http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=185

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).

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.

Regarding Ephesians 5, I do not personally know of anybody who fails to see how Christ loves the church in that context. So, I would caution your generalizations.

9)Neither ruling with Christ, nor being seated with Christ in heavenly places erases the fact that he is the church’s head.

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.

(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

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