewed up and spit out by a PCA one. What I discovered there was a group of loving people who did indeed believe the Bible. (I also discovered a worship service that was 10 times more “Reformed” than most PCA churches I’ve ever been in.) In many private conversations with the pastor, I discovered that his commitment to Scripture was every bit as strong as anyone’s in the PCA. He was seeking to apply the Bible faithfully. He had simply come to some different interpretive conclusions than those in the PCA.
People need to stop pretending to know the reasoning or motives behind other people’s doctrinal positions and start dialoging with each other to understand.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Press on Karen. I totally encourage you to gain full disclosure and understanding of the other position. As I teach the pastorals, I read all of the books and articles from the other side as well. Just like the Gospel of Judas, the Da Vinchi Code, New Perspective or whatever else we have to decide about, there is no substitute for reading it yourself. Praying for you. Thanks for your encouragement about our marriage. It is truly a gift of grace.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Okay, I’m a bit late in on this discussion, but my answer is that of course women submitted to men before the Fall. Did I just say that? Keep reading. . . AND men submitted to women. if Ephesians 5 is God’s ideal, and it is because it is Scripture, then Adam and Eve walked in it perfectly and effortlessly before the Fall. And being a believer that we have made a big mistake by splitting off that verse before the marriage stuff that says we should all submit to each other. Then the passage goes on to show how wives do that, how husbands do that, and even further how kids do that and fathers do that to their kids, slaves and owners. . .
We can’t forget our real Answer, Jesus himself, God incarnate, and how he walked in such humility and yes submission to those around him. Of course, he wasn’t married, but he still showed us that he didn’t demand submission from anyone, though he is the only person who rightfully could have done so.
And with this view in mind, heaven will be full of this beautiful submission, singing glory to the one who embodies it.
I agree with Barb that the word submission is full of such baggage in our culture that we almost need to define it whenever we talk about it, but then we end up splitting hairs. If we were all more set on following our Savior, knowing and seeing him more clearly and giving ourselves over to him, it would be a non-issue. But, oh yeah, we aren’t in heaven yet.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:04 am
I think that the relationship to refer “submission” back to is the one that we see in the New Testament between Christ during His ministry and God, His Father. That’s the only picture that we have of “perfection in relationship with perfection”. It’s awesome to read scripture looking specifically at what Jesus says about God (I have come to do the will of the Father) - and then you have “this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” - the ultimate affirmation! Talking about a hard assignment - dying on the cross to secure the salvation of God’s own people - yet scripture says that Christ endured the cross for the joy set before Him - His joy was making that sacrifice in service to His beloved Father. That gives me an entirely different slant on the word “submission” - something that seems demeaning to our fallen flesh, yet in the realm of perfection makes the most horrific event of history - the crucifixion -an occasion of joy to it’s innocent victim.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Thanks for the link.:)
I’m so glad mongoosemom chimed in because I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to remember that that verse is in the context of the directive for everyone to submit to each other.
I too think that in heaven we will all submit to one and other, that we will be perfect in humility and love and that no one will feel the need to have power that they don’t or will feel slighted or overlooked. Essentially, I think it will be a non issue.
But then, I’m from an egalitarian background.
I bow out of the discussion on eve because I don’t think we can read that passage literally. It’s a myth genre and therefore I think it more likely explains why things are the way they are than literally tells the story of how it got that way. But I do think the original plan was for women to respect their husbands and not belittle them, and men to love their wives.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Chewymom, I completely agree with and relate to you in trying to be open to discover what the “other” side has to say and the ways they interpret certain passages….I was raised a complimentarian and even emerged from a seminary class on Men and Women in Ministry mostly a complementarian, however I’m re-thinking it all now. My experience is like yours in that growing-up, every time a different opinion was presented, the reason for it given was “they don’t take the Bible seriously” or “they don’t want to listen to certain verses.” Basically slapping the term “liberal” on people and letting that be a write-off for what they believe instead of figuring-out what and why they believe the way they do. For many people, myself included, it is an issue of taking the Bible just as seriously, we are just arriving at different conclusions about what it says. As I move toward a more egalitarian position, it’s not because I’m ignoring certain passages or not taking them seriously, I’m just coming to different interpretive conclusions about what God meant when He said that and how I think He designed us to function. Especially how most of the world has been patriarchial since before Bible times, I think it’s crucial to peel those things away to uncover that maybe that influences our understanding more than we realize, and maybe the church has actually gotten this mostly wrong historically.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Points to ponder:
1) Mongoosemom - Nowhere does the text say that husbands are to submit to their wives. It commands wives to submit to their husbands and then says that the husband is the head of his wife. Consider that verse 21 does not teach mutual submission, but rather introduces categories of headship and submission that follow: wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters.
Also, how can you say Jesus never demanded submission from anyone? Does the word “obey” not imply some submission? Did he never command obedience? I think you will find it is all over the place.
2) Am I right to get the idea from some of these posts that there is no such thing as authority & submission to that authority in the Bible? If so where is it?
3) Carrien - what does it mean for us to submit to each other? humility, love, and not slighting are not anti-thetical to headship/submission.
And Genesis 1-3 does not fit characteristics of a myth genre. Jesus certainly didn’t think of it that way in the NT. Neither did Paul. They considered it historically accurate.
4) Emily, it comes down an issues of hermeneutics. What will be your guiding principles which will allow you to interpret the Bible differently? And “maybe” the church has gotten this exactly right historically.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
After refreshing my memory of Genesis, I do not think that Eve submitted to Adam before or after the fall. My bible says that “man will rule over her” right after God says that women will suffer in childbirth. I wonder if they are connected and don’t mean “rule” the way some people think of it. I do believe that the Adam and Eve story was written so that our little pea brains could understand something about creation. It may have happened in some realm but I don’t really think so. I think everyone of us would have chosen sin and it’s an everyman story. I absolutely do not believe man will rule over woman in heaven. We won’t have sexual desires or desires for anything except praising God. I also don’t believe that women are supposed to be submissive to men. Certainly not to a church elder! We are equal and that’s all I’ve got to say about that!
March 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Brian,
You are right that this Scripture never directly tells husbands to submit to their wives. Here is where I think you’re splitting hairs over hermeneutics. So, if you say that verse 21 is only to introduce categories of submission, then why did Paul throw in the middle of that directives to husbands, parents, and masters? It makes no sense without a thorough understanding of submission at the heart of Christian spiritualily.
Do you not agree that the entire Christian life is one of submission? And that the outworking of our submission to God shows itself in our humility to those around us?
And I’ll stand by what I said about Christ, with an exclamation point. He did not demand submission. He calls for it, but he does not ever force it. Hey, I’m reformed too, but he simply does not stand over his people and make them obey.
And you might consider how you come across to the others on this post who are sincerely seeking the Lord for his wisdom and struggling through this, without assuming that they are unwilling to submit to the authority of Scripture. Some are in abusive relationships with husbands who demand “submission” with verbal and even physical force. Some have “submitted” wrongly for years to men in authority in churches who use it unaware to abuse others spiritually.
It seems just from reading your harshly pointed questions to everyone who disagrees with you, that you care a bit too much about being “right” on this issue.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Dear Brian,
After I wrote that I wanted to clarify that I’m not trying to argue, and I’m sorry if I came across that way. You’re a brother in Christ, and I want to be sure you know that is foremost to me. We’ll worship Christ forever in heaven together, huh?
Anyway, it is just a very personal issue for me, and I’ve seen the “Biblical view of submission” be used harmfully.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Dear Mongoosemom,
I am definitely humbled by the fact that in this medium of communication it is certainly a challenge to convey the way you feel as you present a point. People cannot hear your voice or see your face or “hear your heart.” But I can assure you that My only reason for writing these posts is love.
I love Christ & each person in this discussion. Karen asked two questions and many have cared enough to answer. However, there are very different viewpoints offered.
I assumed that it was legitimate to interact among the viewpoints to try to demonstrate the reasons that there are differences in order to help someone who is trying to make a decision to gain greater clarity. That is the reason for my questions. Should I just comment on concepts rather than directly addressing another blogger in this arena?
Nevertheless, if we all assume the best about each other and give the benefit of doubt, and do not clearly express any unkind remarks then no one will be offended. I really do not think that there is anything in my questions of others that is harsh or pointed. But I realize that there is always the danger that one on the other side of a viewpoint may have a negative visceral reaction.
It is very hard to disagree and not feel a defensive posture. So please forgive me for not making my words compensate for the potential negative feelings they might generate. I’ll try harder.
I too have seen the Biblical view of submission used harmfully. And I am not trying to promote, neither do I condone that. If you want to see what I think headship/submission should look like, take a look at my blog pastorprof.blogspot.com.
And Yes, worshiping Christ is the most vital issue.
Now to attempt to lovingly address the questions you raised. I’m just trying to see if I understand the passage by the mutual submission view.
Regarding Eph 5:21 ff. I notice that in 6:5 slaves are told to obey their masters. Masters are told to give up threatening. Both are told to do good.
Children are told to obey their parents in 6:1, fathers are told not to provoke their children.
And back in 5:25, husbands are told to love their wives. What is the wife told to do? Submit to her husband, as to the Lord, and the reason given is that he is her head.
If these are just examples of mutual submission then the wife is not really told how she is to do this. The slave could say, “I perform mutual submission by obeying my master and being good to him.” The Master could say “I practice ms by not threatening my slave but doing good to him.” The child can say, “I practice ms by obeying my parents.” The parent could say, “I practice ms by not exasperating my children.” the husband can say, “I practice ms by loving my wife as Christ loved the church.” But when we get to the wife, she is just told to submit to her husband. It appears that she is left hanging with no specific instructions of how to do that if it just means mutual submission.
On the other hand it seems to make perfect sense that in the greater context of Spirit filled living in love, wisdom & light (see the context of 5:1-18) that these are three relationships where Paul is showing how the love, wisdom, & light of Christ will change the way we interact with one another in authority/submission relationships.
You also asked, “Do you not agree that the entire Christian life is one of submission? And that the outworking of our submission to God shows itself in our humility to those around us?”
While I agree that we should definitely show humility to everyone, I do not agree that this is submission. Unless this passage is the exception, the NT _never_ uses the word “submission” as something a Christian should practice except in relation to authorities.
I think that we definitely are all called to practice humility, concern, love, considering one another, preferring one another above ourselves, giving deference, having tenderhearted compassion, deep feelings in our hearts for one another, practicing unselfishness, etc., but it appears to me that the Bible clearly distinguishes this from submission.
And if submission is diminished to just humility then we miss a very important point about how a spirit filled life will transform a Christian’s interactions in various headship/submission relationships.
Regarding the issue of Jesus “demanding” obedience, I think that this is insightful about our differences. It appears that the word “demand” conjures up two different impressions in our respective minds.
I guess that for you it conjures up very negative ideas of a person being domineering, making, forcing, etc. I just was thinking of it in its dictionary sense of “asking for something with the proper authority to do so.”
Jesus is no doubt the servant and sacrificial lamb who loves me tenderly, but He is also my King, Master, & Lord who has the right to give me commands, and does rightly expect my obedience.
Grace & Peace,
Brian
March 12th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Brian,
You asked,
(As an aside, it would be interesting to know Molly if you would advocate letting the OT interpret the NT rather than the other way around as a standard principle of interpretation).
I would say that the NT, rightly seen, and the OT go hand in hand.
I would suggest that our 21st century interpretations, however, are not infallible. Commands for wifely submission and female subjection based on “creation order in Timothy” seemed awful plain to this 21st century brain. But when I started learning about the culture Paul was writing to, my neat tidy assumptions began to be washed away. Particularly in that letter to Ephesus we call 2 Timothy.
For example, in our culture today the Gen. 2 reading of “helper” is seen to mean assistant in subjected role, yes. But that doesn’t make that interpretation right. It only makes it what our fallen eyes “clearly” see. Clearly isn’t often as clear as we think it is.
Ezer does not mean subordinate, ANYWHERE it is used. Unless we make it to a back-bend in Genesis 2 in order to fit into our preconcieved ideas.
You say things like, “Surely there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that it would contradict the simple reading of 2 Timothy 2:12.”
Simple reading of 2 Timothy 2? So is figuring out that passage simple? It’s a hotly debated item, and that throughout church history (what childbirth? Huh?). Amazing how “simple” it is, as long as one sees it as supporting female subjection.
I recommend researching what was going on in Ephesus, primarly regarding one of the cults there (that, interestingly, advocated female superiority based on females being created first, and that also promised safetly in childbirth if one belonged to the cult and worshipped accordingly).
Paul wasn’t handing out eternal decrees. He was dealing with very real issues involving MESSY flesh and blood situations. If I wrote a letter to a drunken woman and told her to abstain from alchohol, two thousand years later someone might interpret my words to mean I advocated a “no-alchohol” policy. But that would be FAR from the case.
Because the readers were so far removed from the actual story (and, in part, because they forgot there was one at all, or they wouldn’t have leaped to assumptions so quickly), they completely misinterpreted my words. I think the same mistake is, unfortunately, perpetuated today when many interpret particular verses about women, completely ripped from the story in which they were penned.
Btw, when it comes to Ephesians 5, husbands (who did literally rule over their wives then, and wives were forced by law to submit) were told to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Everyone always forgets to see how Paul describes Christ’s love for the Church in that letter. Context, context, right?
Christ, in Ephesians 1-4, is seen as the One who brings the wife up to His level. “Seated with Him in heavenly places…” At the end of chapter one, we even see Christ ruling over ALL…*with* her. Not over her. WITH HER. Just like Adam and Eve were in Genesis 1.
Warmly,
A former patriarchalist
March 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hi Molly,
Thanks for trying to help me understand these passages. I agree that the historical context & the literary context are crucial to understanding any passage of Scripture. I have read the pertinent literature you speak of regarding cults and cultural roles of women, etc., I just come to a different conclusion in evaluating all of the data. Which I think that in itself would be an interesting study. How is it that two people can look at the same body of evidence and come to different conclusions. Sometimes one is quite baffled as to why another person thinks the way they do. It could be differences in hermeneutics of course, but perhaps it is differences in presuppositions, objectivity, or agendas. It would require a lot of loving vulnerable interaction to get to the bottom of that wouldn’t it.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Dear Brian,
Thank you for your gracious response. I enjoyed reading your blog and your emphasis on learning to LOVE before you teach about roles. I also enjoy the challening questions, and I must say that my negative response earlier was at least in part due to some things I’m seeing and dealing with in “real life.”
As I read and re-read Ephesians, I still see the important link between “Submit yourselves to one another”, and the entire rest of the passage. My guess is that the women of that day would not need to much specific instruction on what it meant to submit, in a culture where if they did not do so they could be left alone and destitute.
But, Paul probably captures the heart of it at least when he talks about her respecting him later in the passage.
Molly,
Thanks for pointing us to chapters 1-4 and the Christ who raised up his bride to reign with him. We’re all part of that bride, men and women!
March 13th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Molly,
A few clarifying interactions. I do not want to let some of your statements stand without questioning:
1) to say the OT & NT go hand in hand doesn’t really answer the question, but that’s okay.
2)I never said that the word ezer “means” subordinate, but it could in a given context refer to a subordinate.
3) I grant that 1 Tim 2:15 (child) has been much debated, but we have been talking about 2:12. How long has that been debated?
4)What source would you point a person to for studying the background of Ephesus? Kroegers? Cooper?
5) Do you believe 1 Timothy was an ad hoc document? What is the evidence for it not being a normative decree?
6) Re: your example of a letter to a drunk, in either case, yours or Paul’s there would have to be evidence from context and background to indicate the original intent. I think there is evidence to suggest that it was intended to be normative for today. Whether or not your letter could be interpreted wrongly would depend upon how you wrote it and the evidence you left to interpret it.
7) The traditional view of 1 Tim 2:12 does not rip it out of the story. It is careful to interpret based upon grammatical-historical principles in the context of the whole letter.
9)Neither ruling with Christ, nor being seated with Christ in heavenly places erases the fact that he is the church’s head.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Hi, Brian. Sorry I haven’t noticed this thread continuing… I’ll briefly respond (please excuse the typo’s of this rapid-fire typist in advance):
1). I believe the whole of the Book should harmonize. I do not believe in taking one verse and using it to interpret another verse. The reason I don’t care for that method is because it can be patently unfair. It all depends on what verses we choose to use, you know—we are the ones deciding which verses are the most important and which verses aren’t (which ones stand on their own and/or mean what we are sure that they mean, and which ones need viewed through the lens of the other verses). So, while it can be a decent method at times, it’s not a fool-proof one by any stretch, because we’re still the ones doing the deciding. I wasn’t trying to avoid your question (promise!). *grins* I think I just see it in a different way.
2.) But that’s the problem. It *could* mean subordinate, in the sense that anything is possible. I *could* eat pickles all day long. But…I probably won’t, and likely never will, given everything everyone knows about me. But I *could*…
In Scripture, taking the one verse in Gen. 2 out of the equation, Ezer does not EVER indicate subordinate. Note how the post-modern uses the absolute term (gasp, shock, awe). LOL. But it never does!
Besides the many times the word stands on it’s own (and means “aid” as in equal ally or greater-than), it’s also used in many Hebrew names. Father’s wouldn’t name their kid, “Ben-Subordinate,” I don’t think… But they sure liked, “Ben-Ezer!” Ezer was a word that indicated strength, not subordination. So it’s not a good word to lay a doctrinal foundation of subordinationalism on…because it has the tendancy to blow up that concept if one looks closer at it. That’s all I was trying to get at.
3.) The passage is what I was referring to. The entire passage is confusing. It doesn’t make sense to me to use one part of it to silence half of the population whilst the rest of the passage is obviously debatable/confusing. It’s plucking one verse up out of it’s context and making a broad sweeping crushing rule out of it.
(I think it’s probably fair to muse that the only reason such a broad rule was made from such a complex passage was because those making the rules weren’t the ones getting silenced. That may or may not be fair to say, but I have a feeling that if THEY were the ones getting silenced, they may have desired a much deeper depth of study completed before they made such a ruling. That’s not anything against men. That’s just a general observation of human nature).
4. I’m not really sure where I’ve gotten the information about Timothy…I know I’ve seen it in a number of places, but since I’m just a hack-theologian (and queen of random spurts of study) and it’s all for purely personal reasons (meaning, no one is making me write papers, etc), I don’t do a great job of keeping track of details… I suppose I would recommend getting “Discovering Biblical Equality” because I know it addresses that particular issue and is full of references and footnotes that can provide you with multiple sources. It’s the thick manual written in response to the CBMW manual, “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” It’s not something I think you will agree with, but it will give you an excellent comprehension of the Scriptural egalitarian argument. If you are interested, of course.
5.) The apostles gave a ruling that was also “from the Holy Spirit” that Christians should not eat food sacrificed to idols. Later, Paul told Christians that only weak brothers abtained from such food, and that the Christian was free to eat whatever he wanted. Paul gave a caveat though: that Love was the rule. Eating or not eating was hardly the issue, but Love.
TO me, that says a lot, because were I to read the NT in the form of “commands,” then I would have assumed that the words given by the apostles from the Spirit were, indeed, commands for all Christians at all times. After all, they were given with the authority of the church leadership AND the Spirit of God! (Acts 15, I believe, is where that initial command is, or somewhere close by). And Paul agreed to this!
However, the command was clearly only for a time, and only for cultural reasons. For some reason (and I can speculate, and so can you, I’m sure), it was the right thing to do at that time. It was Love to give and/or obey those commands then. But they were NOT “for-all-time” commands, even though to my 21st century eyes, they appear to be couched in “for-all-time” language.
I don’t know if that makes any sense to you, but it really changed the way I view Scripture from that point on. Making the assumption that things are “for-all-time” is not wise, I think, unless we know that we know that we know. The rule is Love: to love God and to love others. There are some funny words in 2 Timothy. I’m not comfortable using that passage as a “for-all-time” one. Bible translators often come to the table assuming women aren’t to speak/teach/lead at all, and translate accordingly. This is why men are called “deacons,” but a woman with a masculine-deacon-word used to describe her is still called a “helper” (Romans). The translators have already concluded that she can’t be a deacon-in-the-male-use-of-the-word. Things like that tend to make me want to be slow to put half of the population under subjection, until I know for sure. That’s only fair.
One of the most difficult phrases in 2 Timothy to translate is the one used in verse 12—although our translations don’t let us know about that. There were a number of words used to indicate authority, but Paul didn’t use those. he picked a word that wasn’t common, and that had the flavor of, “murderer,” or “slayer,” or the “mastermind beyond a plot to overthrow.” In the first century, the word was defined as, “the perpetrator of a murder committed by others.”
This is not an attitude ANY Christian should have, male or female, for one thing. But secondly, it means the passage is likely not saying women can’t teach. It would be saying that Paul does not “permit a woman to teach so as to overthrow a man.” Which would be…well…duh! I would hope any Christian wouldn’t teach with a view to overthrow another.
Quitness is another thing we view negatively, but was a positive mark of a student then. To learn in quietness was a great compliment. In other words, women went from not being students at all, to hear being openly invited (even exhorted) to become learners in a world that generally spit on such an idea.
I could go on because there’s more to discuss about that passage, but you get the idea, though I wish I had more time. I’m not really trying to convince you—I would be pretty surprised if I could—but rather trying to show you how one can come to a different conclusion through the same passage.
6.) There may be. All I would ask is that a person be willing to assume that the opposite may also be true.
When I was in the comp/patriarchy camp, I literally could not hear the opposing arguments, though, because my paradigm simply would not allow for them. This is certainly a large-scale problem (on both sides) that I’m not sure how to work through.
7.) Already somewhat addressed this one in another response.
8.) I disagree (kindly, though).
Eph. 5 is used by the comp camp to show that men are to lead women. Yet Eph. 5 talks about love, not leading. We read “lead” into the word “head,” when that word is not there. Again, just like we do with ezer/helper, we read into it our own assumptions. (They did not view head as we view head today. They did not view the brain as the ruling organ, for example. The analogy is made of two things that cannot be taken apart and live. Hence the point of the analogy was likely oneness, not heirarchy. The head/body analogy would have been a really lousy analogy to express heirarchy, you know, when many people thought the person’s decisions were made by either his heart or his kidneys…). 
9.) Are men like Christ in all things, or in some things? In what way did Paul say that husbands were to be like Christ? In the way of authority? In the way of leadership? Or in the way of love for one who was weaker?
Women were weaker in that society—extremely so. I don’t even think we can fathom it…total lesser-thans. If I saw someone murdering someone else, they’d still get away with it, because my testimony wasn’t worth anything in a court of law. I am just a woman—a lesser than, born to be owned.
In telling husbands to love their wives, to think of them as their own selves, and to love them as Christ loved the Church, and in quoting the oneness poem of Adam’s when he saw Eve, what core message was Paul attempting to communicate? Heirarchy and subordination? Particularly when the theme of oneness has been running through=out the whole book.
Okay, I gotta go… Thanks much for the conversation. I’m already cringing at the typo’s that I know will be here, but I just don’t have the time to check (because once I start, then)…
In any case: Be Blessed (whether we agree or not).
Warmly,
Molly
Btw, you may be interested in visiting complegalitarian.blogspot.com [a group blog I participate on and which is a little heavier in egals than it is in comps, meaning your input would be appreciated, because it’s supposed to be a good fifty/fifty mix).
March 14th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Just ran across a link (from egals) regarding problems with the traditional interpretation of 2 Timothy. The comments box is very interesting and full of some interesting links and comments, some from Bible translators and scholars:
http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=185
March 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Thanks for your viewpoints Molly. Don’t worry about typos, I didn’t notice any anyway. You are very eloquent and I appreciate your spirit. We should probably bring this thread to a close. I think that there still are statements you make as statements of fact that I would disagree with, particularly in the meaning of words, but that would engage us in having to pull up sources and lexical studies and journal articles etc., to prove a point. I think the sources are there to defend the comp viewpoint and I’m sure you believe the egal viewpoint has the same. It will really come down to a “truth seeker” (no postmodern joke intended) evaulating things themselves. Maybe I’ll see you in another forum.