On Sunday, Dr. Bruce Ware delivered one of the finest, most succinct presentations of the Complementarian point of view that I have ever heard. His address was the second of a Complementarian series of sermons being hosted by Denton Bible Church (the first address is here). The message is deeply biblical and powerfully delivered. The audio is available from DBC’s podcast, or you can listen to it below.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The substance of Ware’s address consists of ten reasons “why we should affirm that God designed there to be male headship” in the original created order. In essence, Dr. Ware explains how Genesis 1-3 teaches male headship as a part of God’s pre-fall creation. Here is a summary of the ten reasons:
1. The order of creation, with the man created first, indicates God’s design of male headship in the male/female relationship (Gen 2; 1 Tim 2:13).
2. The means of the woman’s creation as “out of” or “from” the man bears testimony also to the headship of the male in the relationship (Gen 2:23; 1 Cor 11:8).
3. While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), yet the woman’s humanity as “image of God” is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her “isha” (woman) because she was “taken out of ish (man)” (Gen 2:23; cf. 5:3).
4. The woman was created for the man’s sake or to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18, 20).
5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).
6. Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin (Gen 2:19-20, 23; 3:20).
7. Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God’s design of male-headship (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14).
8. Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin (Gen 3:8-9; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22).
9. The curses on the man and woman indicate the fundamental purposes for which each was created, respectively (Gen 3:16-19).
10. The Trinity’s equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and distinction (1 Cor 11:3).
There is much that I could say in commending this sermon, but I want to focus here on one thing that I really appreciated—Dr. Ware’s method. Dr. Ware explains the meaning of the Genesis creation accounts not only by appealing to the historical sense of the text, but also by reading it in light of the apostle Paul’s comments on Genesis. Thus, Dr. Ware moves back and forth between Genesis and Paul’s writings to explain the creation accounts.
The theological and hermeneutical presupposition undergirding Dr. Ware’s approach is worthy of note. Dr. Ware assumes that the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament is normative. In other words, Dr. Ware treats Paul’s interpretation of Genesis as an authoritative and binding interpretation. This is not a presupposition that characterizes the mainstream of biblical scholarship. Most critical scholars treat the New Testament and the Old Testament (and the individual books within them) as if they represented different and sometimes contradictory theological perspectives.
Unfortunately, this critical way of reading the Bible has infected much of what passes for evangelical scholarship. Some evangelical Old Testament scholars have bought into the interpretive assumptions of their guild so much that they no longer feel any need to understand how the Old Testament’s message fits into a canonical unity with the New Testament. For them, the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament is a problem for the NT scholars, not the OT scholars.
Dr. Ware’s presentation offers a reading of the Old Testament that takes the New Testament’s use of the Old very seriously. For this reason, not only is Dr. Ware’s interpretation of Genesis countercultural, but so is his hermeneutic.
Most excellent summation Denny!
Supporting Professor Ware’s presentation, there’s this insightful observation:
“Recently there has been some emphasis on the part of feminist authors that the Hebrew word used here (ezer) does not necessarily imply subordination of any sort. The word is often used of God as a help for human beings and in such a situation does not by any means imply that God is subordinate to human beings. The word is, in short, similar to the English word “help†which also does not necessarily imply any subordination. The psalms speak of God as our “help†in English as well as in Hebrew. But the observation about the word ezer is only a first step in looking at the phrase in which it occurs. Indeed, to focus on the word by itself, without considering its context in the phrase and in the passage, is not very helpful. The actual phrase says that God created woman to be a help for man; that is, the purpose of her creation was to be a help to the man. Taken in its context, there is clearly some sort of subordination indicated by the phrase as a whole.â€
Read it all: From the Beginning
Dr. Ware assumes that the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament is normative.
I know I shouldn’t do this but what would Dr. Ware say about these verses?
Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment. Ps. 51:4
By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,
“That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.” Rom. 3:4
Or
You ascended on high,
leading a host of captives in your train
and receiving gifts among men,
even among the rebellious, Ps. 68:18
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.” Eph. 4:8
Woo-hoo!
Let’s see how many comments rack up here. I’ll be gone till Saturday, so it will be fun to get back and see what the response is.
Blessings on all.
David
My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Ware. We were having a discussion after with some folks and two comments were made that espouse ideas I think often get missed in all of this.
1) One of my wife’s favorite quotes: It takes just as much strength to lead as it does to follow (from Take the Lead, I think)
2) As biblical men, our calling is to love our wives as Christ loved the church. That is a daunting task to say the least.
I must concure with Denny having just listened to this message:
“Dr. Bruce Ware delivered one of the finest, most succinct presentations of the Complementarian point of view that I have ever heard.”
Tuad,
I have responded to one of the papers you linked to in the last thread here.
Sue, I don’t wish to interact with you until you retract and apologize for your unfounded assertion that Dr. Grudem subordinates God to humans in his textbook Systematic Theology.
You wrote: “Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he subordinates God to humans.â€
TUAD,
now you’re off your rocker. People have to apologize for their understanding of a text?
Wow, man.
That’s all I can say.
But the point is that whenever someone “helps†someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped.â€
“Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he puts God in a subordinate and inferior position to humans whenever God helps humans.â€
Is this a better?
But my point is this. When a person submits, they do not put themselves in a subordinate position. A king can submit, Christians can submit to each other, and Christ submits to death.
But Stinson wrote this in one of your previous links,
Eph. 5 used for “submit†(hypotasso) means one-way submission to authority and not two-way.
I believe that Stinson’s statement is counter-factual because of these examples,
1 Clement 38.1:
“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (ὑποτασσÎσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,â€
2 Macc 13.23,
â€[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (ὑπετάγη) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.â€
I don’t know how this relates to egalitarian literature because I haven’t read much. However, I like to see statements supported by the facts. I would like to see Dr. Stinson made aware that his statement that submission is to an authority is not supported by Greek literature as a whole.
People have to apologize for their understanding of a text?
(1) She doesn’t have to apologize if she doesn’t want to.
(2) If her (mis)understanding leads her to make such a blatant and egregious misrepresentation of Dr. Grudem’s text and his character, then yes, I certainly do request a retraction and an apology.
What do you think of my rewrite? I am trying to be more accurate. This is no reflection on Dr. Grudme’s character, any more than Dr. Grudem’s statements on how egalitarian men and women are not attractive to each other is a reflection on my appearance, because we have never met.
Ev Fem and Biblical Truth page 54
Under egalitarianism,
men become unmasculine, unattractive to women
women become unfeminine, unattractive to men
Now think of all the Biblical scholars that you know who are complementarian and egalitarian. Does anybody really think that this is true?
TUAD,
I stand by my statement. You find something to be egregious, so you demand an apology and a retraction.
you ARE off your rocker.
Sue: “Ev Fem and Biblical Truth page 54
Under egalitarianism,
men become unmasculine, unattractive to women
women become unfeminine, unattractive to men
Now think of all the Biblical scholars that you know who are complementarian [or] egalitarian. Does anybody really think that this is true?”
You’re baiting me. Still no retraction, still no apology.
But to answer your question, (just like I answered your previous question on the previous thread about whether Christ submits to the Church by showing you Egalitarian Professor Alan Padgett’s ETS presentation where he argued that Christ submits to the Church):
“The most influential work that helped launch evangelical feminism is accredited to Nancy Hardesty and Letha Scanzoni’s book All We’re Meant to Be: A biblical Appproach to Women’s Liberation (1974). …
Furthermore, both Hardesty and Scanzoni later announce their lesbianism and began applying new hermeneutics to demonstrate that the Bible condones “constructive love†homosexual relationships. …
Mollenkott, a representative of the more liberal evangelical feminists, believed that certain of Paul’s writings were wrong due to his human limitations. …
At a conference on feminism and evangelicalism, Mollenkott admitted that at one time she had doubted if she was a genuine evangelical; however, Jewett and Scanzoni had loved her back into “thinking of myself as something of an evangelical.†…
Biblical authority was called into question, causing a fracture that led to a split at the EWC Conference in Fresno in 1986. Mollenkott and Hardesty promoted the support of homosexuality and advanced the agenda. During this time they also confessed their own lesbian orientation.
Read it *ALL* at UNCOVERING THE FOUNDATIONS OF EVANGELICAL FEMINISM/ EGALITARIANISM
Sue, egalitarian scholars/authors Hardesty, Scanzoni, and Mollenkott are all lesbians.
You asked: “Now think of all the Biblical scholars that you know who are complementarian [or] egalitarian. Does anybody really think that this is true [whether men become unattractive to women under egalitarianism]?”
Sue, lesbians do not find men sexually attractive. In conclusion, Professor Grudem is well within bounds for what he wrote.
Now stop baiting me. Bait someone else.
From Comment #1, this sentence seems to apply frequently to your comments:
Indeed, to focus on the word by itself, without considering its context in the phrase and in the passage, is not very helpful.
Paul,
Like I said to Sue, go bait somebody else.
Well, You have me there because I didn’t know any of that and I have not read anything these people they have written. All I can say is that in this case, I demonstrated my ignorance of these particular people. I don’t feel too bad about that. I’ll continue my ignorance in this case.
I will not now look up similarly discrepant lives elsewhere. It seems innapropriate to refer to these things that Dr. Grudem has draw attention, so I should just let his remarks return to the obscurity they deserve. I am sorry I brought them up, because I am not prepared to counter.
Do you find this statement fair to Dr. Grudem?
“Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he puts God in a subordinate and inferior position to humans whenever God helps humans.â€
Does this pass as a fair response to the text?
“Alan Padgett’s proposal is not even Christian,†Moore said. “The idea that Christians will, in the eschaton, no longer submit to Christ is more than simply an unbiblical error. It is virtually pagan.â€
“Dr. Grudem’s proposal is not even Christian,†Sue said. “The idea that God is in a subordinate and inferior position to humans whenever God helps humans is more than simply an unbiblical error. It is virtually pagan.â€
I am trying to be fair and respond to your concerns, Tuad.
Denny, I have been reading your blog for a while and I have found that whenever the comp/egal issue comes up and Sue is in the thick of it, no one can give a answer to her that is as good as what she gives to everyone else. She knows her stuff and nobody is as well versed in this issue than she is (at least as far as I can understand).
Sue: I appreciate your answers and comments even though I can’t agree with them (I don’t even know why I can’t because I can’t back anything I know up the way you can). OK, so… Sue: “The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.”
Dear Terry,
Yes, Sue is a frequent contributor to gender discussions on this blog. I have interacted with her in the past, and I think we have pretty much reached an impasse.
Sue frequently brings up the meaning of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12. About two years ago, we discussed this in the comments section of a 2006 post. I’ll repeat here what I wrote then.
The meaning of the Greek word authentein is disputed by egalitarians. The usual sense of the word is given in Bauer’s lexicon, “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to.†This definition has none of the negative connotations that egalitarians have tried to assign to authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 (i.e. “to domineer,†“to usurp authority,†or “to killâ€). The problem with refuting egalitarian claims, however, is that authentein is not used by Paul in any of his other writings. Moreover, authentein is not found anywhere else in the New Testament or the LXX. Establishing a range of meaning for authentein in biblical literature is very difficult (if not impossible) since it only occurs in 1 Timothy 2:12.
Authentein is used in Greek literature outside of the New Testament, so that’s where we have to go to find out what it means. The most comprehensive study of authentein in Greek literature was done in 1995 by a scholar name H. Scott Baldwin (“A Difficult Word: AuthenteŠin 1 Timothy 2:12†in Andreas Köstenberger, Women in the Church, 65-80, 269-305). Baldwin found 82 occurences of authenteŠin ancient Greek literature and found that there are no negative connotations attached to this word in its appearances in literature around the time of the New Testament. In literature contemporary to the New Testament, authenteŠmean “to exercise authority,†not “to dominate,†“to usurp authority,†or “to kill.†Since his study, no other examples have been found in Greek literature to counter his conclusions (see Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, pp. 307-318).
It’s not that no one has ever refuted arguments that Sue makes. This is well-traveled territory in the literature, even though many who are reading these comments may not be aware of everything that has been written on this topic.
Thanks,
Denny
Thanks Terry,
I did attempt to go through the proper channels and approach the CBMW by email to remove their campaign against the TNIV. I seek a better treatment for the translators of the TNIV than they get on the CBMW website. Denny seems like an appropriate person to petition in this case.
Denny,
We have discussed this before. Let’s run down the few examples of authenteo in before the 4th century.
( 1 cent. BCE) BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.â€
This can also be translated as “prevailed on” or “compelled”. Grudem agrees that the context was hostile and Baldwin puts this in the category of “compel/influence. Ev. Fem. and Bib. Truth. page 680.
(2nd century) Ptolemy Tetrabiblos “If Saturn alone is ruler of the body and dominates mercury and the moon.”
(3 cent. AD) Hippolytus (d. AD 235) On the End of the World. De consummatione mundi, in Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schrften, ed. H. Achelis in De griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 1.2 (Leipzig: Himrichs, 1897), 239-309.
Translation: by Baldwin
Therefore, everyone will walk according to his won desire, and the children will lay hands upon their parents, a wife will hand over her own husband to death and a man his own wife to judgment as deserving to render account. Inhuman masters will have legal authority over their servants and servants shall put on an unruly disposition toward their masters.
Cited from Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. pages 680-682.
In an online edition of the church fathers this passage is translated as,
Wherefore all shall walk after their own will. And the children will lay hands on their parents. The wife will give up her own husband to death, and the husband will bring his own wife to judgment like a criminal. Masters will lord it over their servants savagely, and servants will assume an unruly demeanour toward their masters.
So clearly authenteo meant to “lord it over someone as a mastger over a slave.” Why did Baldwin change the translation as he did?
I would be interested in seeing any uses of authentein that mean “to have authority” for one person over another in a positive way.
Jerome’s Vulgate translated authentein with “dominari” the same as mashal in Gen.3:16.
Chrysostom said that a husband must never authenteo his wife. Did Chrysostom mean to say that a husband has no proper authority over his wife?
I would like to see one example which supports the understanding that authenteo means “exercise proper authority over.”
Denny,
I have read Baldwin’s study and it does not support the conclusions. When I asked you before to check the examples you said that you did not have time.
However, some people give women career advice on the basis of this one verse. I feel that it is irresponsible not to back up the conclusions that Dr. Grudem makes with examples.
Sue,
You know that both Jerome and Chrysostom came centuries after Paul wrote 1 Timothy. Their use of the term should not be read into a Pauline text that predates it.
Also, their understanding of Paul’s use of the term may or may not be correct. Jerome and Chrysostom are not inerrant interpreters of texts.
Once again, I don’t expect for us to solve anything here. I’m just saying that I am still not compelled by you appeal to these late sources. It is methodologically problematic.
Thanks,
Denny
Sue,
How do you get Greek fonts to work in your comments? I can’t even get a Greek font to work in my posts.
Thanks,
Denny
Denny,
There are exactly three examples of authenteo used prior to the 4th century. I cited them. Let me cite them again. This is the sum total of the evidence. Following that we have to resort to what Chrysostom and Jerome suggest.
Here are the only pieces of evidence.
1. First piece of evidence.
(1 cent. BCE) BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.â€
Others translate this as
“I compelled (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.â€
Baldwin and Grudem explicitly agree with the meaning “compel” in this example.
2. Second piece of evidence.
(2nd century) Ptolemy Tetrabiblos “If Saturn alone is ruler of the body and dominates mercury and the moon.â€
3. Third piece of evidence.
(3 cent. AD) Hippolytus (d. AD 235) On the End of the World. 7
Translation: by Baldwin
“Therefore, everyone will walk according to his won desire, and the children will lay hands upon their parents, a wife will hand over her own husband to death and a man his own wife to judgment as deserving to render account. Inhuman masters will have legal authority over their servants and servants shall put on an unruly disposition toward their masters.”
Cited from Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. pages 680-682.
However, in an online edition of the church fathers this passage is translated as,
“Wherefore all shall walk after their own will. And the children will lay hands on their parents. The wife will give up her own husband to death, and the husband will bring his own wife to judgment like a criminal. Masters will lord it over their servants savagely, and servants will assume an unruly demeanour toward their masters.”
This is the evidence that authentein has a negative connotation and is not used to mean that authority that a leader has in the church.
I note that in the comments which you linked to my co-blogger, Peter Kirk had presented these same examples to you, and you did not respond at that time.
Denny,
I made a practice of sharing this information on many blogs two years ago.
First, you go to Zhubert or any source of unicode Greek font and choose an appropriate text.
Copy and paste the text into your text.
á½ Î³á½°Ï Ï€á¾¶Ï‚ νόμος á¼Î½ ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήÏωται á¼Î½ Ï„á¿· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν
When I post, I work in blogger so I choose the edit mode, in which case only the text is pasted in and not the font tags, and all the rest of the code.
So, only the text itself is pasted in. In Firefox and IE 7 the font substitution system kicks in. This means that although you did not define the font, the viewer should see all characters of polytonic Greek.
Alternatively, you can define the font as Palatino Linotype which all computers have. This cannot be done in a comment but only in a post.
But you cannot retain the code and stuff from Zhubert, you have to chuck all that and define the font yourself. Some people prefer Tahoma or Gentium first.
If you go do this keyboard you can even type a few Greek words at an internet cafe, which is a good thing if you are addicted to Greek.
I don’t know if this addresses your issues.
Sue,
Îαὶ! ΧάÏις!
ΧαίÏειν,
Διονύσιος
ΚανÎνα Ï€Ïόβλημα!
Denny,
I think that in all honesty the issue of authentein must be resolved by a ground level discussion or the translation “to exercise authority” must be abandoned.
You quoted to me,
“Baldwin found 82 occurences of authenteÅ in ancient Greek literature and found that there are no negative connotations attached to this word in its appearances in literature around the time of the New Testament.
In literature contemporary to the New Testament, authenteŠmean “to exercise authority,†not “to dominate,†“to usurp authority,†or “to kill.—
But I have not seen any occurrences of authenteo which support this claim. I do think that they need to be produced, or the translation “to exercize authority” must be rethought.
The evidence, as I have posted it is the opposite of the statement you cited to me.
Denny,
I certainly appreciate you having this blog in which we can post and rant.
Sadly, I am a little disappointed with your not interacting with the evidence Sue is bringing up re: Baldwin. You can cite him as having the most comprehensive study, but she is questioning that very study. I’ve gone through his study and find that her questions are legitimate, especially since they deal with the issue at the first level research level such as what Baldwin has done.
Believe me, I understand time and focus limitations, but I am not being persuaded to think differently about Sue’s contributions until her specific questions are dealt with. You may not have the time, but some complementarian needs to.
Yes, some of the evidence about “authenteo” is from later centuries but the discernment of the meaning of a word comes from synchronic and diachronic usage. Tracking meaning and coming to conclusion needs to take into accout both the syn- and the dia-.
Some words do change meaning through time, others do not, some mutate slightly, some greatly.
The evidence from BGU 1208 (27 BCE) may suggest “compel” as a meaning and that could be understood as having a slight negative connotation.
Thus:
“I am not permitting a woman/wife to teach or to compel a man/husband.”
David
P. S. I found a computer at youth camp.
Denny,
Did Ware teach that ezer in Gen. 2:18 implies subordination?
Also, I’ve heard that upotassomenoi actually needs a stronger translation than just “submit.” Rather it should be translated “be in subjection to.”
Sue,
IMO, TUAD isn’t worth your replies. His tone is condescending, arrogant, and rude. You may not want to bother.
More importantly, I’ve read many explanations on here of what First Timothy does NOT mean, arguing against the comp. view of the passage. Can you please explain to me what it DOES mean according to your reading of it? What IS Paul telling Timothy about women in the church?
Thanks.
Sue,
Can you provide one example of aner rightly being translated (person/man-generic) from the New Testament text?
You cited many from much later sources, showing that aner can be used generically, so I’m curious what you have found in researching the New Testament text.
Sue,
Back to authenteo.
Grudem: “Our problem is this: we have never seen any clear example in ancient Greek literature where authenteÅ must mean “domineer’ or “misuse authority.’â€
You use this as your PROOF that Grudem is wrong:
BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): I had my way with him [authenteÅ ] and he agreed to provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.
This is the ONLY example of authenteo preceding the epistle. Baldwin classified the meaning under “compel.â€
Compel: Webster’s 9th; “1. to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly; 2. To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure; 3. Archaic: to drive togetherâ€.
Sounds like preaching to me; how Peter spoke (preached) to the crowd on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41); He was so compelling it says v.41 “there were added that day about three thousand souls.†He didn’t force them to get saved (negative use of authority); He compelled them to believe in Christ as Savior and Lord (positive use of authority).
I submit that compel could carry both a positive and/or negative meaning with its use depending on context.
The example from BGU 1208 appears to me NOT to be negative. Whoever the “he†of this line was, “he†needed to be compelled to do something (provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment) for the benefit of others.
I would ask of you to be more specific as to why you feel this example of authenteo MUST be negative. Is there more to the story that makes that negative, ‘domineering spirit’ more apparent? If so please provide more of the story if possible.
Benjamin,
Grudem cites “compel” as the meaning and “hostile” as part of the context for that occurrence. Then he concludes that authenteo can have a positive connotation. But I can’t find it in his data. We have to deal with the data at hand.
Is “compel” the normal authority one has in church, or does the Spirit compel people? There is a power and sovereign control which rightly belongs only to God. As you show:
Compel: Webster’s 9th; “1. to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly; 2. To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure; 3. Archaic: to drive togetherâ€.
Sue,
Will you agree that ‘men’ are to be the ‘overseers’ (episkopos) of the church of God based off 1 Tim. 3:1-7?
Sue,
I’m no longer concerned with Grudem’s assignment of the word ‘compel’ for authenteo. Looking at the source you provided as proof of Grudem being wrong,
“BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): I had my way with him [authenteÅ ] and he agreed to provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.”
I’m asking if YOU could be more specific as to why YOU feel this MUST be negative. I’m just not seeing it in this sentence.
Benjamin,
Grudem writes in Ev. Fem and Biblical Truth page 680,
“The translation of this text is disuputed. G. W. Knight, 145, gives Werner’s translation here. E, Preisigke, Worterbuch der griechischen Papyruskunden, vol. 1 (Berlin Erben, 1925), 235, lists this under “herr sein, fest auftreften” (to be the master, to act confidently). Liddell, Scott, Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon, with Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) list this under “to have full power or authority over.” P.B. Payne, “oude in 1 Timothy 2:12″ (unpublished paper presented at the ETS annual meeting November 21, 1986) implies that the translation of Paul D. Peterson is superior: “when I had prevailed upon him to provide.” Of Payne’s arguments the last it the most important – the use of pros. Payne writes that this use is “denoting a hostile or friendly relationship-a. hostile against , with/after verbs of disputing, etc. (BAG, 717; cf. LSJ, 1497). This passage is about a hostile relationship; his action is called ‘insolence’ in the text. None of the other uses of pros in the over three columns devoted to it in BAG seem to fit the text.”
It is difficult to evaluate the strength of Payne’s argument. For all extant uses of verbal authenteo that are transitive in the Greek – nearly all are followed by a genitive noun, only twice by an accusative noun, once by the preposition peri, once by the preposition eis, and here alone by the preposition pros. However, the meaning of ‘compel’ does seem appropriate.”
It is my assumption that Dr. Grudem does not base his conclusion that authenteo means “to have authority” on this occurrence of authenteo. My assumption is that he has based his conclusion on the occurrence from Philodemus. The problem is that Philodemus is not credible evidence. I don’t know if anyone wants to assert that it is. I doubt it.
So, my question is, exactly what evidence is Dr. Grudem basing his study on. There is only this one, Ptolemy Tetrabiblos and Hippolytus. In the latter case, the connotation is negative. It is possible that there was a neutral use for this term for an astronomical body.
However, given that Christ said to “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” the concept of a leader being the “lord over” or “having sovereign rule over” others is extremely problematic.
I believe that the onus is on complementarians who use this text to say that women must be restricted in their leadership roles in church to ground it in better evidence.
Some people think this passage says that women should not teach in a domineering way, and others see it as a response to a situation. The women, who are dominating in this case, need to stop.
Benjamin,
These interactions are quite time consuming. I also regret getting sidetracked earlier by another commenter.
I would rather just wait for a discussion on whether the evidence supports or does not support Denny’s quote in #20. The book we are both quoting, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth is available online.
Sue (OR ANYONE),
Can someone please answer my question? I’ve asked it so many times in various ways, and I’m still at a loss:
I’ve read many explanations on these threads of what First Timothy does NOT mean, arguing against the comp. view of the passage. Can you please explain to me what it DOES mean according to your reading of it? What IS Paul telling Timothy about women in the church?
Thanks.
Quixote,
I’m so sorry. I wrote,
Some people think this passage says that women should not teach in a domineering way, and others see it as a response to a situation. The women, who are dominating in this case, need to stop.
I think 1 Timothy was definitely written in response to a particular situation. I reread the Baldwin study and the uses of authenteo last night and I do not see any way that authenteo can refer to something that is wrong for a woman to do, and right for a man to do.
That is one interpretation that seems to me to be impossible. Therefore, we just have to pick up the pieces and start from there.
I am now an egalitarian, after many years in complementarian churches of different denominations. While not all my beliefs are identical to other egalitarians, I do believe that women can serve in every way as men do in the church. Reading missionary biographies and knowing many single women who are leaders in education and business has helped. Women were given the capacity to lead and should offer their gifts to God to be used fully. For years, someone told me to improve my piano playing so I could play in church. What a joke! I am so bad. I taught the 5 year old Sunday School class instead and enjoyed it very much.
Ultimately, I don’t know if my experience is a big help to someone else who is still complementarian. I guess I would recommend reading egalitarian literature with an open mind. I know that at first I just thought that they were full of excuses to explain away the Bible. Oddly it wasn’t until I started reading complementarians books that I suddently saw things that I knew were somehow misrepresented that I started digging deeper. It is a personal journey for everyone. Of course, I had already studied the biblical lgs before but had not looked at exegesis in a critical way when I was younger.
Probably most influential for me was the life of Catherine Booth.
You can see some of her papers at the bottom of this post and read through them. I think knowing that this woman, wife, mother, and preacher, had an enormous influence on the morals and laws in her era, is a real example of the full ministry of women.
So, quite simply, I believe that in Christian ministry, whatever is good for a man to do, is also good for a woman to do. Hope this helps.
Denny,
I have just listened to a short segment of Dr. Ware’s sermon. I was stopped cold by the fact that he explicitly states that wife abuse is a response to a wife challenging her husband’s authority.
Is this kind of teaching widespread in complementarianism, that a wife challenging the husband is the primary cause of wife abuse? I think that this is diametrically opposed to what most people, complementarians included, teach about spousal abuse. It is completely and totally the responsibility of the abuser. In fact, being submissive to abuse is one way to ensure that it will continue.
I believe that it is simply irresponsible to post this sermon.
Sue,
I’m not sure where you’re getting that from, but Dr. Ware never said any such thing. Please refrain from distorting his message.
Thanks,
Denny
This was the statement.
“the very wise and good plan of god of male headship is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, and seek to have their husbands fulfill their will, and their husbands now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged.
May God forgive me if I distorted it.
The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them; and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged .or more commonly to become passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.
I believe I made a couple of important omissions last time in haste. This is the corrected text.
Sue, #45: “I was stopped cold by the fact that he[Ware] explicitly states that wife abuse is a response to a wife challenging her husband’s authority. … I believe that it is simply irresponsible to post this sermon.”
Denny, #46: “I’m not sure where you’re getting that from, but Dr. Ware never said any such thing. Please refrain from distorting his message.”
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Sue distorts a complementarian scholar’s message to advance her egalitarian agenda. In comment #7 I asked her to apologize for asserting a blatant lie about Dr. Grudem. Thus far, she has refused to do so. Which is her right. Conversely, I have the right to show what she is doing.
Below is an excerpt from the passage in question. I have boldfaced the snippet that Sue uses to advance her specious claim that Dr. Grudem subordinates God to humans. Read the sentences before and after that boldfaced snippet to get the entire context. You will then see how petulantly wrong and deceptive Sue is.
Grudem, Systematic Theology, p.461-462:
“Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Heb., ‘ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped. In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps†someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. That is true even when I “help” a young boy in my neighborhood to fix his bicycle – it is his responsibility, and his task, and I am only giving some assistance as needed; it is not my responsibility. David Clines concludes that this is the case throughout the Hebrew Old Testament:
What I conclude, from viewing all the occurences in the Hebrew Bible, is that though superiors may help inferiors, strong may help weak, gods may help humans, in the act of helping they are being “inferior.” That is to say, they are subjecting themselves to a secondary, subordinate position. Their help may be necessary or crucial, but they are assisting some task that is someone else’s responsibility. They are not actually doing the task themselves, or even in cooperation, for there is a different language for that. Being a helper is not a Hebrew way of being an equal.””
Therefore, it is an egregiously blatant and willful distortion by Sue to take what Dr. Grudem has written, wrench an excerpt violently out of context, and then blithely assert “Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he subordinates God to humans.â€
Consequently, I redouble my call for Sue to retract and apologize for her willful distortion of Dr. Grudem’s text, a blatant distortion which she then used to wrongfully assert that Dr. Grudem subordinates God to humans.
Shame on you Sue.
Tuad,
In the previous thread, comment #157 I carefully typed out the entire first paragraph which you have cited above, starting where you did and continuing to the bicycle illustration. I meticulously provided the context first. I guess that shows how hard it is to follow a thread. I understand.
Shame on Sue?????? You requote what she just quoted but add more and that proves what? Imho, it proves you are wrong and you are the one who owes Sue an apology. To me, the extra quotes from Grudem just prove exactly what Sue has claimed- that Grudem asserts that God is our subordinate or inferior when he helps us.
“But the point is that whenever someone “helps†someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. ”
TUAD, why not just explain what he means when he says the above quote? Stop casting aspersion (ie., “willful distortion”) and start explaining WHERE Sue has distorted. Also, the term “willful” goes to motive and I would be very careful, if I were you, because you are dangerously close to being guilty of the very thing you accuse Sue of doing.
Grudem clearly states that, whether in Hebrew or our modern English, a person who helps another person is occupying a SUBORDINATE OR INFERIOR POSITION IN REGARD TO THE ONE BEING HELPED.
If Grudem is some little boy’s subordinate merely because he helps him with his bike tire, then he certainly SUBMITS and SUBORDINATES himself and occupies the INFERIOR position to his wife when he helpers her! What a pickle that is!
When he quotes Clines, it is clear that he is teaching that God is subordinate to humans when He acts as ezer (which is ALWAYS!).
Could you just stop accusing and start explaining? What does he mean by the above quote, in your opinion?
Fallacy of Equivocation
Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.
Of course, most words are ambiguous, but context usually makes a univocal meaning clear. Also, equivocation alone is not fallacious, though it is a linguistic boobytrap which can trip people into committing a fallacy. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound.
You’re committing the fallacy of equivocation. You’re taking Dr. Grudem’s sound argument on what subordinate means in his exposition of ezer in Genesis 2, and then equivocating on the word subordinate to produce the unsound argument that ““Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he subordinates God to humans.â€
I understand.
Sue,
Thanks for your comment directed toward me. I’m neiter a complementarian or an egalitarian. The jury is still out. I have a question based on your comment, but I have to run. I’ll ask later. Thanks again.
Q
Grudem, quoting Clines:
“What I conclude, from viewing all the occurences in the Hebrew Bible, is that though superiors may help inferiors, strong may help weak, gods may help humans, in the act of helping they are being ‘inferior.’ That is to say, they are subjecting themselves to a secondary, subordinate position.”
Then Grudem teaches mutual submission in marriage. Because a good husband will do things to help and serve his wife, and however infrequently he may do these kinds of things, in the act of helping, he is assuming an inferior, or subordinate position. And if you subject yourself to a secondary, subordinate position, then you are in a place where you are submitting.
Surely you all have noticed that Ware was simply stating a painful reality, not endorsing spousal abuse? He simply said that a natural way for a sinful man to react to his authority being challenged is with violence. I think history, both domestically and politically, demonstrates this statement to be true. I don’t think for a second (having heard Dr. Ware in person while visiting his church in the past) that Ware is saying that men’s passiveness or violence is the fault of women, he’s just saying that none of these things takes place in a vacumn. He’s making an observation, not prescribing what is right.
Matthew 20:
These words of Jesus tell us point blank that believers are to be different from the world, in that the leaders are the servants. Jesus, as the Cornerstone, is not on the roof but in the basement, lifting everyone up– and he told us to be like Him. And as He said, if He, being God, could come down to the lowest level (ref. also Phil. 2:5-11), then so must all of us who claim to follow Him.
So my question would be, What would Jesus say to anyone who claims priority over another believer?
Surely you all have noticed that Ware was simply stating a painful reality, not endorsing spousal abuse?
Yes. I did.
Ware is saying that men’s passiveness or violence is the fault of women, he’s just saying that none of these things takes place in a vacumn. He’s making an observation, not prescribing what is right.
Not only that, he also is NOT saying that this is the ONLY “reason” for abuse. Some people are abusive jerks – end of sentence.
That this is ONE reason, I have no doubt. I have seen it.
As a complementarian, I have problems with that sort of statement in Grudem’s ST. Taking ezer in Genesis 2 to imply subordination seems to be inferring too much.
There are pretty of texts that actually teach the complementarian position. We don’t have to twist the meaning of a word to fit our position.
There needs to be a proper understanding of the realities of abuse. It is a pathology that cuts across all demographics. It is internal to the abuser. The notion that a wife can mitigate the abuse by her behaviour is extremely dangerous. I appeal to someone to be responsible for this.
Of course, Ware is not endorsing wife abuse, but he places the responsibility on the woman for not being submissive, whereas an abusive person is abusive because of internal causes, and submission to this pathology reinforces the abuse.
A abuser abuses because of events or other factors in their childhood that have shaped him or her before the relationship. Yes, for the wife, the abuse happens in a vacuum, and then the husband notes some behaviour of the wife which he then claims is the trigger.
This could be serving dinner 10 minutes late or not having the laundry done on time.
The trigger is in reality mental illness on the part of the abuser. This is very dangerous.
I appeal to someone to get a trained clinician to comment.
Sue said…
“The notion that a wife can mitigate the abuse by her behaviour is extremely dangerous. I appeal to someone to be responsible for this.”
I don’t think that’s what Ware was saying at all. I think you’re reading far too much into his comments.
“Of course, Ware is not endorsing wife abuse, but he places the responsibility on the woman for not being submissive,”
No, he nowhere states that the wife is responsible for her abuse. He simply makes an observation about reality. You’re drawing a conclusion that he did not intend.
I disagree with his view of reality. Spouses are abused because the abuser has a need to abuse. If the wife is controlling and abusive blame the wife. If the husband is controlling and abusive, blame the wife.
This is serious business. Even the complementarian pastors that I know, recognize abuse as a serious problem. The untrained elders and Biblical scholars are not trained psychologists.
In an abusive relationship, the abuser is abusive already. Then we observe the wife’s behaviour, either loud and defensive or mousy and quiet, submissive. How can someone observing from outside pronounce the wife as the one who first sinned and the husband responded with abuse.
We need to listen to clinical psychologists on this.
Sue said…
“If the wife is controlling and abusive blame the wife. If the husband is controlling and abusive, blame the wife.”
Sue, nobody’s blaming the wife for abuse. Ware never said that and he doesn’t believe that. You’re arguing against a straw man here.
He describes abuse as a “response” to a threat to the husband’s authority. Is this an accurate description of abuse or not?
i>He describes abuse as a “response†to a threat to the husband’s authority. Is this an accurate description of abuse or not?
That doesn’t mean the husband is not responsible for his own action.
A woman responds to a whiny child by hitting him. Who is responsible? The woman.
“Sue said…
“The notion that a wife can mitigate the abuse by her behaviour is extremely dangerous. I appeal to someone to be responsible for this.â€
I don’t think that’s what Ware was saying at all. I think you’re reading far too much into his comments.”
Then what is he saying when he claims that a man will respond to a woman who is “rebellious” and not “serving” him enough with either violence or passivity?
Surely he is claiming, at the very least, that SOME instances of domestic abuse are caused by a wife who is seen as challenging her husband’s authority, no? There are no caveats issued that the vast majority of domestic violence stems from either mental illness or unchecked rage and is often caused by NOTHING the victim does at all.
“The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them; and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged ”
Also, where does the Bible teach that it marriage is a one-way street? In 1 Cor. 7 it tells us that a married man is concerned with how he may please his wife and a woman is concerned with how she may please her husband. That is a two-way street with both spouses giving to the other.
Men are called to serve their wives. Men are called to lay down their lives (desires, own way) for their wives. Marriage is not about a man getting his own way and doing what he wants to do and seeking to work to get his wife to fulfill his will, is it?
Any spouse who seeks to get their own way and works to have their spouse fulfill their will is in sin.
A parent can abuse a child without the child being whiny. A parent can hit a child for spilling, dropping, making a mistake, coughing too much.
Even Augustine was hit as a child for not getting his math right. Children have been abused for speaking their mother tongue. Children are sexually abused.
This kind of thinking that puts the one under power, the victim, as the first actor in an abusive episode, is shocking.
Sure, a parent can abuse a child without the child being whiny – but sometimes abuse does occur in response to the child being whiny. The responsibility still falls on the parent.
In the same way, spousal abuse can (and does) occur with no contributing factors, but that doesn’t change the fact that sometimes it does have contributing factors, one of which Ware has pointed out. Even these contributing factors do not shift responsiblity away from the abuser any more than the whining of a child does.
By making blanket assertions from Ware’s statement, you are misrepresenting him and attacking a straw man.
For clarity’s sake: would you be willing to say categorically that abuse is never a (horrible, wrong, and unjustified) response to a behavior of the victim?
The abusive behaviour is caused by a complex set of circumstances which include the abuser’s childhood experience, their mental health, their social, political and economic position AND their belief that they have power over the victim, as well as substance abuse.
This needs to be said. Ware cannot say what he said without modifying it.
Ware should say that the challenge to a husband’s authority provides the husband who has been taught that he has authority in the first place, an excuse for his abusive behaviour. Most of the time he is just randomly abusive, but he latches on to any excuse.
The way to solve this is to teach the husband that he does not have “authority” that he has responsibility. Then, if he is abusive, the wife will not think that she can prevent future abuse by submitting. That is not possible for more than a short term part of the abuse cycle.
Another major factor is the isolation of the victim. If no one is observing, no other adult, then the opportunities for abuse are higher. If the wife is allowed to tell others from the beginning, then the abuse may stop.
But if the wife is prevented by threats of further abuse, or moral suasion by the husband that discussing the abuse with others is a betrayal of the husband, or that the abuse is a response to her own sinful behaviour, she will not get help. This is very dangerous.
This is a metastasizing cancer spiraling virulently out of control.
1st, we have Sue asserting that Grudem subordinates God to humans.
2nd, we have Sue saying that Grudem’s text, Systematic Theology, seems pagan to her because of the assertion above.
3rd, we have Sue suggesting that trained clinicians and clinical psychologists come and comment on Dr. Ware’s sermon because of how she (wrongfully) interprets his message.
4th, we have Sue telling Denny that he is simply irresponsible for posting Dr. Ware’s sermon.
This is unbelievable. This is tragi-comedy. It is just ludicrous, ridiculous, and pathetic.
Sue, I not only ask you to retract and apologize for your defamatory remarks about Dr. Grudem, but to also repent and apologize for your defamatory remarks about Dr. Ware.
Your continual misrepresentations and distortions are reprehensible.
Sue,
I don’t know what else to say. You’ve read way too much into Dr. Ware’s comments, something I can state with confidence having met him and heard him speak in person on multiple occasions.
D J,
I make absolutely no comment on a person’s character here. I do not believe that abuse is in any way caused by or a part of the complementarian doctrine.
What I am saying is that this teaching is not responsible.
As a complementarian, I have problems with that sort of statement in Grudem’s ST.
Daniel:
Taking ezer in Genesis 2 to imply subordination seems to be inferring too much.
There are pretty of texts that actually teach the complementarian position. We don’t have to twist the meaning of a word to fit our position.
Daniel, exactly why I said if Grudem defines ezer the way he does, then he has to believe in mutual submission in marriage, which I do not think he agrees with.
His definition and inferences from the definition require him to believe in mutual submission in marriage, however.
1st, we have Sue asserting that Grudem subordinates God to humans.
Beg pardon, but it appears Sue got that idea from what Grudem and Clines said — that whenever someone is an ezer, that person is occupying a subordinate position to the one being helped.
The term ezer is more often used of God than of woman, and it wasn’t Sue who made the claim that any time (categorical statement) a person helps another person (God is a Person), then that person occupies a subordinate, or inferior position. That is what Grudem said.
I don’t buy Grudem’s and Cline’s inference for one second. When I first read it, I immediately understood that if you believe that about anyone who helps someone else, then you have to believe in mutual submission in marriage, and applying it to God is ludicrous, but by their own definition and inference from the term, that is what Grudem did.
So what is it that Sue needs to repent of? I thought she said it straight. It sounds more to me that on this point Grudem needs to retract and admit that the term ezer in and of itself does not carry with it the absolute, categorical necessity of a person occupying an inferior position to the one being helped. His statement was categorical — it included every instance, and there was no qualification or mitigation given.
Sue just took their definition to its logical conclusion.
Sue said…
“What I am saying is that this teaching is not responsible.”
Because it can be misapplied by people? By that standard no teaching is responsible. Perhaps we shouldn’t speak negatively about homosexuality, since we might irresponsibly give rise to the next Fred Phelps.
I would like to note that comments are being posted on my blog for those who are unable to comment here. They are definitely worth reading – on both sides. Thanks.
D. J. Williams,
spousal abuse can (and does) occur with no contributing factors, but that doesn’t change the fact that sometimes it does have contributing factors, one of which Ware has pointed out. Even these contributing factors do not shift responsiblity away from the abuser any more than the whining of a child does.
Then why make the statement as Ware has? His statement does place at least some responsibility for the husband’s action on the wife, assigning her a portion of the blame. He says that women “want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them; and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged.â€
He is presenting a double standard in saying that it is fine for the husband to pursue his own will and expect his wife to help him do this, but that it is wrongful for a wife to have a will that she is not willing to subordinate completely to that of her husband. He is calling the husband’s will “authority” and the wife’s will “sinful.”
Yet is the husband in the situation Ware outlines not selfish as well as sinful? Is his desire to have his wife subordinate her will to his, as he expects her to do to him, not exceedingly selfish? Would a loving husband not care about his wife’s wants and wishes, seeking to fulfill her too rather than have her just be a servant to his wants? Is the latter attitude not narcissistic and exploitative?
TUAD,
Your treatment of Sue is reprehensible. You are not merely disagreeing with her, you are mocking and ridiculing her.
“What I am saying is that this teaching is not responsible.â€
Because it can be misapplied by people?”
Then it should be a concern that abusers will misunderstand Ware. I do not think it was wise teaching at all.
Bonnie: “TUAD,
Your treatment of Sue is reprehensible. You are not merely disagreeing with her, you are mocking and ridiculing her.”
Timeout. Think about this Bonnie:
Sue’s treatment of Dr. Grudem is reprehensible. She not merely disagrees with him, but she mocks and ridicules Dr. Grudem by saying that his textbook, Systematic Theology, seems pagan to her and that Dr. Grudem subordinates God to humans.
Sue’s treatment of Dr. Ware is reprehensible. She not merely disagrees with him, but she mocks and ridicules Dr. Ware by saying that trained clinicians and clinical psychologists be called in to evaluate his statements on abuse. She then goes on to say that Denny is being irresponsible for posting Dr. Ware’s sermon, a sermon that Denny said was “one of the finest, most succinct presentations of the Complementarian point of view that I have ever heard.”
Hello, quixote
‘Sue (OR ANYONE),
Can someone please answer my question? I’ve asked it so many times in various ways, and I’m still at a loss:
I’ve read many explanations on these threads of what First Timothy does NOT mean, arguing against the comp. view of the passage. Can you please explain to me what it DOES mean according to your reading of it? What IS Paul telling Timothy about women in the church?
Thanks.’
Paul is prohibiting 1 woman from teaching 1 man. The passage in context shows this. V15 is key. ‘She’ will be saved if ‘they’ (a woman and a man, probably a married couple) continue in faith and love (the very things some were straying from, see 1 Tim 1:5). The context is false teaching from chp 1. If steps are taking from v10 through v15 it is clear that Paul is speaking of 1 woman, and not unsing the phrase ‘a woman’ genericaly for all women.
That’s the skinny!
5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).
God did give his command to Eve. Eve said in Gen 3, ‘God said’. She didn’t say ‘Adam said’. God’s command is given in Gen 1 to both, and in Gen 2, to the man before the woman was created. The woman’s wittness is given in Gen 3.
He told them both in chp 1 what they could eat which encompassed (!) what they could not eat as there could be no contradiction. Important to God was what they could eat, as well as what they could not.
Oops. I have a correction to make. I meant, she did not say ‘Adam said, God said’.
On the abuse issue, I think what Ware said is serious, for reasons I will explain below, but it is far less serious than an audio clip, which may be found in the link I will give, of what Paige Patterson said.
Patterson out and outright said a woman should not leave her husband, even in a lot of cases where there is physical abuse going on. Wives are supposed to put up with some level of physical violence before they separate. He only said she should leave if the battery was “serious” and he didn’t say what the cut-off between non-serious and serious was.
It does make one wonder how much violence one should put up with from one’s employer, or associate, before calling the police, you know?
Then Patterson topped it off with one anecdote that proved how right he was to say these things.
The audio clip may be found on this page:
http://sbcoutpost.com/2008/02/25/defendant-paige-patterson-to-be-deposed-today/
You can counsel someone to pray all you want to, and that is good, but especially if there are little children involved, you do everything you can to get both you and them out of harm’s way, if you can, and you set limits as to what you will tolerate being done to your person.
Marriage does not exist in a vacuum, and any adult, be they male or female, who hauls off and strikes with the fist should be arrested for taking the law into their own hands, and that includes family members.
Now, regarding what Ware said, while I agree that abusive people who have anger problems can have those problems triggered, it is also very true that they exaggerate what these triggers are to where the victim is falsely blamed — IN A LOT OF THE CASES. I personally know a wife where there has been violence in their home. He has (or has had) an anger problem, and she is one of those real cases of an adult with ADD. I know how deeply scarred she feels for feeling defective, but to be honest, she is one of the greatest cooks, decoraters, and creative people I know. She works very hard, and keeps changing the subject when we talk, but as far as her life goes, she keeps things on track.
But I do know she has been beaten because he’s been angry with her, and has interpreted her impairment as a lack of submission to him. I have also had some counseling in abusive patterns (from working in a hospital) and was taught it is extremely common for abusers to blame their victims for their problems in order to keep the victims under their control.
This is why there is such a fracas being made over Ware’s comments. Because there is such a high percentage of battered wives who are being told if they would just submit more, the problem would go away, and that just isn’t true. And it isn’t just the abusers who are saying this. Some things Bill Gothard teaches, for example, are just ready to be abused by an abuser. With that kind of overlay, it is not surprising that many people are reacting to Ware’s comments very stridently. Because not only does sinful man strike back and take his own vengeance when he really is wronged — he very often does it when he hasn’t been wronged at all, but just says he has, in order to blame the victim.
http://runwithpatience.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/prevalence-of-domestic-abuse/
This woman is a professional counselor who give some Dept. of Justice stats on abuse in the USA. Just FYI.
Bonnie said…
“Yet is the husband in the situation Ware outlines not selfish as well as sinful? Is his desire to have his wife subordinate her will to his, as he expects her to do to him, not exceedingly selfish? Would a loving husband not care about his wife’s wants and wishes, seeking to fulfill her too rather than have her just be a servant to his wants? Is the latter attitude not narcissistic and exploitative?”
Yes. Ware would agree. Thus my contention that Sue is getting him wrong.
Thanks Kathy. Thanks Sue. Thanks Lynn. Thanks to all who have stood up against this popular notion that abuse is a warranted reaction from ungodly husbands toward (their notion) of unsubmissive wives.
quixote, that would include denny, dr. ware, ellen, and others too, right? as none of them hold to this “popular notion” that abuse is a “warranted reaction” from ungodly husbands toward their unsubmissive wives.
and in case i’ve misunderstood, who ever said abuse is a “warranted reaction?”
Daniel Davis,
warrant: to serve as or give adequate ground or reason for
Both Ware and Patterson (see above vebatim quotes) said (I believe clearly) or intimated that a wife who rebels against her husband’s will gives grounds or a reason for his abusive (or passive) reaction.
As far as Denny is concerned, he doesn’t believe that Ware said what he said, or perhaps he just “heard” it differently. But perhaps Ware needs to reword it since it has certainly caused a stir among readers. And if he did NOT mean it to say what we’ve understood it to say, then he would certainly reword for he would not want such a groww misunderstanding to even possibly linger in the minds of husbands (or wives).
“groww” should be “gross”
quixote – please do a word search on the Ware quote for “sinful”. Thanks.
Quixote said…
“And if he did NOT mean it to say what we’ve understood it to say, then he would certainly reword for he would not want such a groww misunderstanding to even possibly linger in the minds of husbands (or wives).”
Or perhaps we should be more careful to examine what someone means by an observation (not a prescriptive ethic) before we say that they teach that a failure to submit gives grounds for abuse. You inferred that Ware teaches “abuse is a warranted reaction from ungodly husbands toward (their notion) of unsubmissive wives.” Show me exaclty where he says that. You’ve got to read a lot into his words to get that meaning. I feel the irresponsibility here is on the part of the interpreters, not the speaker.
I do not wish to imply that Ware said anything that he did not.
There are two extremely absolutely vital issues here.
First, abuse is terrible and pervasive. ALL statements on abuse should be vetted by those with clinical experience. Abuse should not be talked about in such a dismissive and callous way.
This teaching that “sinful abuse by a male is a response to sinful behaviour by female” is like selling tobacco. Not every woman will stay in an abusive situation because of it, but some will and they and their children will experience criminal assault because of it.
Second, this teaching is found in many major complementarian books. It is a foundational complementarian teaching. I have documented 4 major writers last night, who concur with Ware’s viewpoint.
This doctrine is based on a new interpretation of Gen. 3:16 that the wife “desires to control her husband and he will rule over her.” For 15 centuries that verse was translated that the wife “will be under the power of her husband and he will rule over her.”
Since the reformation, the Pagnini Latin Bible, this was interpreted that she “would desire her husband and he would rule over her.”
It is only complementarians who teach that it says “she will desire to control (or exert her will) and he will rule over her.”
The complementarian theology and interpretation is novel and irresponsible.
Doctrinally and clinically, this teaching needs to be examined and repented of. Why are men saying that the wife is the one who sins first? Is this Adam all over again shifting the blame?
Doctrinally and clinically, this teaching needs to be examined and repented of. Why are men saying that the wife is the one who sins first? Is this Adam all over again shifting the blame?
Because sometimes it is. Unless you are teaching that is is always the husband that sins first.
I happen to believe that there is enough sin to go around and that most times (marriage consisting of two human beings) that the “you did it first” is pretty even.
“3. While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), yet the woman’s humanity as “image of God†is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her “isha†(woman) because she was “taken out of ish (man)†(Gen 2:23; cf. 5:3).”
Huh? What is he saying here? That woman was NOT made in the image of God”
What in the world does he mean by the “woman’s humanity as “image of God” is established as she comes from man”?
That makes no sense and it is convoluted and it smacks of double-speak.
It sounds as if he is saying that woman is the indirect image of God and that man reflects God’s image onto woman.
Here is what the Bible says:
“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ”
God created MANKIND (adam) in His own image. That word does not refer to males but to ALL human beings- both male and female. Then he goes on to define what “adam” encompasses- male (zakar) and female (neqabah), He created THEM.
So, women are created in God’s image and a woman’s humanity’s humanity as the image of God (whatever that gobbleygook means) is established by GOD not through man.
I am getting tired of men trying to rewrite the Bible for their own pet agenda.
“4. The woman was created for the man’s sake or to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18, 20).”
Marriage is a mutural relationship. A married man is concerned about pleasing his wife and a married woman is concerned about pleasing her husband.
Point #4 is only telling half the truth and that is the exact error that Paul was correcting in the church at Corinth in Chapter 11.
Here is the rest of the truth that pats/comps always seem to leave out:
“HOWEVER, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.”
See the “however”? That is Paul driving home the truth to those who only had half of it and were formulating doctrine on only half the truth.
We are seeing the same thing in the patriarchal movement. It is the same error all over again.
“5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).”
This is another example of a rewrite for the sake of agenda. This point really stretches the boundaries of sound doctrine.
Genesis 1:28-29 tells us that God spoke to both Adam and Eve and gave them the “dominion mandate” (it was not solely given to Adam as the pats like to assert).
As far as giving Adam the “moral commandment”, Ware is referring to the prohibition of the tree of knowledge. Well, what does this mean? It proves not Ware’s point. Eve wasn’t created yet. Adam was told to name all the animals as an exercise to teach Adam that he was in NEED of one of his own kind. God couldn’t create Adam and not give him that command because what if Adam strolled over to the tree and ate the fruit?
It was simply a command to Adam to not eat of the fruit. It is like me telling one of my children something and then the next one is born. Does that mean I have a more special relationship with the older child because he was born first? LOL NO! Because I am going to tell that new child the same things I told the older sibling and I will have my own relationship with that new child and that relationship is not dependent upon my relationship with the older sibling.
And how do we know that God didn’t talk with Eve about it? Is Ware saying that Eve didn’t receive any direct fellowship with God while she was in the Garden and all of her information about God came through Adam?
“6. Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin (Gen 2:19-20, 23; 3:20).”
This proves authority?? Recognizing that someone is a woman and referring to her as a woman means they have authority over her?
“7. Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God’s design of male-headship (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14).”
#7 is ridiculous. There was no “usurping” going on. That is reading something into the text that cannot be supported. Who in the world believes that Satan is supposed to come through the husband first before he tries and tempts the wife? Eve disobeyed God, not her husband. Eve didn’t usurp her husband nor did Satan.
In 2 Cor. Paul warns believers:
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”
Why wasn’t this usurping business mentioned anywhere in the Bible? We, as believers, need to be ware of Satan and his craftiness.
What he [Ware] is basically saying is that Satan is supposed to go through the husband, first, and get his permission to tempt the wife.
Ellen,
I happen to believe that there is enough sin to go around and that most times (marriage consisting of two human beings) that the “you did it first†is pretty even.
And that is a fair statement. Thank you very much.
I am tired of hearing someone who has the privilege of speaking from the pulpit pointing the finger at women. This is absolutely unbelievable!
Sue, that being said, Ware still did not say that a sinful response is justified.
Sue,
“This doctrine is based on a new interpretation of Gen. 3:16 that the wife “desires to control her husband and he will rule over her.†For 15 centuries that verse was translated that the wife “will be under the power of her husband and he will rule over her.—
In my studies, I have come to this realization that this is a NEW interpretation of Gen. 3:16., also.
“Since the reformation, the Pagnini Latin Bible, this was interpreted that she “would desire her husband and he would rule over her.â€
That is what the text says.
“It is only complementarians who teach that it says “she will desire to control (or exert her will) and he will rule over her.—
And the comps/pats, once again, have to add to scripture words that are not there and thoughts that are not even hinted at in order to shore up their eroding doctrine.
“The complementarian theology and interpretation is novel and irresponsible.”
I agree.
“Since the reformation, the Pagnini Latin Bible, this was interpreted that she “would desire her husband and he would rule over her.â€
True. A better translation is the Greek OT which says (paraphrasing) ‘She will turn (from God) toward her husband and he will rule over her’.
And this consequence of sin is exactly what is being taught to men and woman as God’s design!
Yet, they do not teach that it is God’s design that men must toil on bad land as farmers. ;o)
“8. Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin (Gen 3:8-9; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22).”
Where does it say that the woman sinned first?
Jesus taught that if a man lust after a woman IN HIS HEART, it is the same as if he physically committed adultery with her. Mt. 5:28
It could very well be that Adam DID sin first. He was with Eve in the Garden. He heard Satan’s whole spiel and did nothing to correct his false doctrine. Maybe he was lusting after the fruit of that tree in his own heart and wanted to eat it and he had been entertaining the thought of eating it for a while and it finally grew into full-blown lust? And THAT was the moment when sin entered into the world?
James 1:14-15
“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
“Thou shalt not covet” is a commandment against the sin of the HEART.
I wonder why this avenue of sin entering the world has not been pondered by the comps/pats since this is the basis of the entire New Testament and what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for?
Shall we now teach, in order to be consistent with this point, that coveting is not really a sin? That it is only sin when it becomes stealing? Shall we just get rid of that commandment since sin can only come into the world through a physical act?
These are questions we should be asking and we definitely should NOT be adding to scripture things that are not there in order to protect our precious manmade doctrines.
Yes, most complementarians do not know that they are being taught something very novel.
This is from Grudem again,
“Susan Foh has effectively argued that the word translated “desire” (Heb. teshûqah) means “desire to conquer,” and that it indicates Eve would have a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband. (Systematic Theology. page 464)”
Would someone please tell me who Susan Foh is? And why does a systematic theology have interepretations that are a few years old in it, but does not have interpretations from the Septuagint, from Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, from Calvin, from everyone else in church history in it.
Yet, they do not teach that it is God’s design that men must toil on bad land as farmers. ;o)
On a world scale there are more women toiling on the land.
Denny, #46: “Sue,
I’m not sure where you’re getting that from, but Dr. Ware never said any such thing. Please refrain from distorting his message.”
In my view this thread is being destroyed by a malignant distortion which has given rise to spurious allegations which do not further the discussion. I wish people would heed Denny’s request.
Here is an excerpt from the Olivetan Bible, which has a preface by Calvin.
This is from Gen. 3:16.
et te soumettras à ton mari, Bible Olivétan (with preface written by Calvin)
“and you will submit to your husband.”
That is the statement about what will happen to women because of sin.
Now, here is what Dr. Grudem has chosen for his Systematic Theology,
“Eve would have a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband.”
Now somebody tell me why Dr. Grudem quotes Susan Foh above Calvin. Please.
I know it is hard to believe that the meaning of Gen. 3:16 has been turned on its head since the Reformation. However, that is what has happened.
Ware is citing a tenuous interpretation that seems to date back to Foh. What is the history of this?
For anyone who’s interested,
Please do look at this thread where Sue commits the root fallacy” in her lexical research.
Here’s are excerpts:
“Sue’s fantasies of interpretation arise out of the “etymological root fallacy,†an interpretive error common among the amateurs and those with special agendas.”
For an explanation of the root fallacy, click here . Also on this page is an explanation of an error dubbed “the overload fallacy.†It looks very much like what D. A. Caron has styled “the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy,†and Sue’s comments might well be an example of this interpretive fallacy as well.”
“Sue,
There’s no problem with running to a lexicon. The problem arises when one gets there and finds a range of meanings, dependent on context, which the lexicon-user then ignores, resorting first to an interpretive criterion alien to the text in which the word appears. This generates any number of word-meaning fallacies, some of which I referred to in that link I provided. The “root fallacy†is one of the more common of these.”
From: Egalitarian Flummery No. 2
Denny,
Have you left the building? I know you posted a message by Dr. Ware, but you did so because you agree with the message. Surely you can rise to its defense?
#96 Corrie says:
“It sounds as if he is saying that woman is the indirect image of God and that man reflects God’s image onto woman.”
Yes, that is exactly what Ware is saying. Ware says that the man is the “direct” image of God and woman is the “indirect” image of God. The audio quotes are in the DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” Many have been shocked to hear what Ware actually teaches about the creation of woman and it is shocking to hear his actual words regarding this teaching.
D. J. Williams,
Yes. Ware would agree. Thus my contention that Sue is getting him wrong.
My reference to narcissistic, exploitative behavior is not the husband’s passivity or abuse in response to his wife, whether she’s sinning or not, but his desire that she “submit to him, to do what he would like to do and seek to work to have him fulfill his will,” I’m assuming in all things.
Is this or is this not an accurate quote of Ware’s:
The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them; and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly to become passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.
If it is, then Ware is saying that wives are sinners for not wanting to “submit to their husbands, to do what he would like to do and seek to work to have him fulfill his will,” and calling this will of the husband’s his authority. But this is not his authority; authority and will are not the same thing. Such an attitude on the part of the husband is sin — it is narcissistic and exploitative.
“Yes, that is exactly what Ware is saying. Ware says that the man is the “direct†image of God and woman is the “indirect†image of God.”
Do we receive the ‘Image of God’ by the Creation materials He uses?
Dang! I can’t remember if I’ve been permanently banned from this blog or not, and if I have been, “oh well” as they say in present-day parlance…
To Corrie, post # 99 and others, Your reasons for rejecting complementarian ideology are the same ones I arrived at years ago after being challenged by someone to provide a good answer as to why women should be restricted in what’s available to them so far as corporate church ministry goes.
Even with no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew and just using the various English translations as a sort of straight edge and compass, I can find no “proof” even in a Euclidean sense of Dr. Ware’s 10 point thesis. The data to support it is simply not there.
The concept of a pre-fall hierarchy based on the male-headship of Adam has to be “choppered in” so to speak and constructed on site with the girders of extrapolation, and the Lincoln arc-welder of interpolation.
To say that Paul reaches back into the creation account in order to establish a universal ban on women teaching scripture for all time and all places, is tenuous at best. What does one do with Acts 15:28-29 and Galatians 3:28? Build a chain-link fence around them so that their application is limited?
To me, the far simpler solution is to recognize Paul’s famous Timothy passages concerning women teachers as a specific refutation addressed to specific individuals.
As I see it, there are many things Ware stated that are not true.
The man sinned first, he did this when he did not obey God’s injunction to protect the Garden, do not forget the positive commands as well as the famous negative one not to eat from the TOKOGAE.
I would like to supply the quote by Moore concerning negotiation in marriage equalling feminism.
The reason why I think this important is because of what Ware said about a wife “challenging” her husband’s authority.
The pats/comps want to live unfettered in our wonderful democracy/republic where their own personal “rights” are never infringed upon but then they turn around and want to run their homes like dictators (one who tells people what to do and how to do it and when to do it and expects to see obedience to his commands) where they direct, command, and issue edicts and the good wife simply obeys because that is her “role”.
And I am sure that this is where some comps will give me the child question. You know the one where they ask us if we tell our children what to do and expect them to obey it. All I have to say is that they are children, women are adults (not children).
Negotiation simply means “discussion aimed at reaching agreement”. Moore believes that negotiation, concensus (harmony, solidarity) and mutual submission are NOT supposed to be part of a comp marriage. This is the stuff of a feminist agenda and of the egalitarian marriages.
I have no idea why comps are threatened by the concept of solidarity, harmony, agreement and discussion when coming to a decision. But, they obviously believe that a marriage isn’t biblical if these things are going on.
That means that a true comp marriage is one where the husband gives the orders and the wife does not “challenge her husband’s authority” as to not give him a reason to hit her.
“Likewise, in her Evangelical Identity and Gendered Family Life Oregon State
University sociologist Sally Gallagher interviews evangelical men and women across the
country and across the denominational spectrum and concludes that most evangelicals are
“pragmatically egalitarian.â€6 Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but
practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation,
mutual submission, and consensus.
That’s what our forefathers would have called “feminismâ€â€”and our foremothers,
too.
And yet Gallagher shows specifically how this dynamic plays itself out in
millions of homes, often by citing interviews that almost read like self-parodies. One 35-
year-old home-schooling evangelical mother in Minnesota says of the Promise Keepers
movement: “I had Mike go this year. I kind of sent him…. I said, ‘I’m not sending you to
get fixed in any area. I just want you to be encouraged because there are other Christian
men out there who are your age, who want to be good dads and good husbands.â€7 This
“complementarian†woman doesn’t seem to recognize that she is “sending†her husband
off to be with those his own age, as though she were a mother “sending†her grade-school
son off to summer youth camp. Not surprisingly, this evangelical woman says she doesn’t
remember when—or whether—her pastor has ever preached on the subject of male
headship. ”
http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf
What is wrong with sending one’s husband off to a retreat? Maybe he is a workaholic and she sees this and knows that he needs to get away? Surely a woman can know what is best for her husband in the same way a husband can know what is best for his wife when it comes to blind spots?
These guys seem awfully over-sensitive about anything that appears to be challenging their “authority”. “How dare a woman think she can “send” her husband anywhere! The nerve of her!”
I know a highly patriarchal wife who told her pastor-husband that he “failed” to include scripture to back up his beliefs on courtship. How do I know this? Well, he wrote it on his own blog.
And that is exactly why Ware’s statement is dangerous. Even a simple question could be seen as a provocation and challenge.
Where does this “how dare you question me” attitude come into play when we look at the scriptures? We, as Christians, are supposed to be teachable and open to correction, are we not? Or does that not apply to husbands? Did I miss the exception clause?
This attitude is not a biblical attitude at all.
“This is from Grudem again,
“Susan Foh has effectively argued that the word translated “desire†(Heb. teshûqah) means “desire to conquer,†and that it indicates Eve would have a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband. (Systematic Theology. page 464)â€
Would someone please tell me who Susan Foh is? And why does a systematic theology have interepretations that are a few years old in it, but does not have interpretations from the Septuagint, from Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, from Calvin, from everyone else in church history in it.”
And why is a complementarian such as Grudem using a woman’s teachings to prove his case? Does that not violate the very thing that he teaches?
As for the rest it seems they pick and choose whether newer is better or older is better depending upon whether or not it helps their case.
“Sue, that being said, Ware still did not say that a sinful response is justified.”
But what Ware says justifies a husband’s response.
Justify means to “give a good reason for” something.
So, Ware did provide justification for a husband’s violent response if he *feels* that his authority is somehow being challenged.
Just because he said it was wrong doesn’t mean he didn’t provide justifcation for that action.
Any abuser will take what he said and run with it. And any person who denies this knows nothing about abusers.
I want to say very clearly that I have absolutely no knowledge of Dr. Ware as a person and I do not think that he is excusing abuse.
I do believe that he is saying something that many complementarians also write and teach, that a husband’s sinful actions are a response to his wife’s sinful actions.
This can be used by a husband and sometimes church elders to teach that the submission of a wife will reduce abuse, when, in fact, it is likely to do the opposite.
Subsequent Bi
Excuse the postscript. Evidently I was going to say more and then decided not to.
One of the things that I am trying to say here is that this teaching is widespread. It is not unique to Dr. Ware. All teachers of complementarian doctrine have to take responsibility for this.
This is from the gender blog today.
“In the curse pronounced by God upon the newly guilty Adam and Eve the distinctive nature of each part of the curse implies the need for men to protect women. The facet of the curse spoken to women includes vulnerability to the serpent, risk and pain in child-bearing and the spiritual danger of desiring to master her husband.
Distinctively, the curse upon men includes difficulty in all matters of the earth, and in providing for oneself and family.”
You notice how this writer has taken the words from scripture in Gen.3:16 and taken the part of the curse that applies to men, that the husband “will rule over her/be the lord of her,” and removes its application to men, and then puts this phrase into the curse on women, that she has the “spiritual danger of desiring to master” her husband.
All teachers of complementarian doctrine have to take responsibility for this.
Sorry, not all. I take that back. I will make a documented list at some time.
I was talking to my husband about this debate earlier this week, after the man who pastors him mentioned in a mentoring session that women shouldn’t be in authority in the church because of 1 Timothy. I asked my husband some questions about it, mentioning some things I’ve read here, and do you know what his bottom-line answer was?
“Well, no man wants a woman telling him what to do.”
And I replied (as genteel as I could), “But what has that got to do with Scripture?”
As true as my husband’s statement might be, isn’t that letting a personal philosophy (albeit one historically hammered into men) cloud the lens by which men read the Bible?
pastorswife,
The whole issue of authority/submission has become an idol. Everyone is talking about who is in charge, who has authority, who is not submissive, etc. Careers are built around this issue in Christendom.
Why aren’t the men talking about being the most humble servant? Or a bondservant like Paul?
Instead, the whole focus is on a woman’s ‘role’, her place and being submissive and the sin of being unsubmissive. Even to the point of teaching that she has to do a work to be saved: Childbirth. No matter how they spin it, that is what is being taught.
It makes me weep for all of us.
Another former complementarian blogger has posted at length on Ware’s teachings here.
Once again, it worries me to center Ware out here. I think he is teaching what is taught by many others.
Here is another take on this sermon.
Lydia,
I am very much in the same place.
All,
Count me in as a former complementarian of Ware’s same stripes who, upon really digging into Scripture, came away thoroughly amazed at how unsupported my complementarian philosophy was.
I feel now that my comp foundation sat on the bedrock of reading things into the texts, reading meaning into words, that simply are NOT there. This thread touches on many of those same words and concepts that have to be read INTO Scripture (ezer meaning subordinated, teaching that the Gen. 3:16 “desire” means desire to usurp, etc).
But I’d rather not comment on those words, because they’ve been discussed here and will be and continue to be elsewhere. I have two other thoughts that I’d prefer to spend time on.
1. Through reading this entire thread, I couldn’t help but think of aaaall the passages in Scripture (the amount of which blows away the small number of Scriptures we have on gender!!!) that speak of how God’s righteous are those who are known to protect the weak, the downtrodden, the defenseless, from those who have power over them and are abusing it.
And I compare that to what Ware said about men who abuse.
For those who are claiming Sue brought up a straw man, I must say that Ware’s statement instantly struck me as terribly irresponsible too. This man may not have intended to feed abusers, but anyone who has either history with abuse or psychological awareness of what makes abusers tick [and what makes the abused keep on taking it. Please, please, do not cry straw man until you’ve done some research about abuse.
2. Women aren’t saved by faith alone, if Ware is correct. Boiling it down, he’s saying that women are saved by a faith that *includes* their acceptance of female subordination.
This is SO grievous. Denny, I don’t understand how anyone could say that Ware’s speech was “deeply Biblical.” This is not an issue of one opinion vs. another, where we can apply a liberal dose of Christian liberty. Ware’s words on how women are saved strike at the very heart of the Gospel. Sola Fida for men, but not for women. Why is anyone applauding this sort of teaching?
Ethics Daily.com
Very Important Stuff
Jim West
Denny,
Disagree with us readers and call us irresponsible (or worse names), but we’re not the only ones who have understood Ware to be linking abuse and a wife’s unsubmissiveness. If you are his friend or peer, perhaps you could pass the word along to him that his beliefs are being misconstrued and ask him to rephrase his message.
For TUAD, DJ Williams, and all the other commenters who feel we’ve grossly twisted the text, we’re not alone.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10675
And that’s just one article.
Either an admission or a retraction from Dr. Ware is in order. Please.
we’re not the only ones who have understood Ware to be linking abuse and a wife’s unsubmissiveness.
Yesterday, on another blog, I reacted badly to the words of another commenter and
“snapped” at her.
That is my own sin. Was I reacting? Yes. Are the actions linked? Yes. Is the sin my own? Yes. Is it the fault of the other commenter? No.
There are many, many ways that the sin on the part of a person is “linked” to something else (living or inanimate or even a concept). That does not make the sinner any less responsible for his or her sin.
There are times that unsubmissiveness and abuse may be linked. Shoot, there are times when overspending and abused may have a link. Or abuse and any other really annoying behavior.
I have a question. When Ware says “abusive” – does he specifically mean “physical”? Or does he refer to a verbally abusive man who yells a lot?
Also, does he mean a man who is a chronic abuser, or a man who loses it in a single outburst and goes on to repent and cease the behavior (but in that time, was indeed abusive)?
Not that those two questions have a lot to do with the course of the discussion, but they are questions I’ve been asking myself.
I think there is a serious misunderstanding here. What Dr. Ware said was not a statement in passing. It is the faoundational complementarian interpretation of Gen. 3:16 that
a wife will desire to rule her husband and he will rule her.
Words are being added to scripture.
My point is that it is wrong to point the finger at Ware as the only one who teaches this. As I cited Grudem’s Systematic Theology and could cite many other complementarian authors.
This is one of the foundational beliefs of complementarianism. So, it should not be placed solely on Ware’s shoulders. It needs to be addressed in a global way.
One person should not be scapegoated for this belief. People need to disassociate from this teaching as a whole.
Sue, what is the Hebrew word for “rule” and how is it used in the only other place in Genesis that it is used?
Ellen,
That is my own sin. Was I reacting? Yes. Are the actions linked? Yes. Is the sin my own? Yes. Is it the fault of the other commenter? No.
Ellen, Ware is saying that the wife provokes her husband by not acquiescing to his will — by wanting her will to be served as well — and that this is her fault.
It is sin on the part of the wife if she sins by abusing or otherwise mistreating him. But she is not mistreating him by wanting her will to be served as well as his. He has a will, she has a will. Why did God give her one if its only purpose is to be subordinated to his?
Ware says she sins by insubordination if she asserts her will. He says her husband doesn’t sin if he asserts his will over hers and expects her to submit to it; he only sins by abusing her or being passive.
This is a double standard.
Bonnie, complementarians believe it is Biblical for a wife to submit to her husband as unto the Lord.
If she does not, that is “sin”. Is the husband sinning in reacting badly? Yes. Is he responsible for his own sin? Yes.
Comments 121 and 122,
I couldn’t agree more.
Corrie, you express a lot of what I think.
Lynn, so do you.
Sue, thanks for your hard work and research. You save people like me a lot of time and effort.
I don’t go into whether hierarchy was established pre-fall or post-fall. I don’t believe God ever had hierarchy in mind.
Headship, to me, is a lot more about RESPONSIBILITY than authority.
Don Johnson, comment 113, great point. Adam was supposed to keep the garden. Did he let down his guard? (it’s all assumptions, I agree!!!)
Comment 95, including the quote from #94, completely agree.
I think that preachings like Bruce Ware’s get people so wound up because, although we hold a complementarian view in the relationship of marriage and in the church, we believe that these preachers are missing something.
I always remind myself that
- God didn’t turn around to Adam and tell him to rule over Eve. If he had meant it to be that way, he would have given a clear command. We don’t find ANY clear command from God for a man to rule over his wife.
- We don’t find any direct command from God for a man to have any greater authority over his wife than a wife has over her husband. A wife is told to submit, a husband is told to love, live with understanding, respect….
- Marriage is about unity in the first place, and then about mutually pleasing each other, loving each other, respecting each other, esteeming each other as above oneself, etc… Nobody is entitled to dominate, that’s the opposite of Christ likeness.
- Passages like 1 Corinthians 13 and Philippians 2 apply in every relationship, including marriage. According to Complementarian teaching, they stop at the doorstep of a married couple’s home. A man dominating is not sin, a wife wanting her way is, is that not double standards? Is that not missing the point? Aren’t we all supposed to grow in our likeness to Jesus?
- Passages like 1 Corinthians 13 and Philippians 2 apply in every relationship, including marriage. According to Complementarian teaching, they stop at the doorstep of a married couple’s home. A man dominating is not sin, a wife wanting her way is, is that not double standards? Is that not missing the point? Aren’t we all supposed to grow in our likeness to Jesus?
I mean, according to some complementarian teaching, like Bruce Ware’s…
Bonnie, complementarians believe it is Biblical for a wife to submit to her husband as unto the Lord.
If she does not, that is “sinâ€. Is the husband sinning in reacting badly? Yes. Is he responsible for his own sin? Yes.
This is very the problem with complementarianism. In an abusive relationship, if coughing too much is forbidden by the husband, then coughing too much is labeled unsubmissiveness.
Since this can happen in a relationship that is not physically abusive, the wife has no recourse to the elders or other governing bodies or authorities.
This discussion is not about abuse per se, but about the explanations for abuse. It is also about adding words to scripture.
Here is Gen. 3:16
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” KJV
Here is a complementarian interpretations of that.
“In the curse pronounced by God upon the newly guilty Adam and Eve the distinctive nature of each part of the curse implies the need for men to protect women. The facet of the curse spoken to women includes vulnerability to the serpent, risk and pain in child-bearing and the spiritual danger of desiring to master her husband. Distinctively, the curse upon men includes difficulty in all matters of the earth, and in providing for oneself and family.”
Notice the words added to the curse spoken to women and taken away from the curse spoken to men.
Ellen,
I believe that a wife is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord too, as stated in the context of Ephesians.
Are you saying that a wife is sinning by wanting her will to be served as well as her husband’s? That is what Ware is saying, and I do not believe it is what Ephesians 5 is saying.
Madame,
I think there are two strands in complementarianism. One is about two people complementing and loving each other as God intended; and the other strand teaches that marriage is an authority submission relationship.
Bonnie,
Are you saying that a wife is sinning by wanting her will to be served as well as her husband’s? That is what Ware is saying, and I do not believe it is what Ephesians 5 is saying.
As unto the Lord…
Sue,
Sue, what is the Hebrew word for “rule†and how is it used in the only other place in Genesis that it is used?
I think there are two strands in complementarianism. One is about two people complementing and loving each other as God intended; and the other strand teaches that marriage is an authority submission relationship.
Yes.
The difference is that you see them as mutually exclusive and complementarians do not.
‘There are many, many ways that the sin on the part of a person is “linked†to something else (living or inanimate or even a concept). That does not make the sinner any less responsible for his or her sin.’
But the link here is not to something else. The link is to the wife not being submissive and so in this case it does make the husband less responsible in the sense that the wife is more responsile because here she is responsible for her sin and causing his sin yet, the husband is to be fully responsible for his own sin whether or not she is sinning. This begins with calling the wife’s unsubmissiveness, sin.
Does an unsubmissive wife truely cause her husband to abuse her? Everyone directly says ‘NO’ right? Well, then why are some saying ‘yes’ indirectly, in the sense that her ‘sin’ causes his sin because that’s the link? That’s the problem. The link along with calling her unsubmissiveness sin.
Does the husband get to arbitrarily decide when she is being submissive and when she is not. Can he call anything he decides about her unsubmissive and therefore sin?
This implies a woman has no personal intimate relationship with Christ. If you say still she does, then she would have two “heads” according to the definition that many comps use. Christ AND her Husband would both be her ‘head’.
If she has ONE ‘head’then that means her husband is her priest/mediator in place of Christ.
Christ AND her Husband would both be her ‘head’.
What does Scripture say about the husband being the head of the wife?
Gen 1-5 (the 3 origins accounts) does not tell us everything we might wish, so from our perspective there are gaps in the story. How one fills in the gaps tells more about the gap-filler than it does about God.
What is specially egregious is to alter the meaning of words, such as teshuqah/desire to give it a negative connotation. It derives from a running stream “trying/desiring” to flow downhill, there is no negative connotation at all.
Beware people who would add or subtract from Scripture or try to control the dictionaries/lexicons.
what is the Hebrew word for “rule†and how is it used in the only other place in Genesis that it is used?
Sue, what is the Hebrew word for “rule†and how is it used in the only other place in Genesis that it is used?
The Hebrew word for “rule” is mashal מְש×ָל
יִמְש×ָל-בָּךְ
“he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16
Another place in Genesis where this word is used is in Gen. 1:18
וַיַּעַשׂ ×ֱלֹהִי×, ×ֶת-ש×Ö°× Öµ×™ הַמְּ×ֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִי×:
×ֶת-הַמָּ×וֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְש×ֶלֶת הַיּוֹ×
And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day.
Here is Gen. 3:16
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.†KJV
Here is a complementarian interpretations of that.
“In the curse pronounced by God upon the newly guilty Adam and Eve the distinctive nature of each part of the curse implies the need for men to protect women. The facet of the curse spoken to women includes vulnerability to the serpent, risk and pain in child-bearing and the spiritual danger of desiring to master her husband. Distinctively, the curse upon men includes difficulty in all matters of the earth, and in providing for oneself and family.â€
Notice the words added to the curse spoken to women and taken away from the curse spoken to men.
Okay, I explained this improperly. The curse on woman is not that she will desire to dominate her husband as complementarians say, but that her husband will dominate her.
“I think there are two strands in complementarianism. One is about two people complementing and loving each other as God intended; and the other strand teaches that marriage is an authority submission relationship.
Yes.
The difference is that you see them as mutually exclusive and complementarians do not.”
That is because the comp interpretation puts a mere human being in place of Christ. And the interpretation completely ignores verse 21. Again, the “one anothers” taught in scripture seem to stop at the comp marriage door.
This interpretation would mean a husband cannot be a brother in Christ to his wife who is saved because he could not practice mutual submission with her as taught for all believers in the Body in verse 21.
Okay…so we do have (as part of the “curse”) that a man shall “rule” over his wife (as the two great lights rule over their respective time of day.
Is that “rule” a “negative” thing? No. So the husband’s leadership and ruling of a home is not necessarily negative, any more than having the sun rule the day is negative. In fact, the sunshine is rather a good thing.
Now let’s talk about “desire” (Genesis 3:16).
The woman would “desire” her husband. Where else is that word used in Genesis?
That is because the comp interpretation puts a mere human being in place of Christ. And the interpretation completely ignores verse 21. Again, the “one anothers†taught in scripture seem to stop at the comp marriage door.
We disagree.
Yes, the rule is a negative thing. That is why it is part of the curse.
The astronomical use of mashal links with the astronomical use of authenteo. The rule of an astronomical body is absolute power. The rule of a man over his wife in this way, is absolutely part of the curse. That is why it is in Gen 3:16.
I actually rather appreciate the sun during the day.
One needs to be careful about the word curse, there are only 2 curses given by God, on the serpent for the serpent’s actions and on the land for the male’s actions. The other things are consequences, but not curses.
Joseph ruled over Egypt. The word is used a few times in Genesis.
Don, that’s why I put it in quotes – but everybody knows what we speak of when we say “curse” referring to Genesis.
When God tells the woman that the man would rule over her, it was not a command to the man, nor a command to the woman, it was a WARNING from God to the woman about what to expect being married to the deliberate sinner.
Christ AND her Husband would both be her ‘head’.
What does Scripture say about the husband being the head of the wife?”
Ellen (LOL), please drop the school marm act. It is getting a bit old and does not fit the situation because I disgree with your interpretation in the first place.
The scripture says that man is the source of woman. It also says that man comes from woman and all things come from God. It also says that believers are to submit to one another…just one verse ahead of the one we are discussing! But it does not apply to husbands. Strange.
Are you suggesting a wife cannot sacrifice for her husband? Or that she should not love him? Are you suggesting that a husband should NEVER submit to his wife?
Do you realize you people have built an entire religion, that is not even primary doctrine about the saving truth of Christ, and made it a primary doctrine of salvation where a woman who many NOT even know HOW she was unsubmissive IS according to her husband and therefore in SIN! And is saved in Childbirth!
In the example Ware uses, the husband gets to decide what is SIN when it comes to another his wife!
Has everyone failed to see this?
Are you suggesting a wife cannot sacrifice for her husband? Or that she should not love him? Are you suggesting that a husband should NEVER submit to his wife?
I would challenge you to quote where I did. (I have not)
Don,
You are absolutely right. These are consequences not curses. I was imitating one of the quotes above. But, thanks for the heads up.
” is that “rule†a “negative†thing? No. So the husband’s leadership and ruling of a home is not necessarily negative, any more than having the sun rule the day is negative. In fact, the sunshine is rather a good thing.”
Ellen,
I disagree. That “rule” in the context it is in, because it’s part of the “curse” or the result of sin, is negative.
Why didn’t God command Adam to rule over Eve?
Ellen (LOL), please drop the school marm act. It is getting a bit old and does not fit the situation because I disgree with your interpretation in the first place.
You say that a woman would have two heads if her husband were her head. Scripture says that the husband is the head of the wife and Christ is the head of the church.
Regardless of your interpretation of “head”, the husband is still “head” of the wife, Christ is still “head” of the church and “head” is still the reason that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands.
“Are you suggesting a wife cannot sacrifice for her husband? Or that she should not love him? Are you suggesting that a husband should NEVER submit to his wife?
I would challenge you to quote where I did. (I have not)”
I have no idea what this means or what you are talking about?
A wife can simply say she cannot do what the husband asks her in faith and she should not sin and do it, as anything that is not done in faith is sin. This stops the supposed man-rule in its tracks.
You asked, am I suggesting…(the absolute NEVER).
No and I would challenge you to quote me where I have. I have not suggested any such thing.
It is important to see that all of Gen 3 are not bad things, some are good. If you use the term “curse” for the whole set, you can miss that as you will not be looking for good things.
Why didn’t God command Adam to rule over Eve?
I believe that man and woman were made to complement each other – man was created first, woman was created as a helper…the teaching that loving leadership and submission was in place from creation makes the most sense to me.
It is important to see that all of Gen 3 are not bad things, some are good. If you use the term “curse†for the whole set, you can miss that as you will not be looking for good things.
What part of what is generally accepted a “the curse” do you see as a good thing?
teshuqah is used 3 times in the Bible, in SOS it is used in a very good way, sexual desire between lovers.
It is true that the 2 uses in Genesis have some form similarities and one is to discern what is similar and what is different between the 2.
“Regardless of your interpretation of “headâ€, the husband is still “head†of the wife, Christ is still “head†of the church and “head†is still the reason that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands.”
‘Head’ does not mean authority over another.
It is true that the 2 uses in Genesis have some form similarities and one is to discern what is similar and what is different between the 2.
How is it used by the writer of Genesis?
Head’ does not mean authority over another.
We disagree.
But, as I said, no matter what your chosen interpretation is, it is still the reason that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.
On good things in Gen 3, one needs to check an interlinear, as many translations do not show it.
But after hearing that the crusher of the serpent’s head would be from her, the woman is told she will have multiple children.
Also, desire for your husband is a good thing is you are going to have kids per above but good in general anyway.
Ellen,
(Are you saying that a wife is sinning by wanting her will to be served as well as her husband’s? That is what Ware is saying, and I do not believe it is what Ephesians 5 is saying.)
As unto the Lord…
The husband-wife relationship is not the equivalent of Christ’s relationship to the church in that the husband is not the savior of the wife, and also that Christ is both God and human, yet both man and woman are human. Christ was sinless; both man and woman are sinful.
A woman must be as devoted to her husband as she is to the Lord, and a man must give his life for his wife as Christ gave Himself up for the church. This is not a battle of wills, but a matter of the person (or Person) on behalf of whom one works.
Also, desire for your husband is a good thing is you are going to have kids per above but good in general anyway.
That depends on how it is used by the writer of Genesis uses it in other passages. Which is what I’ve been asking.
In Gen teshuqah is used once for a good thing, a wife’s desire for her husband, and once for a bad thing, sin’s desire to rule over Cain. In the first case, the rule is not a good thing, in the second the rule is a good thing, but Cain fails to do it.
A woman must be as devoted to her husband as she is to the Lord, and a man must give his life for his wife as Christ gave Himself up for the church. This is not a battle of wills, but a matter of the person (or Person) on behalf of whom one works.
Bonnie, is the word used in the “as unto the Lord” “devoted”? Or “submit”?
Nobody says that the husband is the saviour – but Scripture does make the parallel.
Don,
Thanks for explaining Gen. 3:16. I was getting side-tracked.
Don, it was Cain that was ruling sin…
it was sin that desired to rule over Cain…not a good thing.,
Ellen, that is what I said about Cain.
In Gen teshuqah is used once for a good thing, a wife’s desire for her husband,
But you see, in the complementarians interpretation of the meaning, there is no conflict between whether “desire” is good here and bad there.
They are in unison, agreement.
Eve “desired” her husband in the way that sin “desired” Cain. As a consequence, Adam’s leadership became domination.
Ellen,
comment 167, just because it makes sense doesn’t mean it’s what God meant.
Another question:
A wife doesn’t go along with what her husband says, she wants her way. She is in sin because she is not submitting
Wouldn’t the husband be in sin for trying to push his will through? Isn’t love supposed to be “not seeking one’s own?”, aren’t husbands directly commanded to love their wives?
To much complementarian teaching seems to be built on suppositions (that God wanted Adam to rule from day one, that headship means authority over) to the detriment of direct commands: husbands love your wives, live with them in understanding, respect them as fellow heirs. And that’s just the passages directed at married couples, there are a lot more commands for interpersonal relationships that are ignored. I repeat, where’s a good teaching of Christ likeness as a guideline for headship and the right attitude towards one’s wife?
Ellen,
I makes no difference what that word means. If abuse by the husband is labeled a response to an action of the wife, then we have Gen 2:12 all over again,
And the man said: ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.’
So let’s just point the finger at God. God made woman in the first place. Does a man have to rule a woman? No, the fact that a man does this is a consequence of sin.
Men must take full responsibility for their own actions, and women for theirs.
Gen. 3:12 I meant to say.
On the 2 teshuqahs in Genesis, one needs to see that one CANNOT make a complete mapping in unison, as the woman does NOT map to sin. So there is no fundamental reading both in unison, it fails. Once one sees that it fails, one needs to looks for similarities AND differences. Cain is an example of what one is to master, the sin in one’s life. The other is not an example at all, it is an encouragement to the woman, AND a warning about what to expect from being married to the deliberate sinner who blamed her.
Ellen,
Eve “desired†her husband in the way that sin “desired†Cain. As a consequence, Adam’s leadership became domination.
Would you look an abused woman in the face and tell her that the abuse is a consequence of the way she desired her husband? Franky I do not think you would do that. You are, in real life, a champion of abused women.
If you actually tell me that you believe that in general abusive men come into being because their wives desire them as sin desired Cain, I will be very surprised.
Ellen,
is the word used in the “as unto the Lord†“devoted� Or “submit�
Nobody says that the husband is the saviour – but Scripture does make the parallel.
What does “submit” (or “be subject) mean in this passage? The verb “hupotasso” in Eph. 5:22 carries over from v. 21, where all are to hupotasso one another in the fear of Christ.
Is the parallel, then, between Christ and man, or between the type of submission (or devotion, or respect, or reverence) given to each?
There are 8 examples following Eph 5:21 about how submission worked in practice in the 1st century. If you check out the Transline translation, you can see this easily from the Greek.
There is a misconception that “submit to” requires that the submission be to an authority. It does not. There is no such meaning in the Greek or anywhere else.
1 Clement 38.1:
“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (ὑποτασσÎσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,â€
People can submit to each other. But complementarianism says that certain groups, the women, slaves and children, are to submit to the man. Is that what Christianity is about?
Actually, in Greek, Clement doesn’t say “each man” but simply “each one.” He means that each person submits to their fellow Christian in a mutual way. Or maybe each person should submit to their fellow human being in a mutual way.
In my view, this is not central. People should submit to each other.
The problem is that complementarianism seeks to proclaim that a woman making any decision of her own, no matter how small, is a sin, and that the abuse of a husband is a response to that.
Complementarianism also does not accept that the rule of a husband over a wife is the consequence of sin.
I think many complementarians are not fully aware of this teaching and do not hold to it in this form. Complementarians should seek a scriptural doctrine that is in line with the central teaching of the gospel, that all have sinned equally and that Christ died for our sin. He gave us all, men and women alike, a model of submission.
Once again complemetentarianism has twisted this. Here is David Kotter on this point,
The husband is called to be the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church. He imitates the headship of Jesus Christ. The wife is called to imitate the submission of Jesus Christ to the Father. Jesus Christ is so great that both a man and woman together are needed to display his glorious leadership and servanthood.
So men are exempt from imitating the submission of Christ. I am dumbfounded.
Here is the link for Kotter’s post on subordination.
I do not wish any paragraph or quote to be taken out of context.
What Kotter wrote sure seems like idolatry to me. I say this knowing I make idols myself, but we are not to do this.
Sue,
thanks for that quote from Kotter. It just says it all, doesn’t it?
Ellen
Regardless of your interpretation of “head”, the husband is still “head” of the wife, Christ is still “head” of the church and “head” is still the reason that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands.
This I agree with. And this:
I believe that man and woman were made to complement each other – man was created first, woman was created as a helper
I don’t agree with this: loving leadership and submission was in place from creation.
There is nothing in the creation account to suggest that man = leadership and woman = submission. When Paul references Gen. 2:24 (for this cause…the two shall become one flesh) in Ephesians 5, he’s explaining why the husband nourishes and cherishes his wife as his own flesh just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.. This cause is also why the wife submits to (respects) her husband.
History has examples of those who would interpret the Bible to their advantage over others, such as the supposed divine right of kings and the way slaveholders understood the Bible pre-Civil War. We need to learn from their mistakes and not do similar, be VERY suspicious when you think the Bible authorizes you to be over another adult.
Ok,
if a husband is to live out Christ’s headship, why then is he commanded to love his wife by laying down his life? Isn’t that Christ’s utmost submission to the Father?
A husband as head is to serve his wife as body, as all the examples of Christ for the church are serving functions, not leadership functions.
Clarification, in Eph 5, they are all serving functions. Of course Jesus is also Lord, but those aspects are not being discussed there.
My sense is that some are teaching that it is the role of women are to imitate the submission of Christ.
Biblical manhood and womanhood must be rooted in the doctrine of the work and person of Christ. Therefore all women’s ministry in the local church must rely on the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the example of perfect submission. The work and submission of Christ radically reorients Christian service for Christian women because it is following in the footsteps of our Savior.
Don Johnson,
Right. A husband is not commanded to be lord as Christ is Lord, he is commanded to love as Christ loved.
The marriage relationship is described as mutual laying down of one’s will for the other.
The only way to have harmony in marriage is if each is looking out for the other one. As soon as one is self-serving, the natural reaction is selfishness. It’s natural tendency.
Many people just read the head metaphor as meaning leader, as that is what the primary metaphor in the 21st century means. However, it was just a possibility in the 1st century and there were other possibilities that seem strange to us, such as Athena springing forth from Zeus’s head.
So reading some verses written in the 1st century SEEM TO say something obvious in the 21st century when that is not the case, it is eye opening when one figures this out.
Don,
Perhaps you would be interested in my post on kephale on the BBB.
In brief the word r’osh in Hebrew, and the word caput in Latin refer to the “head of the family” in English. However, in Greek, the leader is called the archon, chiliarch, hegemon, archegos, etc. R’osh is NOT translated as kephale when a leader over his own people is in view.
Amazingly, I can say this with confidence, having examined Grudem’s study piece by piece.
I agree archon, etc. are the normal term for leader. I think the LXX used it 3 times, IIRC, for leader, as least it might be leader.
I do not have a problem with kephale POSSIBLY being leader, as it is text context that determines which is the best choice. I might be wrong on kephale, one can always learn more, but that is where I am at today.
“Don, it was Cain that was ruling sin…
it was sin that desired to rule over Cain…not a good thing.,”
Ellen,
Cain was ruling sin? That is theologically impossible. The natural man is a slave to sin. Do we see any evidence at all that Cain ruled/mastered sin except that he was a master at IT?
It doesn’t say that sin desired to rule over Cain. It personifies sin and says that it desires Cain. Again, we are inserting a word into the text that isn’t there and we are doing it because we want Gen 3:16 to say it because it fits into our theological paradigm.
I have tried to find a conclusive understanding of Gen. 4:7 but I have yet to find one. Scholars, at least the ones who can admit they don’t know everything, really are not all too sure what this verse is saying.
What we do know is that if one is not of God, they are slaves, already, to sin. Cain was already mastered by sin and his proclivity was to sin and do it all the time. He can’t help but to sin.
Why can’t we just read the plain text of Scripture? I hardly think that Gen. 3:16 carries with it the same meaning. Eve was not sin personified. The language and tone and context are both very different.
If God had said to Adam that “Eve is crouching outside the door and her desire is for you but you should rule over her.”
If the Bible had said the above, then maybe you could compare Gen 3:16 with Gen. 4:7.
God was speaking to *Eve* when He told HER that she would desire her husband and he would rule over her. It was in conjunction with bearing children which fits because even though she would have trouble in childbirth, she would still desire the very relationship that would cause her to go through the trouble in childbirth.
Her desire was good but that desire would bring her much pain and trouble. The least of which was that now her husband would try and dominate her.
When has God commanded anyone to have dominion over another person? The Christian life has its foundation on self-government, being ruled from within not from without. Your take on Gen. 3:16 doesn’t even fit with the whole counsel of Scripture and the very foundation of the Gospel.
Don:
“When God tells the woman that the man would rule over her, it was not a command to the man, nor a command to the woman, it was a WARNING from God to the woman about what to expect being married to the deliberate sinner.”
Exactly. Her desire is for her husband, a desire to have a relationship even though that relationship will bring her trouble (1 Cor. 7 tells us that a woman is happier if she stays single) both in the form of childbirth and child-rearing and her relationship with her husband.
It doesn’t make sense to take this verse as prescriptive. God is laying out the consequences. Adam will work the ground but he will have trouble with thorns and thistles and he will have to work by the sweat of his brow. The serpent will now crawl on his belly. The woman will still desire her husband in spite of the fact that he will not treat her like he used to because of sin.
“Right. A husband is not commanded to be lord as Christ is Lord, he is commanded to love as Christ loved.”
Don and Madame,
If the comps/pats recognized this one fact, it would really stop a lot of this other stuff dead in its tracks.
A husband is to love as Christ loved by laying down His life.
A husband is never told to lead and he is certainly never told to be lord as Jesus is Lord because that is impossible for a sinful human being. That is more in line with Mormon theology than anything else.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Ellen was using the word “desire” in a good way…the way you think of an enamored woman desiring/wanting her husband. She was equating it to its other Genesis usage: when SIN “desired” Cain…but don’t leave out the missing words. Sin didn’t desire Cain and that’s it. What are the missing words? Sin desired TO RULE OVER (or master) Cain…and those are the key words that Ellen (IMO) and other comps. are adding to the Adam/Eve narrative. That God “cursed” Eve with the desire (to rule over) her husband. Ellen, am I wrong in this understanding of your statements?
I would like to keep the focus on the doctrine rather than on the people. There is, to my mind, no point in suggesting that all complementarians hold to all these things. I think we need to bring certain statements into the light and ask if people really do believe this, yes or no.
Men must take full responsibility for their own actions, and women for theirs.
Nobody said differently…straw man.
Quixote,
I have responded to this issue of “desire” here, both in response to Ellen and others. It is an attempt to recognize what is wrong AND what is right in Kostenberger’s teaching on this topic.
if a husband is to live out Christ’s headship, why then is he commanded to love his wife by laying down his life? Isn’t that Christ’s utmost submission to the Father?
Why do you suppose they are mutually exclusive?
Sin desired TO RULE OVER (or master) Cain…and those are the key words that Ellen (IMO) and other comps. are adding to the Adam/Eve narrative. That God “cursed†Eve with the desire (to rule over) her husband. Ellen, am I wrong in this understanding of your statements?
I add nothing, but it makes sense that that is the “feel”…why would a woman desiring her husband in a sexual way be part of the consequences of sin?
Broken link alert. My post is called Who is allowed to desire?
What does “submit†(or “be subject) mean in this passage? The verb “hupotasso†in Eph. 5:22 carries over from v. 21, where all are to hupotasso one another in the fear of Christ.
Is the parallel, then, between Christ and man, or between the type of submission (or devotion, or respect, or reverence) given to each?
I would guess that “hupotasso” means much the same thing as it does every other place in Scripture.
However, most people realize that while submission runs in both directions (mutual), it is not identical.
If you look at the definition of “devotion”, it seems more similar to “worship”, than it does to “submit”. I may submit to my husband with the same attitude with which I submit to God, but is the “devotion” the same that I owe to God?
Perhaps “venerate”?
A husband is never told to lead and he is certainly never told to be lord as Jesus is Lord because that is impossible for a sinful human being. That is more in line with Mormon theology than anything else.
If a wife specifically (as it says in Scripture) submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ…somebody is leading and it isn’t the wife.
(I most likely missed something…generally that brings an accusation of “ignoring”…if a question was directly directed at me, please just ask again.)
I