Bruce Ware’s Complementarian Reading of Genesis

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.

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.

1,790 Responses to Bruce Ware’s Complementarian Reading of Genesis

  1. Truth Unites... and Divides June 24, 2008 at 12:11 am #

    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.”

    Read it all: From the Beginning

  2. Sue June 24, 2008 at 12:46 am #

    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

  3. David (not Adrian's son) Rogers June 24, 2008 at 8:08 am #

    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

  4. Brian (Another) June 24, 2008 at 10:50 am #

    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.

  5. Benjamin A June 24, 2008 at 12:16 pm #

    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.”

  6. Sue June 24, 2008 at 5:55 pm #

    Tuad,

    I have responded to one of the papers you linked to in the last thread here.

  7. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 24, 2008 at 6:16 pm #

    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.”

  8. Paul June 24, 2008 at 6:20 pm #

    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.

  9. Sue June 24, 2008 at 6:25 pm #

    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.”

    “Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he puts God in a subordinate and inferior position to humans whenever God helps humans.”

    Is this a better?

  10. Sue June 24, 2008 at 6:29 pm #

    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 (ὑποτασσέσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”

    2 Macc 13.23,

    ”[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.”

    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.

  11. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 24, 2008 at 6:32 pm #

    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.

  12. Sue June 24, 2008 at 6:35 pm #

    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.

  13. Sue June 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm #

    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?

  14. Paul June 24, 2008 at 6:51 pm #

    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.

  15. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 24, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

    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.

  16. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 24, 2008 at 7:19 pm #

    Paul,

    Like I said to Sue, go bait somebody else.

  17. Sue June 24, 2008 at 7:31 pm #

    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.”

    Does this pass as a fair response to the text?

  18. Sue June 24, 2008 at 7:46 pm #

    “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.”

    “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.”

    I am trying to be fair and respond to your concerns, Tuad.

  19. Terry June 24, 2008 at 8:11 pm #

    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.”

  20. Denny Burk June 24, 2008 at 9:01 pm #

    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 kill”). 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: Authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12” in Andreas Köstenberger, Women in the Church, 65-80, 269-305). Baldwin found 82 occurences of authenteō 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, authenteō mean “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

  21. Sue June 24, 2008 at 9:03 pm #

    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.

  22. Sue June 24, 2008 at 9:14 pm #

    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.”

    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.”

  23. Sue June 24, 2008 at 9:17 pm #

    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.

  24. Denny Burk June 24, 2008 at 9:20 pm #

    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

  25. Denny Burk June 24, 2008 at 9:28 pm #

    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

  26. Sue June 24, 2008 at 9:31 pm #

    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.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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.

  27. Sue June 24, 2008 at 9:48 pm #

    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.

    ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται ἐν τῷ 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.

  28. Denny Burk June 24, 2008 at 10:26 pm #

    Sue,

    Ναὶ! Χάρις!

    Χαίρειν,
    Διονύσιος

  29. Sue June 24, 2008 at 10:42 pm #

    Κανένα πρόβλημα!

  30. Sue June 24, 2008 at 11:12 pm #

    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 authenteō 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, authenteō mean “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.

  31. Sue June 24, 2008 at 11:28 pm #

    The evidence, as I have posted it is the opposite of the statement you cited to me.

  32. David (not Adrian's son) Rogers June 25, 2008 at 8:40 am #

    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.

  33. Daniel June 25, 2008 at 10:57 am #

    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.”

  34. quixote June 25, 2008 at 1:07 pm #

    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.

  35. Benjamin A June 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm #

    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.

  36. Benjamin A June 25, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

    Sue,

    Back to authenteo.

    Grudem: “Our problem is this: we have never seen any clear example in ancient Greek literature where authenteō must mean “domineer’ or “misuse authority.’”

    You use this as your PROOF that Grudem is wrong:

    BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): I had my way with him [authenteō ] 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.”

    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 together”.

    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.

  37. Sue June 25, 2008 at 4:55 pm #

    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 together”.

  38. Benjamin A June 25, 2008 at 4:57 pm #

    Sue,

    Will you agree that ‘men’ are to be the ‘overseers’ (episkopos) of the church of God based off 1 Tim. 3:1-7?

  39. Benjamin A June 25, 2008 at 5:04 pm #

    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 [authenteō ] 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.

  40. Sue June 25, 2008 at 6:13 pm #

    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.

  41. Sue June 25, 2008 at 9:16 pm #

    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.

  42. quixote June 25, 2008 at 9:22 pm #

    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.

  43. Sue June 25, 2008 at 9:49 pm #

    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.

  44. Sue June 25, 2008 at 10:56 pm #

    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.

  45. Denny Burk June 25, 2008 at 11:01 pm #

    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

  46. Sue June 25, 2008 at 11:07 pm #

    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.

  47. Sue June 26, 2008 at 12:20 am #

    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.

  48. Truth Unites... and Divides June 26, 2008 at 12:49 am #

    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.”

    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.

  49. Sue June 26, 2008 at 1:07 am #

    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.

  50. Corrie June 26, 2008 at 1:31 am #

    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?

  51. Truth Unites... and Divides June 26, 2008 at 1:48 am #

    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.”

    I understand.

  52. quixote June 26, 2008 at 6:43 am #

    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

  53. Lynn June 26, 2008 at 7:13 am #

    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.

  54. D.J. Williams June 26, 2008 at 7:13 am #

    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.

  55. Paula June 26, 2008 at 7:58 am #

    Matthew 20:

    25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    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?

  56. Ellen June 26, 2008 at 8:41 am #

    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.

  57. Daniel June 26, 2008 at 8:50 am #

    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.

  58. Sue June 26, 2008 at 9:06 am #

    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.

  59. Sue June 26, 2008 at 9:07 am #

    I appeal to someone to get a trained clinician to comment.

  60. D.J. Williams June 26, 2008 at 9:27 am #

    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.

  61. Sue June 26, 2008 at 10:23 am #

    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.

  62. D.J. Williams June 26, 2008 at 10:48 am #

    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.

  63. Sue June 26, 2008 at 11:07 am #

    He describes abuse as a “response” to a threat to the husband’s authority. Is this an accurate description of abuse or not?

  64. Ellen June 26, 2008 at 11:12 am #

    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.

  65. Corrie June 26, 2008 at 11:27 am #

    “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.”

    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.

  66. Sue June 26, 2008 at 11:28 am #

    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.

  67. D.J. Williams June 26, 2008 at 11:36 am #

    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?

  68. Sue June 26, 2008 at 11:47 am #

    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.

  69. Sue June 26, 2008 at 11:49 am #

    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.

  70. Sue June 26, 2008 at 11:52 am #

    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.

  71. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 26, 2008 at 12:05 pm #

    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.

  72. D.J. Williams June 26, 2008 at 12:29 pm #

    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.

  73. Sue June 26, 2008 at 12:32 pm #

    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.

  74. Lynn June 26, 2008 at 12:44 pm #

    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.

  75. Lynn June 26, 2008 at 12:53 pm #

    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.

  76. D.J. Williams June 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    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.

  77. Sue June 26, 2008 at 1:55 pm #

    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.

  78. Bonnie June 26, 2008 at 2:42 pm #

    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.”

    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.

  79. Lydia June 26, 2008 at 2:44 pm #

    “What I am saying is that this teaching is not responsible.”

    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.

  80. Truth Unites... and Divides June 26, 2008 at 10:39 pm #

    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.”

  81. Kathy June 26, 2008 at 10:46 pm #

    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! :)

  82. Kathy June 27, 2008 at 12:51 am #

    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.

  83. Kathy June 27, 2008 at 12:58 am #

    Oops. I have a correction to make. I meant, she did not say ‘Adam said, God said’.

  84. Lynn June 27, 2008 at 7:02 am #

    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.

  85. Lynn June 27, 2008 at 7:14 am #

    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.

  86. D.J. Williams June 27, 2008 at 7:35 am #

    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.

  87. quixote June 27, 2008 at 7:37 am #

    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.

  88. Daniel Davis June 27, 2008 at 8:26 am #

    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?”

  89. quixote June 27, 2008 at 8:49 am #

    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).

  90. quixote June 27, 2008 at 8:50 am #

    “groww” should be “gross”

  91. Ellen June 27, 2008 at 8:57 am #

    quixote – please do a word search on the Ware quote for “sinful”. Thanks.

  92. D.J. Williams June 27, 2008 at 8:59 am #

    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.

  93. Sue June 27, 2008 at 10:15 am #

    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?

  94. Ellen June 27, 2008 at 10:24 am #

    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.

  95. Corrie June 27, 2008 at 10:26 am #

    “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.

  96. Sue June 27, 2008 at 10:31 am #

    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!

  97. Ellen June 27, 2008 at 10:35 am #

    Sue, that being said, Ware still did not say that a sinful response is justified.

  98. Corrie June 27, 2008 at 10:58 am #

    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.”

    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.

  99. Lydia June 27, 2008 at 11:02 am #

    “Since the reformation, the Pagnini Latin Bible, this was interpreted that she “would desire her husband and he would rule over her.”

    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)

  100. Corrie June 27, 2008 at 11:11 am #

    “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.

  101. Sue June 27, 2008 at 11:12 am #

    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.

  102. Sue June 27, 2008 at 11:14 am #

    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.

  103. Truth Unites... and Divides June 27, 2008 at 11:19 am #

    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.

  104. Sue June 27, 2008 at 11:43 am #

    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.

  105. Sue June 27, 2008 at 11:47 am #

    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?

  106. Truth Unites... and Divides June 27, 2008 at 12:30 pm #

    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

  107. quixote June 27, 2008 at 12:33 pm #

    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?

  108. Cheryl June 27, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    #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.

  109. Bonnie June 27, 2008 at 3:08 pm #

    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.

  110. Lydia June 27, 2008 at 4:41 pm #

    “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?

  111. Greg Anderson June 27, 2008 at 4:43 pm #

    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.

  112. Don Johnson June 27, 2008 at 5:55 pm #

    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.

  113. Corrie June 27, 2008 at 6:23 pm #

    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.”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 “feminism”—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.”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.

  114. Corrie June 27, 2008 at 6:47 pm #

    “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.”

    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.

  115. Corrie June 27, 2008 at 6:59 pm #

    “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.

  116. Sue June 27, 2008 at 7:29 pm #

    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

  117. Sue June 27, 2008 at 7:30 pm #

    Excuse the postscript. Evidently I was going to say more and then decided not to.

  118. Sue June 27, 2008 at 7:48 pm #

    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.

  119. Sue June 27, 2008 at 7:49 pm #

    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.

  120. a preacher's wife June 27, 2008 at 10:47 pm #

    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?

  121. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 2:08 am #

    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.

  122. Sue June 28, 2008 at 2:34 am #

    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.

  123. Sue June 28, 2008 at 2:52 am #

    Here is another take on this sermon.

  124. Molly June 28, 2008 at 3:04 am #

    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?

  125. Sue June 28, 2008 at 3:26 am #

    Ethics Daily.com

  126. Sue June 28, 2008 at 3:28 am #

    Very Important Stuff

  127. Sue June 28, 2008 at 3:38 am #

    Jim West

  128. Quixote June 28, 2008 at 8:01 am #

    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.

  129. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 10:11 am #

    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.

  130. Sue June 28, 2008 at 11:15 am #

    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.

  131. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 11:26 am #

    Sue, what is the Hebrew word for “rule” and how is it used in the only other place in Genesis that it is used?

  132. Bonnie June 28, 2008 at 11:29 am #

    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.

  133. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 11:34 am #

    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.

  134. madame June 28, 2008 at 11:50 am #

    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?

  135. madame June 28, 2008 at 11:51 am #

    - 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…

  136. Sue June 28, 2008 at 12:06 pm #

    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.

    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.

  137. Bonnie June 28, 2008 at 12:08 pm #

    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.

  138. Sue June 28, 2008 at 12:10 pm #

    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.

  139. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:10 pm #

    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?

  140. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:12 pm #

    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.

  141. Kathy June 28, 2008 at 12:17 pm #

    ‘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.

  142. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 12:19 pm #

    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.

  143. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:20 pm #

    Christ AND her Husband would both be her ‘head’.

    What does Scripture say about the husband being the head of the wife?

  144. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 12:20 pm #

    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.

  145. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:23 pm #

    what is the Hebrew word for “rule” and how is it used in the only other place in Genesis that it is used?

  146. Sue June 28, 2008 at 12:26 pm #

    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 מְשָׁל

    יִמְשָׁל-בָּךְ

    “he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

    Another place in Genesis where this word is used is in Gen. 1:18

    וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים:
    אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם

    And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day.

  147. Sue June 28, 2008 at 12:33 pm #

    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.

    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.

  148. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 12:34 pm #

    “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.

  149. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:35 pm #

    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?

  150. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:37 pm #

    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.

  151. Sue June 28, 2008 at 12:39 pm #

    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.

  152. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:42 pm #

    I actually rather appreciate the sun during the day.

  153. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 12:42 pm #

    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.

  154. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:43 pm #

    Joseph ruled over Egypt. The word is used a few times in Genesis.

  155. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:44 pm #

    Don, that’s why I put it in quotes – but everybody knows what we speak of when we say “curse” referring to Genesis.

  156. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 12:45 pm #

    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.

  157. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 12:46 pm #

    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?

  158. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:47 pm #

    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)

  159. Sue June 28, 2008 at 12:47 pm #

    Don,

    You are absolutely right. These are consequences not curses. I was imitating one of the quotes above. But, thanks for the heads up.

  160. madame June 28, 2008 at 12:48 pm #

    ” 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?

  161. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:49 pm #

    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.

  162. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 12:49 pm #

    “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?

  163. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 12:49 pm #

    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.

  164. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:52 pm #

    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.

  165. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 12:52 pm #

    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.

  166. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:53 pm #

    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.

  167. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:54 pm #

    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?

  168. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 12:55 pm #

    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.

  169. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 12:55 pm #

    “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.”

    ‘Head’ does not mean authority over another.

  170. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:56 pm #

    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?

  171. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 12:58 pm #

    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.

  172. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 12:58 pm #

    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.

  173. Bonnie June 28, 2008 at 12:59 pm #

    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.

  174. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm #

    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.

  175. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 1:02 pm #

    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.

  176. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 1:02 pm #

    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.

  177. Sue June 28, 2008 at 1:03 pm #

    Don,

    Thanks for explaining Gen. 3:16. I was getting side-tracked.

  178. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 1:03 pm #

    Don, it was Cain that was ruling sin…

    it was sin that desired to rule over Cain…not a good thing.,

  179. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 1:05 pm #

    Ellen, that is what I said about Cain.

  180. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 1:05 pm #

    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.

  181. madame June 28, 2008 at 1:06 pm #

    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?

  182. Sue June 28, 2008 at 1:10 pm #

    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.

  183. Sue June 28, 2008 at 1:10 pm #

    Gen. 3:12 I meant to say.

  184. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 1:12 pm #

    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.

  185. Sue June 28, 2008 at 1:16 pm #

    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.

  186. Bonnie June 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm #

    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?

  187. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 1:32 pm #

    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.

  188. Sue June 28, 2008 at 1:32 pm #

    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 (ὑποτασσέσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”

    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?

  189. Sue June 28, 2008 at 1:35 pm #

    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.

  190. Sue June 28, 2008 at 1:43 pm #

    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.

  191. Sue June 28, 2008 at 1:45 pm #

    Here is the link for Kotter’s post on subordination.

    I do not wish any paragraph or quote to be taken out of context.

  192. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 1:47 pm #

    What Kotter wrote sure seems like idolatry to me. I say this knowing I make idols myself, but we are not to do this.

  193. madame June 28, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    Sue,
    thanks for that quote from Kotter. It just says it all, doesn’t it?

  194. Bonnie June 28, 2008 at 1:56 pm #

    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.

  195. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 1:59 pm #

    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.

  196. madame June 28, 2008 at 2:02 pm #

    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?

  197. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 2:04 pm #

    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.

  198. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    Clarification, in Eph 5, they are all serving functions. Of course Jesus is also Lord, but those aspects are not being discussed there.

  199. Sue June 28, 2008 at 2:09 pm #

    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.

  200. madame June 28, 2008 at 2:12 pm #

    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.

  201. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 2:36 pm #

    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.

  202. Sue June 28, 2008 at 2:49 pm #

    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.

  203. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 2:57 pm #

    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.

  204. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 3:06 pm #

    “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.

  205. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 3:12 pm #

    “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.

  206. Quixote June 28, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

    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?

  207. Sue June 28, 2008 at 3:18 pm #

    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.

  208. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 3:23 pm #

    Men must take full responsibility for their own actions, and women for theirs.

    Nobody said differently…straw man.

  209. Sue June 28, 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    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.

  210. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    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?

  211. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 3:26 pm #

    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?

  212. Sue June 28, 2008 at 3:26 pm #

    Broken link alert. My post is called Who is allowed to desire?

  213. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 3:33 pm #

    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”?

  214. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 3:34 pm #

    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.

  215. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 3:39 pm #

    (I most likely missed something…generally that brings an accusation of “ignoring”…if a question was directly directed at me, please just ask again.)

  216. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 3:44 pm #

    It doesn’t say that sin desired to rule over Cain.

    Sorry, I misquoted…Sin desired Cain. Since the word we’re looking at is “desire”, do you think that sin “desired” Cain in a good way?

  217. Sue June 28, 2008 at 3:48 pm #

    Does the man in Song of Solomon desire his partner in a good way? Look at my post on this.

  218. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    Why all the focus on ‘desire’? The early fathers translated ‘teshuqa’ as ‘turning’.

  219. Paula June 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm #

    Let me see if I understand the comp line of argument here.

    1. Eve naturally, before the Fall, desired to rule over Adam and take his authority, so she talked directly to the serpent without first asking permission from Adam and then ate the fruit.

    2. When God spoke to Eve about eating the fruit, he told her that her desire ‘WILL BE’ for her husband.

    So which is it? Did Eve “desire” before eating the fruit, or after? If she had already desired to usurp Adam’s alleged authority, then what was God predicting? But if she did not previously have that “desire”, then she could not have eaten the fruit out of a sinful usurping of authority. Likewise, if Adam had already been vested with authority over Eve before they ate the fruit, then what was God predicting when he said that Adam “WILL rule over you”?

    The problem is that comps want to have their cake and eat it too; they want Eve to have had this evil desire to boss Adam before God predicted it, and then claim that this desire only entered her as the result of sin. So then they start adding fine print: Adam would now rule BETTER or MORE SUCCESSFULLY; Eve would desire MORE GREATLY. In fact, the entire comp rendering of the first three chapters of Genesis consists entirely of this fine print that nobody but they can see.

    What is actually says, without fine print or heavy inference, is that Eve would desire ADAM himself and not something he had; that Adam would now rule over Eve whereas before he did not. Nowhere in any part of the Bible is Eve blamed for sin; nowhere in all the Bible does it say Eve TEMPTED Adam; no scripture at all says she was fooled (lit. beguiled or even hypnotized) because of some weakness in her that Adam did not have. What is actually says is that Adam was right there watching the serpent tempt Eve. And remember that Eve, as the last one created, had the least amount of experience; she never saw God create, whereas Adam at the very least knew God had formed Eve.

    That inexperience– NOT weakness– is why the serpent went after her instead of Adam. Comp, you disagree on the basis that scripture never gives us the reason? Then you just undermined your own argument, because practically NONE of what YOU assert is stated in scripture. Show me that Adam had authority over Eve pre-sin; show me that order of creation indicates superiority (and why the animals, created first, had no authority over Adam, remembering that this argument states ORDER INDICATES AUTHORITY; it either does or it does not, you can’t have it both ways); show me where naming someone is cited BY SCRIPTURE as being an act of authority; show me where scripture says that the one who needs help must be superior to the one who provides what they lacked.

    Now these are all rhetorical questions, because I know from experience that the same assertions will be made in spite of everything. But exposing them is the first step to freeing the long-bound half of the Body of Christ. For more detail please see my Summary of Christian Egalitarianism.

    PS: I would still like a comp answer, from scripture, to the question I posed earlier (about #51 or so).

  220. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 4:09 pm #

    That inexperience– NOT weakness– is why the serpent went after her instead of Adam. Comp, you disagree on the basis that scripture never gives us the reason? Then you just undermined your own argument, because practically NONE of what YOU assert is stated in scripture.

    You are in the same position…you state that inexperience is the reason…and then state that Scripture never gives us the reason…

  221. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 4:11 pm #

    Does the man in Song of Solomon desire his partner in a good way? Look at my post on this.

    Different writer and definitions change over time. At least Cain was in the same century.

  222. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 4:14 pm #

    “So which is it? Did Eve “desire” before eating the fruit, or after? If she had already desired to usurp Adam’s alleged authority, then what was God predicting? But if she did not previously have that “desire”, then she could not have eaten the fruit out of a sinful usurping of authority. Likewise, if Adam had already been vested with authority over Eve before they ate the fruit, then what was God predicting when he said that Adam “WILL rule over you”?”

    Excellent point!

  223. Sue June 28, 2008 at 4:14 pm #

    This is a complementarian blog. I have challenged Denny to look at what is factual and scriptural in in complementarian doctrine.

    I am incredibly grateful to Denny for not moderating me out of his blog. I want to acknowledge his courage in allowing so many of us to post here.

    I do think the point needs to be made that many women who have formerly lived in the complementarian paradigm have suffered greatly and are rightly upset at the finger being pointed at women.

    How can we appropriately appeal to complementarians to examine their understanding of the Bible and treatment of women critically?

  224. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 4:17 pm #

    Words can change meaning, but teshuqah does not change defs, it is rooted in a river heading downhill, this is not bad or good in itself. And to think all of Gen 3 are bad things is not correct either; this is a common mistake, see it all as bad and then try to see how each piece might be bad; but this is bringing a huge assumption into the text.

  225. Paula June 28, 2008 at 4:24 pm #

    You are in the same position…you state that inexperience is the reason…and then state that Scripture never gives us the reason…
    I expressly stated this. I’m glad you saw it. So now the question is, if something can be accepted on inference alone, then both sides are allowed to use inference; if it is not allowed, then neither side can use it.

    So which does comp choose? Inference (which then egals can use as well) or only what is expressly stated (which rules out almost the entire comp argument)?

    Simple question: is inference scripture, or is it not?

  226. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 4:26 pm #

    “So which is it? Did Eve “desire” before eating the fruit, or after? If she had already desired to usurp Adam’s alleged authority, then what was God predicting? But if she did not previously have that “desire”, then she could not have eaten the fruit out of a sinful usurping of authority. Likewise, if Adam had already been vested with authority over Eve before they ate the fruit, then what was God predicting when he said that Adam “WILL rule over you”?”

    We can attempt this…

    Perhaps (and this is supposition) the “punishment” fit the “crime”. Eve, having acted on her own to sin is forever destined to fight against her husband.

    Adam, having blown the whole leadership thing, is forever destined to fight against being domineering in his effort to lead in a loving way.

    Likewise, if Adam had already been vested with authority over Eve before they ate the fruit, then what was God predicting when he said that Adam “WILL rule over you”?”

    “Rule” is not equal to “lead”. You can lead without being a ruler and you can rule without being a leader.

  227. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    So which does comp choose? Inference…or only what is expressly stated (which rules out almost the entire comp argument)?

    As I read CBMW…I disagree that almost the entirety of the COMP argument is ruled out.

  228. madame June 28, 2008 at 4:33 pm #

    Ellen, answering post 211
    Why do you suppose they are mutually exclusive?

    I’m basing my question on Sue’s quote of Kotter in comment 191
    “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.”

    According to this, Kotter believes that a husband imitates the leadership and a wife imitates the submission. But God commands men to imitate Christ in his love and submission.
    Kotter has made them mutually exclusive.

    I don’t think men are directly commanded to display the leadership or Lordship of Christ. That’s where I don’t agree with complementarian teaching.

  229. Paula June 28, 2008 at 4:34 pm #

    Perhaps (and this is supposition) the “punishment” fit the “crime”. Eve, having acted on her own to sin is forever destined to fight against her husband.

    Adam, having blown the whole leadership thing, is forever destined to fight against being domineering in his effort to lead in a loving way.

    Pure conjecture, i.e. inference. So inference must be the comp choice. Therefore it follows that egals can use it too, making our claim for Eve’s being the serpent’s target equally valid. This is good to know.

    “Rule” is not equal to “lead”. You can lead without being a ruler and you can rule without being a leader.

    If “rule is not equal to lead”, then leaders do not rule, i.e. they have no authority. Hence, a leading husband has no authority to usurp. If he is only leading and not ruling, then his wife’s decision to not follow his lead is not sin; it is impossible for her to usurp that which has no authority.

  230. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 4:38 pm #

    Pure conjecture, i.e. inference.

    yes…that is why I said, “(This is supposition” ;-)

  231. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm #

    If he is only leading and not ruling, then his wife’s decision to not follow his lead is not sin; it is impossible for her to usurp that which has no authority.

    Right up to the point where Scripture says, “wives submit to your husbands as the church submits to Christ.”

  232. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    Follow Paul as he follows Christ. Christ is perfect, husbands are not. This is a key question, who determines if a husband’s request/command to his wife is sinful? It MUST be the woman, if she cannot do it in faith, she would be sinning and only she can answer that question.

  233. Paula June 28, 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    Right up to the point where Scripture says, “wives submit to your husbands as the church submits to Christ.”

    Which is it? Does the husband lead or rule? Is there a rule for the wife to usurp or does she have the option to not follow his lead, without sinning? Please choose one.

  234. madame June 28, 2008 at 4:58 pm #

    Ellen,
    Can we agree on one point?
    Is the man given authority over his wife, directly from God, yes or no?
    I don’t find a direct command for a man to exercise authority over his wife. I do see a command for a wife to respect her husband, submit to him as the church does to Christ, because the man is the head.

    My understanding of this is that a wife voluntarily submits, but a husband shouldn’t just assume that his wife is going to do so. A husband voluntarily lays his life down, but a wife shouldn’t assume he is going to do so.

    Complementarians, like Ware, seem to teach that God has given man the authority and he has the right (they call it responsibility) to exercise it over his wife. He has the last word. He is the leader. He rules. He can “impose” his will.
    But I don’t find this taught in the Bible. I find something a lot more akin to mutual submission.

  235. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 4:58 pm #

    Another point is the sex is explicitly symmetrical and well as many other things in 1 Cor 7. Paul goes out of his way being repetitive to show the symmetry. A woman has authority exousia over her husband’s body and vice versa, there is no leader and follower, just mutuality.

  236. Quixote June 28, 2008 at 5:06 pm #

    Question for Sue (or anyone)…

    If I understand correctly, the “curse” we are discussing is that of the Fall of Man, and Sue and others are saying that comps cannot refer to this as “the current state of things” since we are post-Christ and Christ has redeemed us from this “cursed” state. He has made things right…as God intended orginally.

    Is that what is being said, overall I mean, about Egalitarian doctrine?

    Because I was under the impression that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the LAW, not the curse of the FALL. The earth still produces thorns, and childbirth still causes pain. We are still fallen in the sense that we sin and need to be covered in our nakedness…our glory is yet to be restored, and that of creation.

    So I’m confused as to why Sue and others use Christ and redemption from “the curse” as a defense of Egalitarianism. IF Complementarianisn was put into effect in relation to the Fall, then it is rightly still in effect, since the Fall is still in effect.

    Please correct me.

  237. Sue June 28, 2008 at 5:25 pm #

    Quixote,

    I don’t remember saying all of that. What I have found is that throughout most of church history teshuqa in Gen.3:16 has be interpreted in these ways,

    καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου LXX
    and to your husband your turning*

    et sub viri potestate eris Vulgate
    and under the power of the husband you will be

    ad virum tuum eris desiderium* tuum Pagnini
    towards your husband will be your longing

    and thy lust shal pertayne vnto yi hußbande Coverdale

    and thy desire shal be subiect to thine husbande, Geneva

    and thy desire shall be to thy husband, KJV

    and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, D-R

    et te soumettras à ton mari, Olivétan (Calvin)
    and you will submit to your husband

    Your desire shall be for[a] your husband ESV
    (a) or against

    ———

    These are the traditional interpretations of Gen. 3:16. The traditional understanding in the church has been that this state of affairs would continue on earth, that is the subordination of women. But it was not taught as a GOOD thing, but as a consequence of sin. Women also appeared to be naturally, by nature subordinate or inferior, so a bit of both/and. But this is the scriptural base.

    Now that we have representative government, and the abolition of slavery and a general intention to seek equitable relations is society, some men and women believe that it is more honouring to God for men and women to treat each other with equal respect and those with equal God-given authority.

    I would date the beginning of this movement as a modern understaning around 1640 with the Quakers and Margaret Fell. Go to my site, click on my name and search the site for Margaret Fell. There are many other women who followed in her footsteps, Susanna Wesley, Elizabeth Fry, Catherine Booth, and others.

    In short, even though we live on an unredeemed earth, we don’t force all men till the soil with stone age instruments.

  238. Sue June 28, 2008 at 5:27 pm #

    Notice above that the ESV is the first Bible to introduce a hostile interpretation of desire, calling it desire “against.” Whatever can be said for or against this interpretation, it needs to be recognized that it is very recent.

  239. Bonnie June 28, 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    Ellen,

    I would guess that “hupotasso” means much the same thing as it does every other place in Scripture.

    What is that?

    However, most people realize that while submission runs in both directions (mutual), it is not identical.

    Most people realize? I would offer that the attitude is identical, while the workings-out may or may not be, which is perhaps what you mean. Yet the not-identical part need not translate into “husband leads and wife submits to his lead,” or to his will over hers.

    The New Commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves — does this not also include spouses of both sexes? We are also to give preference to one another in honor (Romans 12:10) — does this not also apply to spouses? This is why I say it is not a matter of someone’s will over another’s, but giving preference to another, including one’s spouse, whether one is the wife or the husband.

    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”?

    I agree that “devotion” is not a strong-enough term. “Venerate” is not bad, as long as we do not allow it connotations of deity. I also would not say that a wife owes her husband the same devotion or veneration that she owes God. This is why I find “source” or “origin” language as a definition of headship more helpful than “authority” or “leader.” A man may be accorded a sort of leadership as head, as well as a sort of authority, but I do not believe it is as Ware describes.

    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.

    Why the assumption that if someone is submitting, someone else (the one to whom they are submitting) is leading?

  240. Molly June 28, 2008 at 5:49 pm #

    So I’m confused as to why Sue and others use Christ and redemption from “the curse” as a defense of Egalitarianism. IF Complementarianisn was put into effect in relation to the Fall, then it is rightly still in effect, since the Fall is still in effect.

    It would make male rule a part of something less than desirable, just as pain in childbirth is less than desirable. It would mean that just as we work to escape the curse (via epidurals, via John Deere tractors to minimize the “sweat of our brow”, etc), in the same way organizations like CBMW could not exist, because there would be no more place for claiming that male rule glorifies God.

    Rather, we would have to conjecture that male rule is less than God’s ideal, that male rule is a sign of brokeness instead of wholeness.

    Whereas the complementarian position is that male rule *is* God’s ideal and is a sign of wholeness.

    Btw, Ellen, when I studied the Scriptures and came out of my former comp paradigm, I found it a pretty big deal that “rule” over women is first mentioned at the Fall. Much of Genesis 1 is devoted to who rules over what—the sun, as you mentioned, ruling over the day, etc. So here would be the obvious place for God to mention male rule. Instead, at the end of the chapter there is nothing but a huge statement about humans and rule over the creation, but *nothing* about one human ruling over another human. The first time we have one human ruling over another human, it’s post-Fall. To me, that’s a pretty big deal.

    As was the fact that “rule” there is just plain old ordinary rule. I was always taught, having grown up in patriarchal churches, that the rule in Gen. 3:16 meant the WRONG type of rule—-that male’s were in authority over females but that Gen. 3:16 was promising an oppresive rule versus a positive rule. But the Hebrew speaks of ordinary rule which can be both positive or negative.

    On whether or not the woman’s desire is a desire to have a relationship with the man at any cost OR the desire to usurp his authority, I think we have only to look at history.

    History is pretty clear about what the Fall did to us. Childbirth is a difficult thing, as is laboring for ones food. The things God said would happen as a result of the Fall are all pretty obvious.

    So here’s a school marm sort of question. :) Does history show a long long line of rebellous women always seeking to overthrow men, or does history show a long long line of women being ruled by men and putting up with it, DESPITE the fact that in so doing, most of the time they are considered a lesser level of human being (including but not limited to burqas, widow burnings, and female circumcision?

  241. madame June 28, 2008 at 5:50 pm #

    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.

    Why the assumption that if someone is submitting, someone else (the one to whom they are submitting) is leading?

    In a sense, it’s obvious. But not in the way Complementarians teach it. I’ll keep saying,give me the place where God commands men to lead, rule, exercise authority over wives.

  242. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 7:08 pm #

    “So here’s a school marm sort of question.”

    That did not qualify as a school marm question because your question implied the obvious right answer. :o)

  243. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 7:13 pm #

    Does history show a long long line of rebellous women always seeking to overthrow men, or does history show a long long line of women being ruled by men and putting up with it, DESPITE the fact that in so doing, most of the time they are considered a lesser level of human being (including but not limited to burqas, widow burnings, and female circumcision?

    Yes.

  244. Molly June 28, 2008 at 7:33 pm #

    To me, that is the biggest argument for translating “desire” to mean a desire for the relationship, even when it comes at the cost of her own personhood.

  245. Molly June 28, 2008 at 7:37 pm #

    Ellen,
    If you think female rebellion through history equals female oppression, I truly don’t know what to say. It would be historical revisionism to the extreme.

    Even just reading the Bible shows a common and ever-running thread of women being viewed as lesser-than-males, not a common ever-running thread of women always seeking to usurp.

  246. Sue June 28, 2008 at 7:39 pm #

    not a common ever-running thread of women always seeking to usurp.

    I am trying to think of even one.

  247. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 7:44 pm #

    If you think female rebellion through history equals female oppression, I truly don’t know what to say. It would be historical revisionism to the extreme.

    Molly…that was not your question. Your question was what history shows.

    It shows both women of rebellion and women in slavery. It also shows dearly loved women who submitted, yet were cherished. It shows women who submitted and were killed. It shows rebellious women who murdered their husbands.

    If you ask was history shows…the answer is “both”. They’re just not necessarily the same women, the same religion, the same century, the same continent.

    If there is a different question you would like to ask (like “does female rebellion equal female oppression”) then ask.

    But you asked about history. Cleopatra and Mary, the mother of Christ lived only a few decades apart, yet the facts of their history are very different.

  248. Quixote June 28, 2008 at 7:57 pm #

    Thanks all for the help!

  249. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 8:40 pm #

    “Notice above that the ESV is the first Bible to introduce a hostile interpretation of desire, calling it desire “against.” Whatever can be said for or against this interpretation, it needs to be recognized that it is very recent.”

    Sue,

    Why is this? Is a Hebrew word in the original text that translates into “against”? Or is this added in?

    ESV claims this:

    “To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text.”

    This comes from the preface of one of my ESV Bibles.

    It appears that there are nuances being added to the text that are not in the original text and that there are some verses that have been over-translated.

    I see that Wayne Grudem was on the translating committee. Dr. Lane T. Dennis who is on the CBMW Board of Reference. Dr. R. Kent Hughes is also on the CBMW Board of Reference. And so is J.I. Packer on the same board.

    I wonder if that has anything to do with it? 1/3 of the names on the ESV oversight committee are named in connection with the running of CBMW. And that is only the ones I briefly checked on. If I did some more looking, the portion may go up.

    This is disturbing. To think that a whole translation that is being highly pushed on Christians is nuanced towards a particular mindset instead of allowing scripture to speak for itself.

    I have several ESV Bibles because I was under the impression it is highly accurate. I guess I need to do some studying.

  250. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm #

    David M. Howard is on the translation team for the ESV and he is also on the board of CBMW.

    Also, Raymond Ortlund Jr.

    Ligon Duncan III is on the ESV Advisory Committe. Dr. Albert Mohler Jr., Dr. Paige and Dr. Dorothy Patterson, John Piper are all on the same committee with Duncan.

    These are only the names I recognized off the bat as being part of CBMW.

    Maybe it means nothing.

  251. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 8:54 pm #

    “Pure conjecture, i.e. inference.

    yes…that is why I said, “(This is supposition””

    Can someone explain to me why the comps/pats can engage in pure conjecture and then teach it as absolute truth but when the egals engage in conjecture they are being influenced by the feminists?

    I don’t get the double standard at all. I have seen many times where an egal is taken to task for engaging in speculation and conjecture, even though the egal will totally be up front that this is what they are doing but comps do it all the time and we are to believe it is straight from the mouth of God?

    And I say that as someone who does not call herself an egalitarian. I still have not come to the belief that the Bible allows for female elders/pastors. But, I cannot call myself “complementarian” anymore because those who teach it frequently engage in adding to and taking away from scripture and teaching the doctrines of men as the very precepts of God.

  252. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 9:05 pm #

    Corrie, when I say, “this is supposition”…I’m not exactly saying “this is absolute truth”.

  253. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 9:06 pm #

    The ESV is an admitted masculinst translation, altho they do not use that term. It is pretty good in general, but whenever there is a choice to make, they make it in favor of men on top.

  254. Sue June 28, 2008 at 9:09 pm #

    to thy husband shall be thy desire

    ve·‘el-i·shech, te·shu·ka·tech

    וְאֶל-אִישֵׁךְ, תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ

    אֶל

    ‘el – preposition

    1. with all activities and occurrences implying direction to

    2. direction toward

    3. motion toward

    4. as far as

    5. into

    6. pregnant, of rest at arrival

    7. with verbs of adding and uniting

    8. with regard to

    9. combined with other prepositions, etc. etc.

    (HALOT Holladay)

    Here is the way it looks in the ESV,

    16To the woman he said,

    “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    (A) in pain you shall bring forth children.
    (B) Your desire shall be for[a] your husband,
    and he shall(C) rule over you.”

    Footnotes:

    a. Genesis 3:16 Or against

    It is only a footnote, but I regret that this type of intrusion into the text occurs more than once in the ESV. I would recommend checking with a KJV.

    Here is a list of verses in the ESV where interpretation intrudes into the text relating to women.

    1 Cor. 11:10 – adds “symbol of”
    2 Tim. 2:2 – Greek word for “people” is translated as “men”
    1 Tim. 2:12 – “exercize authority” and not “dominate” (most translations do this)
    Rom. 16:7 Junia is “well known to the apostles” instead of “notable among the apostles”

    Its not very much but influential passages. I think there might be more but I can’t think what.

    There is also the paragraph separation between Eph. 5:21 and 5:22.

    “Her desire will be to usurp her husband’s authority” Bruce Ware

  255. Sue June 28, 2008 at 9:19 pm #

    Much of the masculinist character of the ESV is in rejecting the use of “children of God” and using “sons of God” instead. Rather silly when Luther’s translation, Tyndale and the KJV used “children of God.”

    It gets to be a little odd when you get to this passage.

    And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,

    Obviously it is referring to both men and women, but the translators believe that one must tranlate “sons” because men represent women.

  256. Sue June 28, 2008 at 9:26 pm #

    And I say that as someone who does not call herself an egalitarian.

    There is no need to call oneself anything, but eventually you might be labeled as I was. Not so bad in the end to be egalitarian.

    I work a schoolteacher, I cuddle and cook for my own children and I actually have a male pastor.

  257. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 9:26 pm #

    1 Cor. 11:10 – adds “symbol of”

    How does the NIV translate it? NASB?

    Amplified Bible? New King James?

    New Century Version? American Standard Version?

  258. Sue June 28, 2008 at 9:28 pm #

    Ellen,

    You are right – they all do, except the TNIV. That is one reason for the fuss against the TNIV, because it does not add “symbol of” into the text. The KJV also. Yeah for the KJV. Don’t tease me, Ellen, that’s why, some of the time the KJV really is better. Not always, but sometimes.

  259. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 9:34 pm #

    The KJV had their own version of political correctness, but it was different back then so in some cases the translation is very accurate. All translation involves interpretation due to word choices made, but to ADD or SUBTRACT words from Scripture is not to be done. If you can do that, you can end up with anything.

  260. Alan Paul June 28, 2008 at 9:35 pm #

    Not sure I have heard anything more silly than to say a husband abuses his wife because she doesn’t listen to him. A husband abuses his wife because he is warped, twisted and sick. THis is a dangerous thing for this guy to say. All that being said, I can’t say that I am surprised… most people who want so badly for their view to be right are willing to say anything that will promote it.

  261. Don Johnson June 28, 2008 at 9:37 pm #

    On Junia, the Greek word is “en” which has a primary meaning of “within” so the ESV is translating AWAY from the primary meaning of the Greek. This is possible to do for a reason, but there is no textual reason to do that, except they do not believe Junia was an apostle for other reasons.

  262. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 9:38 pm #

    It would seem to me that context would indicate that even the KJV was speaking symbolically.

    You can have a hat on your head – how do you put a concept on your head?

  263. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 9:42 pm #

    Interesting. When I looked up 1 Cor. 11:10 and the Greek word for “power”, the first definition for that word (exousia) is this:

    “power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases; leave or permission”

    It could also mean a “sign of regal authority, a crown”.

    “The woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels.”

    Sue, do you have any opinions on what this particular phrase means and what it is alluding to?

    What is this power? Some say it is to be a sign of a husband’s authority over his wife. Does the text really say that?

    The word symbol looks to be added and not in the original text.

  264. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 10:05 pm #

    Sue,

    re: the “sons of God” claim.

    There was a theologian, I recently read, that claimed that there is only “sonship” and that we all become sons of God and he asserted that the Bible never mentions “children of God”. After looking into it, I found that the Bible most certainly does call us “children” and it does not teach that we all become literal male sons.

    Do you remember who that was? I wish I could remember because the claim was so out in left field and the person who made it is quite influentual.

  265. Sue June 28, 2008 at 10:06 pm #

    What is this power? Some say it is to be a sign of a husband’s authority over his wife. Does the text really say that?

    No, the text does not say that. It says “power on the head.”

    A few facts we do know is that slave women were not allowed to wear stoles. Stoles were a symbol of status.

    Exousia can mean a crown or symbol of power, but never a symbol of submission. That never once occurs in Greek literature, that exousia is a symbol of submission.

    Otherwise, no I can’t say exactly what is means.

  266. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 10:08 pm #

    “The woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels.”

    Sue, do you have any opinions on what this particular phrase means and what it is alluding to?”

    It is referring back to 1 Corin 6…where were are told we all believers will judge the angels…women believers, too!

    1 Corinthians 6:2-4 (New King James Version)

    2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?

  267. Sue June 28, 2008 at 10:09 pm #

    Ellen,

    You can have a hat on your head – how do you put a concept on your head?

    It could mean

    1. a head covering of some kind, a symbol of status.

    2. permission or liberty to make decisions about your own head.

  268. Sue June 28, 2008 at 10:23 pm #

    There was a theologian, I recently read, that claimed that there is only “sonship” and that we all become sons of God and he asserted that the Bible never mentions “children of God”.

    That is so amazing because Luther’s Bible never had “sons” in it.

    Here is Romans 8:23

    Nicht allein aber sie, sondern auch wir selbst, die wir haben des Geistes Erstlinge, sehnen uns auch bei uns selbst nach der Kindschaft und warten auf unsers Leibes Erlösung.

    It is true that in Hebrew there was no word for children. There was only “sons” or “daughters.” So, generally when we read “children of Israel” that used the word for “sons” in the plural. The older translations always translated this word as “children” because generally that is what it meant.

    This is typical for Hebrew and Greek, that the masculine word stood for both male and female together. There was no third word.

    For example, in Hebrews 11:23,

    “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.”

    The word for “parents” is really the word “father” in the plural. But it means his mother and father. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Moses had two fathers.

    So, when you see “brothers” the same thing. There are famous brother-sister pairs who were called adelphoi. Cleopatra and Ptolemy, and Electra and Orestes. But we would not call Donny and Marie “brothers” in English.

    So, that is why it is more accurate to use the gender neutral terms like “parents” and “children” and “brothers and sisters.”

  269. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 10:26 pm #

    Lydia,

    That is interesting to link it back to 1 Cor. 6.

    We, as saints, both male and female, will be judging the world and the angels according to this verse. A woman should have power on her own head because of the angels. The Greek word for power does not mean “symbol of submission to authority”. It means power to choose, the power of rule or government, the power of judicial decisions.

    The more I look into all of this, the more I realize how much man’s own reasoning and will is foisted upon scripture. I suppose that makes me a woman who challenges a man’s authority to expect his will to be the one that rules? I hope this will not cause a violent riot to break out. ;-)

    Also, in this discussion, I am seeing the comps doing the inferring and adding to scripture and the egals sticking as close to the original scripture as possible without adding or inferring. That is troubling.

    The Corinthians were guilty of teaching only half the truth and Paul clearly was correcting their misunderstanding about men and women.

    The word “saints” doesn’t include only males, does it? Nor does it mean that the “saints” are the men and the women will assist them with lemonade and cookies as the men judge the world and angels and the women assist them in their fruitful dominion mandate?

    Angels know that someday women will judge them, right?

  270. Sue June 28, 2008 at 10:29 pm #

    There was a theologian, I recently read, that claimed that there is only “sonship” and that we all become sons of God and he asserted that the Bible never mentions “children of God”. After looking into it, I found that the Bible most certainly does call us “children” and it does not teach that we all become literal male sons.

    Do you remember who that was? I wish I could remember because the claim was so out in left field and the person who made it is quite influentual.

    Maybe you are referring to Sproul?

    This is from an article called “Evangelical Lap Dogs”, by R. C. Sproul, which appeared in an excerpt from the November 2002 issue of Tabletalk:

    “Actually, the TNIV appears to be a move not toward greater accuracy but away from it. One example: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’ (Matt. 5:9). The TNIV changes sons to children. But the Greek word huios in its plural form means ‘sons,’ not ‘children. ‘My Latin Bible translates it ‘sons’ (filii). My German Bible, my Dutch Bible, and my French Bible translate it ‘sons.’ Likewise, every English Bible I own translates it ‘sons.’ Indeed, from the first century until today, the whole world has understood what the Greek says.”

    Of course, the Luther, Tyndale, KJV and many more Bibles had “children of God” in it. Don’t ask me why Sproul would not own one of those.

  271. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 10:30 pm #

    I would guess that it doesn’t mean the 2nd possibility – the preceding passage includes the concept of being “covered” and “uncovered”. I think I read somewhere that the Septuagint uses the same word in Esther 6 – the last time I looked at the issue.

    A symbol of status seems unlikely, given Paul’s teaching that women should adorn themselves not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire…status symbols didn’t seem to carry a lot of importance for Paul.

  272. Sue June 28, 2008 at 10:32 pm #

    The status is that of a free, married woman. I think it is very possible that is what Paul meant – that or personal liberty.

  273. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 10:35 pm #

    It means power to choose, the power of rule or government, the power of judicial decisions.

    Here’s a problem. In this passage it also says that men should not have their head covered.

    Are you saying that Paul is teaching feminist superiority?

  274. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 10:36 pm #

    It was a pretty big deal for women of the 1st Century to have this freedom to cover or not within the Body of Christ. It was a real cultural dilemma for them.

    It is referring to liberty not a real fancy headress. After all, she will judge the angels, too.

  275. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 10:39 pm #

    The status is that of a free, married woman. I think it is very possible that is what Paul meant – that or personal liberty.

    That seems a little strange…given that Scripture also tells us that we are not to discriminate among us and speaks of gold rings and status.

    If it refers to personal liberty, why cannot men have it?

  276. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 10:48 pm #

    “Here’s a problem. In this passage it also says that men should not have their head covered.

    Are you saying that Paul is teaching feminist superiority?”

    Absolutely not. The reason Paul talks about the shame of men covering is because Jewish men covered their heads in worship and prayer to show their guilt for sin before God. With Christ…that is no longer necessary and even an insult to the One who took away their sin. It sent the wrong message to those Jews not in the Body for Jewish Christian converted men to cover their heads in worship and prayer.

    But with women, the covering was cultural. A man could divorce his wife if she uncovered in public. A woman who was married to an unbeliever was in real danger of this. Some may have felt uncomfortable uncovering in front of men in the Body.

    The whole passage is about freedom in Christ but it is translated very badly. The verses about men’s hair is bizarrely translated.

    “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?”

    ?? How does NATURE teach us this since both men and women’s hair grows long if not cut? We also have examples of long hair in scripture. Even Paul grew his hair for a vow.

    But he is saying that a woman’s hair can be a covering. He sums it up nicely for those who think this is about authority over another instead of the cultural dilemma of headcoverings:

    “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

  277. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 10:48 pm #

    It is referring to liberty not a real fancy headress. After all, she will judge the angels, too.

    Craig Keener (egalitarian) would disagree with you:

    “When Paul urged women in the Corinthian churches to cover their heads (the only place where the Bible teaches about this), he followed a custom prominent in many Eastern cultures of his day.13 Although women and men alike covered their heads for various reasons,14 married women specifically covered their heads to prevent men other than their husbands from lusting after their hair.15 A married woman who went out with her head uncovered was considered promiscuous and was to be divorced as an adulteress.16 Because of what head coverings symbolized in that culture, Paul asked the more liberated women to cover their heads so they would not scandalize the others. Among his arguments for head coverings is the fact God created Adam first; in the particular culture he addressed, this argument would make sense as an argument for women wearing head coverings.17″

  278. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 10:51 pm #

    So what do you three agree that this “covering” is?

  279. Sue June 28, 2008 at 10:53 pm #

    You can try all you want to make it logical, but what can I say.

    Some complementarian theologians say that the modern day equivalent of covering your head is a wedding ring. But then they do not teach that a man cannot wear a ring too.

    So, does a wedding ring symbolize submission, but only for a woman and not for a man?

    I do know a man who believed that. He would not wear a wedding ring himself, and would not allow his wife to wear any other ring but her wedding ring. But he wore a ring from his professional association to show that he belonged to it. At least he was consistent.

  280. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 10:54 pm #

    “If it refers to personal liberty, why cannot men have it?”

    Culturally, for the most part, they did. But women did not in this culture. Women were property of their husbands. And headcoverings were a cultural dilemma for new converts. Women could be in big trouble with unbelieving husbands or relatives for uncovering. After all, prostitutes uncovered in public.

    I have a friend who was a missionary to Afghanistan a few years back. She was amazed at how many women still covered when they did not have to. They felt uncomfortable after so many years with people looking at them. And in some cases, their husbands, fathers or brothers forbid them to uncover so they could not.

  281. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 10:57 pm #

    “Craig Keener (egalitarian) would disagree with you:”

    He is allowed. :o)

    But Craig is forgetting Paul’s last word on this topic:

    “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

  282. Sue June 28, 2008 at 10:58 pm #

    There were many different cultures addressed in the epistles and many different reasons to wear head coverings. There is no one reason. There is no one interpretation for this chapter.

    Sometimes you really cannot know what something means. But that is no reason to just impose a meaning that does not fit what the original languages say.

  283. Lydia June 28, 2008 at 10:58 pm #

    “So what do you three agree that this “covering” is?”

    You lost me here.

  284. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 11:03 pm #

    Sorry I lost you.

    It’s a question. Corrie seems pretty sure that it is power

    Sue says that it’s not a symbol.

    I’m not the one who brought it up; it was brought up as an example of how the ESV translates it wrong. So, how do you translate it “right”?

  285. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 11:15 pm #

    On sons of God vs. children of God…

    If Greek is like Spanish, the plural (linguistically) is in the male form.

    chico – boy child
    chica – girl child
    chicos – group of children (either all boys or mixed boys and girls.

    tio – uncle
    tia – aunt
    tios – aunts and uncles.

    Linguistically the ESV is probably more accurate.

    Politically the TNIV is more correct.

    When we refer to “mankind”, we refer to both males and females. Same thing.

    I’ve also seen the point made (and do not remember where) that in the time that Scripture was written it was the sons that inherited. It was sonship that made us heirs, not daughtership, not childship.

    Yes, all recognize that it refers to both sexes – but it is being sons of God that makes us heirs.

    It may not seem fair…may not have been fair, but if that’s the way that it was, that could be why it was written that way.

  286. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 11:32 pm #

    “It’s a question. Corrie seems pretty sure that it is power”

    No, Ellen, I am pretty sure that the BIBLE uses the word power. I asked questions because I am not “pretty sure” of exactly what that power is referring to. All I know is what the Bible says and it says that a woman should have power on her head because of the angels. I am also pretty sure that the Bible does NOT say that a woman needs a “sign, symbol of authority” on her head because those words are not even there. They are added to the text.

    The word exousia carries with it the meaning of “liberty of action or authority as delegated power or unrestrained arbitrary power”.

    It seems to fit, especially when we take into account the whole context and how Paul tells them to “judge for themselves”. Men and women will judge the angels and the world. And the men and women of Corinth are told to judge for themselves concerning the head covering. They have delegated power from God to judge the world and the angels and they can judge for themselves concerning this issue.

    Personal liberty and self-government are the hallmarks of the Gospel. Through the Holy Spirit, alone, both are possible for the believer.

    But to say that I am “pretty sure” about this passage is not accurate.

    What do you think the word is? What does exousia mean? If the word is not power and if exousia doesn’t mean power then what is the word and what does it mean?

  287. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 11:38 pm #

    “I’ve also seen the point made (and do not remember where) that in the time that Scripture was written it was the sons that inherited. It was sonship that made us heirs, not daughtership, not childship.”

    That is not exactly true.

    Job, a righteous man, gave his daughters an inheritance along with their brothers.

    It was not God’s idea that only sons inherited. It was man’s idea and it is the evidence of the curse in action, imho.

    We are called “children” of God. Male and female He created them. It was Christ who made us heirs, not our gender. There is no male or female in Christ.

    I am a daughter to my father. If I am his heir, it is not sonship that causes me to be an heir because I am a daughter. It is the fact that I am his child.

  288. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 11:41 pm #

    Sue,

    I don’t know if it was Sproul. I do know that the writer specifically stated that the Bible does NOT mention children, only sons. That the Bible teaches only “sonship” and that there are no daughters or children, only sons.

  289. Denny Burk June 28, 2008 at 11:41 pm #

    Wow. There are a lot of comments here. I think this is a record.

  290. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 11:42 pm #

    Corrie, so you’re saying that a woman wears power on her head – like a hat? Since it cannot be a symbol?

    I’m not the one asserting that the ESV (and NASB and all the rest) are wrong…you all are.

    What I do know is that exousia is also translated “authority” (see 1 Cor 15:24 – it’s the “authority”, not the “power”)

    The questions raised was whether or not “symbol of” should be there.

    What does “power” look like?

    But I don’t have a problem with a physical head covering being a symbol. For power?

  291. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 11:44 pm #

    Hi, Denny…

    ;-)

  292. Ellen June 28, 2008 at 11:46 pm #

    It was not God’s idea that only sons inherited. It was man’s idea and it is the evidence of the curse in action, imho.

    I am a daughter to my father. If I am his heir, it is not sonship that causes me to be an heir because I am a daughter. It is the fact that I am his child.

    This being the 21st century and all…

    The first sentence that I quoted of you seems to indicate that you realize that a couple of centuries ago there was a disparity between male and female heirs?

  293. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 11:57 pm #

    “So what do you three agree that this “covering” is?”

    Ellen,

    Paul said that it is a woman’s hair that is given to her covering.

    But, we have been talking about the scripture that tells us that a woman should have power on her head because of the angels. I do not fully understand what that means. I do know that the word “symbol” is not even there and it was added to the text.

    Since Paul clearly stated that a woman’s hair is her covering, he is saying there is no need for another cloth covering. So, I don’t believe that the term “power” is referring to some extra cloth covering.

    Also, the statement about power on her head comes before Paul delivers home his winning argument.

    HOWEVER….BUT…..woman is not independent of man and man is not independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.

    Paul set up his argument by repeating the half-truths that the Corinthians believed about women and then he delivered the whole message that cleared up their misconceptions.

    I think it is significant that the power statement comes BEFORE Paul drives home his point that everything comes from God and that neither gender is independent of the other.

    I think Sue summed up my feeling on this issue when she said this:

    “Sometimes you really cannot know what something means. But that is no reason to just impose a meaning that does not fit what the original languages say.”

    I have been praying for years to have the wisdom to understand exactly what Paul is talking about. I will continue to pray but it looks like most scholars just do not understand this passage, so an amateur like me really has no hope. :-)

  294. Corrie June 28, 2008 at 11:59 pm #

    Ellen,

    Job lived in the 21st century? Job gave his daughters an inheritance along with their brothers. That means that giving an inheritance to daughters was NOT universally accepted nor practiced in Bible times.

    The 21st century has nothing to do with it at all.

    Also, the only way I receive an inheritance is through Christ as a child (son or daughter) of God.

    Again, gender has NOTHING to do with receiving an inheritance and it never has. Job is a good example of this fact.

  295. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:05 am #

    But, we have been talking about the scripture that tells us that a woman should have power on her head because of the angels. I do not fully understand what that means. I do know that the word “symbol” is not even there and it was added to the text.

    I would remind you that the word “Trinity” is also not even there.

    I would again also point to Keener, who (as a scholar) has written about the physical head covering that was a cultural symbol. (see quote above)

  296. Kathy June 29, 2008 at 12:08 am #

    ‘What is this power? Some say it is to be a sign of a husband’s authority over his wife. Does the text really say that?’

    It refers back to what Paul had previously said about judging the angels.

    1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

  297. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:08 am #

    Job lived in the 21st century?
    I am so sorry!

    I thought that when you said, “I am a daughter to my father. If I am his heir, it is not sonship that causes me to be an heir because I am a daughter. It is the fact that I am his child. I assumed that you would realize that I was writing about well…you.

  298. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:09 am #

    Again, gender has NOTHING to do with receiving an inheritance and it never has. Job is a good example of this fact.

    It was not God’s idea that only sons inherited. It was man’s idea and it is the evidence of the curse in action, imho.

    You are saying that evidence of the curse in action is that man decided that only males inherited, but that gender has nothing to do with inheritance and never has.

  299. Kathy June 29, 2008 at 12:12 am #

    ‘What is this power? Some say it is to be a sign of a husband’s authority over his wife. Does the text really say that?’
    So, Paul’s saying that she has the power to decide for herself whether or not she should wear a head covering, as she’s going to be judging the angels.

    There could be bad consequences for her, depending on the individual wife, if she did or did not cover, so Paul gave power to the woman to decide.

  300. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:12 am #

    This is certainly going around and around. I do believe that you can agree that the ESV is wrong?

    And I’m going to bed.

  301. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:13 am #

    Hi Denny,

    We have been yakking about the imponderables for the last few hours. However, there are 11 blogs that have announced something along these lines.

    Southern Baptist Scholar Links Spouse Abuse to Wives’ Refusal to Submit to Their Husbands

    I think it has hit all the major feeds.

    It is time to pull out of all teaching that says there is an authority-submission relationship in creation. It is based on flimsy interpretation pf Gen. 1-3, and leads to the egregious error that the husbands abuse is a response to a wifes resistance to his authority.

  302. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 12:15 am #

    No, that power is not a hat. A woman is not in need of another covering since Paul tells us she already has a covering- her hair.

    That power is something else. Not a symbol. Not a hat. Not a token. There is no need for that since she already has a covering.

    This passage is a blend of literal and figurative. I am thinking that this power is referring to something the woman already possesses because of who she is in Christ and since she is going to one day judge the world and judge the angels.

    As believers and children of God we do have authority and we are also given the freedom of liberty and freedom from the bondage of manmade doctrines being taught as the precepts of God.

    I just do not know what exactly this power is. I am more sure of what it is not than what it is based on the context, the place that it appears in Paul’s argument and taking in the whole context of the letter to the Corinthians.

    I need to read through the whole letter a few more times to get a better grasp of what Paul is talking about in that chapter.

  303. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:20 am #

    That power is something else. Not a symbol. Not a hat. Not a token. There is no need for that since she already has a covering.

    You should probably let Keener know.

  304. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 12:20 am #

    “Corrie: It was not God’s idea that only sons inherited. It was man’s idea and it is the evidence of the curse in action, imho.

    Ellen: You are saying that evidence of the curse in action is that man decided that only males inherited, but that gender has nothing to do with inheritance and never has.”

    Ellen,

    You lost me.

    Exploiting women and denying them their rightful inheritance because they are viewed as property and lesser than men is the curse in action.

    Gender has NOTHING to do with inheritance in God’s kingdom and it never has.

    I am a child of God and that gives me an inheritance. I am a woman. How does being male figure into this equation concerning my inheritance as a woman?

  305. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:23 am #

    I am a child of God and that gives me an inheritance. I am a woman. How does being male figure into this equation concerning my inheritance as a woman?

    IN THAT TIME the people Paul was writing to would have understood. You are correct, male or female has nothing to do with inheritance…’

    I believe, though, that a first century congregation would have understood the differences in inheritances between most sons and daughters.

  306. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 12:24 am #

    Ellen,

    I don’t understand your cryptic comments nor do I know who Keener is and I don’t know why Keener is important when it comes to my understanding of headcoverings.

    I take it he teaches that it is a literal piece of fabric that makes a woman acceptable to come into worship with God?

    I have been honest and I do believe, that after years of study, I have come to the conclusion that Paul stated that a woman’s hair is her covering and that if anyone wants to be contentious about it (a piece of cloth), there is no such custom.

  307. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:26 am #

    Denny,

    Here are a few more blogs which have linked to Ware’s sermon. I think you should read them.

  308. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:30 am #

    Ellen,

    The entire reformation happened without anybody caring if the Bible said “sons” or “children.” It isn’t that important. Why do people make such a big deal out of these things?

  309. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:30 am #

    I don’t understand your cryptic comments nor do I know who Keener is and I don’t know why Keener is important when it comes to my understanding of headcoverings.

    Craig Keener is an egalitarian, a New Testament scholar, I linked to his biography.

    Keener is especially known for his work as a New Testament scholar on Bible background (commentaries on the New Testament in its early Jewish and Greco-Roman settings). His popular-level IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament has sold over 400,000 copies.

    And I quoted him in comment #277, including “Because of what head coverings symbolized in that culture, Paul asked the more liberated women to cover their heads so they would not scandalize the others” – making them both a symbol and a physical head covering.

  310. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 12:31 am #

    Ellen,

    “I believe, though, that a first century congregation would have understood the differences in inheritances between most sons and daughters.”

    Truly, I have no idea what you are saying. You seem to be arguing with me concerning things that I was not arguing.

    My original statement was concerning a theologian who claimed that God has no daughters, only sons. I understand why the various translations used the term “sons” to refer to male and female children but this was understood to be inclusive language. I am not arguing with the term “sons”. I am arguing with the assertion that God doesn’t have daughters and that He only has sons.

    I am not arguing about what a first century congregation believes about inheritance. I don’t even know what congregation you are referring to nor do I know what scripture you are referring to.

    The Bible uses “children” several times. This theologian claimed that the Bible never used the term “children” and it only used the term “sons”. He was wrong. It was the translation that used “sons” but the original language was not the word for son but for children.

    If I can remember where I posted about this elsewhere, I will let you know. I am pretty sure I posted about this on the True Womanhood blog a few months back.

  311. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:33 am #

    A quote would be nice.

    I don’t doubt that (linguistically) the male plural is more accurate. And that (politically) a gender-neutral plural is more correct.

  312. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:33 am #

    Ellen,

    Egalitarians do not all have to agree with each other. And complementarians don’t all agree on exegesis either. I will not pretend that there is any certainty about these things.

  313. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:34 am #

    <Ellen,

    The entire reformation happened without anybody caring if the Bible said “sons” or “children.” It isn’t that important. Why do people make such a big deal out of these things?

    Because we insist on gender-neutral, politically correct language.

  314. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:35 am #

    I don’t doubt that (linguistically) the male plural is more accurate. And that (politically) a gender-neutral plural is more correct.

    Ellen,

    Are you really trying to tell me that we should say that Moses “fathers” decided to hide him in the bullrushes. Do you really think that it means “his two Dads,” or his Mom and Dad.

    If you want a Bible about Moses and his two Dads, a politically correct Bible like that – great.

  315. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:37 am #

    Are Donny and Marie “brothers” or “brother and sister?”

  316. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:38 am #

    Sue, you know languages better than I do…what is the answer.

    In Spanish, mixed gender plurals are most often in the masculine.

    How is it in Greek?

    You’re really stretching.

  317. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:41 am #

    Are Donny and Marie “brothers” or “brother and sister?”

    In English? We have a gender-neutral term. “siblings”.

    In Spanish, yes, they would be “hermanos” – or if you wanted to get wordy, “hermanos y hermanas”.

    But you this well. Rabbit trail.

  318. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:43 am #

    Ellen,

    In English we have “mother” “father” and “parents” but in Hebrew and Greek there was only “mother” and “father” and so the word for “father” was used as well to mean “parents.” So the parents of Moses would be called his “father” plural. But, of course, it really meant what we mean by “parents.” So to make some sense out of it, you have to translate “parents.”

    The same thing with “brother” and “sister” For example, a brother and sister would be called adelphoi. But, we can’t call a brother and sister “brothers” in English, can we?

    I think that if we retain the masculine form of the Greek or Hebrew, it gives the wrong meaning. It simply loses the meaning of the original.

  319. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:46 am #

    Yes, ultimately gender language is a rabbit trail. You have to stick with communicating meaning. You cannot call a Spanish family of brothers and sisters all “brothers” just because they call themselves hermanos can you?

    My only request is that CBMW take down the statement of concern and all the other nonsense against the TNIV.

  320. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:47 am #

    As I said before,

    linguistically, the male plural is most likely more accurate (faithful to the language)…politically, the gender-neutral plural is more correct (and faithful to the intent). Both could be seen as “right”.

    For most of human history, “mankind” has been understood to mean both men and women. I see little difference here, except in our drive to be politically correct.

  321. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:48 am #

    In English? We have a gender-neutral term. “siblings”.

    So, we could do this in the Bible and have it really accurate.

  322. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:49 am #

    Both could be seen as “right”.

    So, you do think Moses had two Dads. Are you serious?

  323. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 12:50 am #

    Madame,

    [Why the assumption that if someone is submitting, someone else (the one to whom they are submitting) is leading?]

    In a sense, it’s obvious. But not in the way Complementarians teach it. I’ll keep saying,give me the place where God commands men to lead, rule, exercise authority over wives.

    I don’t believe it is always obvious. For example, in I Peter 3:1, wives are instructed to submit (hupotasso) even to husbands that “are not persuaded by” the Word (logos). I would think that such a husband would be less likely than a husband who was persuaded by the Word to lead well, or lead at all…yet his wife is still instructed to submit to him. Submission is an attitude of humility and service. If I serve someone a glass of water, I am not submitting to their lead, but to their need of either hospitality or refreshment (or both).

  324. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:51 am #

    You cannot call a Spanish family of brothers and sisters all “brothers” just because they call themselves hermanos can you?

    I have a Spanish speaking student who refers to his rather large Mexican Catholic family has his “hermanos”.

  325. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:53 am #

    For most of human history, “mankind” has been understood to mean both men and women.

    That is just silly. English is a relatively modern language. For most of human history mankind was known as adam or anthropos.

    Did you know that there are 30,000 girls in the Hebrew Bible who are called adam all by themselves. Would we call young girls “men” in English.

    The Bible would be complete nonsense if you had to use the masculine form all the time.

  326. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:53 am #

    So, you do think Moses had two Dads. Are you serious?

    You’ve already said, “Hebrew and Greek there was only “mother” and “father” and so the word for “father” was used as well to mean “parents.”

    Answer your own question.

  327. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:54 am #

    Ellen,

    <i<I have a Spanish speaking student who refers to his rather large Mexican Catholic family has his “hermanos”.

    That is exactly my point. You could not possibly translate this into English as “brothers” could you, unless they were all male.

  328. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:55 am #

    For most of human history, “mankind” has been understood to mean both men and women.

    That is just silly. English is a relatively modern language. For most of human history mankind was known as adam or anthropos.

    anthropos…male. Thank you.

    Are you finished with the rabbit trail?

    Goodnight.

  329. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:55 am #

    Answer your own question.

    No need to get huffy. We are friends. I don’t understand you when you talk like that.

  330. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:57 am #

    anthropos…male. Thank you.

    Women are anthropos. That is the way it is. It means a “human.”

  331. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:58 am #

    Read the whole comment – including your question, which you had already answered. You already know the answer.

    I’m not huffy…I merely realize that you can answer the question as well as I can.

  332. Sue June 29, 2008 at 1:00 am #

    Denny,

    Check #307. There are a dozen blogs that have linked to Ware’s sermon.

  333. Sue June 29, 2008 at 1:02 am #

    Good night, Ellen. :-) I have lost track. It doesn’t matter.

    There should be room for gender accurate language so readers could know who is being referred to. There should be room for both the ESV and the TNIV, and the KJV, and Luther and so on.

  334. Greg Anderson June 29, 2008 at 4:41 am #

    Don Johnson #185 – Good observation Don! Consider its analogue in plane geometry: For any straight line and any 2 points not on the line, a line drawn through the 2 points is parallel to the given line if and only if the 2 points are equidistant from, and on the same side of the given line. In the case of the 2 teshuqa(s) Gen. 3:16 & Gen. 4:7, parallelism fails for precisely the reason(s) you have shown. (in a Euclidean sense anyway)

    Sue #’s 238 & 239 – I checked the ESV alternate rendering of Gen. 3:16 and sho’nuff it says against, which would indeed make it a new and novel rendering. Not even Bullinger’s AV notes hint at against for a rendering. Sue, Denny, or anybody here with the expertise, was Isaiah 7:14 messed with at one time in order to negate the prophecy of Jesus’ virgin birth? I have heard that the Septuagint renders the Hebrew word almah as parthenos for virgin and that it got reworked later on to mean just “young woman” with no special appeal to virginity.

  335. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 7:51 am #

    Ellen picked up on the point that a man is not allowed to cover his head while a woman has a choice (according to the literal Greek). She asked what this mean for equality, as the man is less free than the woman. All this is true, in the 1st century a man WAS less free than a woman in church in this area. The reason is cultural, as wearing a headcovering was speaking a language, but it meant different things for men and women.

    Jews wore headcoverings to show they were sinners in need of atonement. However, this contradicts Jesus once and for all atonement.

    Married women wore headcoverings in public to indicate they were married. A woman showing her long hair in public was considered a sexual come on and adultery was just assumed, no further evidence was needed AND the woman lost her dowry. In a private setting a married woman would often remove her head covering.

    The question is what is church, which is a semi-public, semi-private setting, after all you need to let people you do not know well if at all into church, set in a home. Paul addresses the conundrum brilliantly, he forbids men from wearing headcoverings and allows women to choose, in effect choosing which meaning she wants; if she goes without, she is denying the Jewish meaning and if she puts it on, she cannot be accused of impropriety if a strange man looks at her. But it is all done for the glory of God in both cases.

    P.S. On what angelos means, it might be angles which women are to judge, but it also might mean the Roman state spies (called messengers or angelos) that were sent into meetings to see if sedition or lawlessness was being fomented, so it could be nipped in the bud. This is simply too little context to be sure which is meant, as I see it.

  336. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 8:02 am #

    In Greek and Hebrew, the masculine plural form is used when a group is all males and down to when the group includes 1 male with all the rest being females. This is just the way it is, so it is NOT the case that paternes always means fathers, it sometimes means parents and a translator is supposed to make a judgement call. But it is simply WRONG for the CBMW people to claim that TNIV is “changing brothers into children” etc., what they are doing is making a judgement call as to the original intent and in my opinion a very good call in most cases.

  337. Paula June 29, 2008 at 8:03 am #

    Greg, for what it’s worth, there’s an article about the kind of tampering you mentioned Here. Basically, the same rabbis who would damage the living Word were not above also doing damage to the written Word, and those pesky Christians were actually proving Him to be the Messiah from their scriptures! This had to be stopped at all costs.

    Ironically, today it is Christians tampering with the Word by inserting their agendas. Some translations have a male bias, others a Calvinist bias, still others a Universalist bias. And of course we have the little known case of the UBS committees that did a 50-year “gender bender” on Junia: see Here. Excerpt:

    Moreover, in the 1998 Jubilee N-A and the 1998 printing of UBS, where Ἰουνίαν properly but inexplicably appeared in the text, the clearly masculine form Ὶουνιᾶν is not even in the apparatus, quite the contrary of what normally happens when a critical edition undergoes a change in its text: one reading moves up to the text as another moves down to the apparatus. In this case, however, suddenly the emperor has no clothes!

    Apparently this masculine form Ὶουνιᾶν, disappears altogether from the textual scene! Of course, it should disappear, even though, as we shall discover in a moment, the clearly masculine form had been a Nestle fixture for three-quarters of a century and a UBS constant since the first edition in 1966. Yet in a flash it is gone, and neither the Jubilee Edition nor the 1998 volumes of N-A and UBS contains a list of changes made in its text as it moved through several printings between the 1993 and the 1998 volumes of N-A and UBS, nor is the reason for the change otherwise transparent.

    One astounding fact (and disturbing, if one thinks about its implications) requires emphasis again about the UBS and the Nestle-Aland editions: to the best of my knowledge, never was the definitely masculine form of Ὶουνιαν (namely Ὶουνιᾶν), either when it was designated as the text or after it had been replaced in the text by the Ἰουνίαν reading, accompanied by any supporting manuscript or other evidence (except when UBS listed the support of eight early unaccented majuscules, which of course were impotent for determining accentuation.)

    In fact, for the greater part of four centuries, as far as I can determine, no apparatus in a Greek New Testament cited Ὶουνιᾶν as a variant reading to the Ἰουνίαν in the text – not until Weymouth in 1892 (who cites Alford’s text – though neither in Alford nor Weymouth is any munuscript attestation provided) – and never again after that. The reason is simple enough: no such accented form was to be found in any manuscript or anywhere else. Moreover, when Ὶουνιᾶν was interpolated into the New Testament text and became a regular feature of the post-1927 Nestle and Nestle-Aland editions and all of the UBS editions until 1998, no viable manuscript support could be garnered for there was none. (page 47)

    (see also This Article)

  338. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 10:14 am #

    Let me ask a question. Does anybody here really and </honestly believe that the ESV means to exclude women from salvation?

    Or that Bruce Ward really and </honestly approves of abuse toward women?

  339. madame June 29, 2008 at 10:58 am #

    Ellen,
    or any other Complementarian.

    Could you answer the question I made in comment 235?
    Thanks!

    Bonnie,
    Thanks for reply 325. I agree. Submission is not always to leadership.

  340. Sue June 29, 2008 at 11:09 am #

    Ellen,

    You write,

    Let me ask a question. Does anybody here really and </honestly believe that the ESV means to exclude women from salvation?

    Nobody has said that or implied that or gotten anywhere close.

    My appeal is that the CBMW would take down the statement of concern against the TNIV. It is shameful for Christians to be involved in something like that and it is not truthful.

    The TNIV represents a perfectly legitimate way to translate gender language. The ESV, when necessary does the same thing. The statement of concern is completely illogical.

    The ESV translates anthropos which means “human” or “person” (plural) as “men” in 2 Tim. 2:2. Other than a few things like that, done to keep women from “teaching” it is, more or less, one way to translate the Bible.

    Or that Bruce Ward really and </honestly approves of abuse toward women?

    Nobody has said that either. However, he has said

    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

    This is core, foundational teaching of the CBMW. It is wrong and it needs to be stopped.

  341. Sue June 29, 2008 at 11:12 am #

    Can you imagine a man saying that to his wife.

    “You have to seek to fulfill my will.” What kind of nonsense is that.

  342. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 11:39 am #

    Is the man given authority over his wife, directly from God, yes or no?

    (Turnabout’s fair play, right? I just asked a question…now I’m answering one that I missed earlier)

    Directly? No. (Just as we do not read the word “Trinity” directly, we believe the doctrine just the same)

    Indirectly? Absolutely.

    God tells us from the beginning that 1) is is not good for man to be alone SO God created a help.

    I know the argument that God is also described as a “help” – but…what is God “job description”? Why does God exist? Why does woman exist?

    The woman was created to be the man’s companion and helper. So, from the very beginning, we are told that 1) men and women are created differently and 2) men and women have different functions.

    We have the models given to us by God.

    The Kingdom of God: We have the “family” of believers, the leader of which is “our Father in heaven.

    We have the example of the Old Testament church: there were no priestesses.

    We have Christ’s ministry on earth: led by Christ, with His apostles (all male), with the vital support and help of women.

    We have the early church: again led by the apostles (the twelve – or 13) – again all male.

    We have the model given to us in Scripture: the elders of the church being husbands of one wife.

    Then we have the “little church”, as I’ve heard the home called. If the Father leads the family of God, if men led the people of Israel, if men led the ministry of Christ, if men led the apostolic church, if men led the early church…there’s a Scriptural pattern for men in the leadership of the church.

    If we can accept that there is a Scriptural pattern for men in the leadership of the church, then it follows…when Scripture talks about the qualifications of elder: HE must be the husband of one wife (and I don’t believe that lesbians with wives were appointed as elders) and He must manage his own household well…for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

    I see that leading a household well is a qualification for leading a church well.

    Of course egalitarians will not see that.

  343. Sue June 29, 2008 at 11:42 am #

    HE must be the husband of one wife

    I guess that would exclude Paul and all the leaders of the Catholic church.

    I see that leading a household well is a qualification for leading a church well.

    Women are clearly told to lead the household also, in 1 Tim. 5:14.

    Lydia lead her household, and Chloe and Nympha.

  344. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 11:49 am #

    What is the pattern in Scripture of leadership in the church?

  345. Molly June 29, 2008 at 11:51 am #

    For example, in I Peter 3:1, wives are instructed to submit (hupotasso) even to husbands that “are not persuaded by” the Word (logos). I would think that such a husband would be less likely than a husband who was persuaded by the Word to lead well, or lead at all…yet his wife is still instructed to submit to him.

    Bonnie, that interpretation assumes that Peter’s instructions to wives had only to do with spiritual-law matters (that wifely submission is a law of God) and not with practical matters.

    However, practically, Peter’s instructions make a good deal of sense.

    By law, women were to obey their husbands. Just as by law, slaves had to obey their masters.

    If we interpret Peter as giving “spiritual law” commands only, then we are negating the whole cultural backdrop. This is, I believe, a mistake. CBMW, the patriarchy camp, etc, get themselves into the interpretational mess they do because they often negate the cultural backdrop and attempt to make it seem as if the author of the text is writing “spiritual-law-for-all-time” commands out of what were simply God-breathed letters to people living 2,000 years ago who dealt with very real issues and very real concerns.

    Of particular concern to women would be those who were following Christ while having husbands (who were their masters in this culture) who thought that following Christ was a crime punishable by death. Hence we have Peter’s encouragement to those women in 1 Peter 3.

    (I Peter 3 was a huge foundational piece in my complementarian framework, and so when I realized the whole cultural backdrop behind it, it became quite a precious text to me, particularly 3:7′s admonishment to Christian men, which I wish the comps would pay more attention to-lol).

  346. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 11:53 am #

    Molly, what other instructions to the early Christians were cultural and can be done away with today?

    There are a couple that I can think of that would make my next date a lot more interesting.

  347. Molly June 29, 2008 at 12:02 pm #

    Ellen,
    Actually, I’m just arguing for interpretational consistancy. If you say that dumping “literal-for-all-time” assumption is a slippery slope, then we need to get literal about a LOT of things. Like, say, the holy kiss (which believers are explicity commanded to practice 5-6 times in the NT). See, your date can get real interesting either way. :)

    I’m advocating sound scholarship, that’s all. Sound scholarship does not assume “eternal-for-all-time” command any more than it assumes “culturally-relevent-instructions, not-for-all-time.”

    Sound scholarship considers, thinks, weighs, and plays devil’s advocate on itself.

  348. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:07 pm #

    It’s like realizing that authenteo actually does have a meaning and that meaning is not “to exercise proper church leadership.” It means to “dominate.”

    Scholarship is intended to be used.

  349. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 12:09 pm #

    We have the example of women prophets and even a woman judge. And in the new covenant, every believer is a priest. The reason for the male exclusivity in the Mosaic covenant is not given, but also priests could not be physically damaged, is this true today? Why try to make one exclusion carry over, this raises the possibility of being a Judaizer.

    God the Father is NEVER said to have male genitals, but is said to have a womb and breasts, so this is very different than any father on earth.

    All the 12 were male, they needed to map to the 12 tribes. But there were female disciples and later a female apostle and deacon.

    The term often translated as “husband of one wife” actually is an idiom which means “faithful spouse”. So the requirement is for IF one is a spouse to be faithful.

    The parents are to be partners in leading the home. This carries over to the church as leading your household well is a qualification, both men and women can do this. This is explicit for a woman in 1 Tim 5:14 but some translations obscure this, but the word is oikodespoteo, where oiko means home and despoteo is where we get the word despot, which means leader.

  350. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:11 pm #

    The parents are to be partners in leading the home.

    No doubt. But I believe that the pattern of Scripture shows men in leadership positions.

  351. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:12 pm #

    Or that Bruce Ward really and <honestly approves of abuse toward women?

    Nobody has said that either. However, he has said…

    So this entire thing is about shouting down complementarianism. Ware makes a handy target just now.

  352. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:13 pm #

    Actually, if you look up oikodespoteo, the lexicon says “to be the head of the house.” it is used that way throughout the gospels for the householder or owner of a house.

    So, the wife is to have that role. It makes sense that if the wife stays home, she is the “head of the house.” I wish we really did have a literal Bible.

  353. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:18 pm #

    Ellen,

    Or that Bruce Ward really and <honestly approves of abuse toward women?

    Nobody has said that either. However, he has said…

    So this entire thing is about shouting down complementarianism. Ware makes a handy target just now.

    What Ware said is wrong and unbiblical. It is dangerous because it is used as justification by an abusive husband, and it causes women to think that by submitting they can reduce the abuse and change their husband’s behaviour. This is false. Submission reinforces abuse.

    Do you want to tell a woman to her face, who has suffered abuse, that she was not submissive enough. That she rebeled. Is that what you want.

    Do you want to say anything at all that would increase a woman’s exposure to criminal assault?

  354. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:20 pm #

    Do you want to tell a woman to her face, who has suffered abuse, that she was not submissive enough. That she rebeled. Is that what you want.

    Do you want to say anything at all that would increase a woman’s exposure to criminal assault?

    Straw man…because you know well that CBMW has an article on their website condemning abuse. Abuse is sin. Complementarianism is not sin.

  355. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:23 pm #

    No, it is not a strawman. This is a dangerous teaching that entails a risk to some people of extending the suffering of criminal abuse. Did Ware say “oh, and by the way, read the fine print. This may be dangerous to your health?”

    In the interests of helping women escape abuse, I would like to see the end of this teaching which is not scriptural in the first place.

  356. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:26 pm #

    Strawman…making an argument against something that was not said.

    Nobody said that complementarians teach that abuse is acceptable.

    Arguing that the teaching should be done away with on the grounds of abuse is a straw man.

    In the interests of helping women escape abuse, I would like to see the end of this teaching which is not scriptural in the first place.</i.

    “…you would like to see a segment of Christianity silenced and see the end to a teaching that you do not agree with.

    There are those who disagree with you.

  357. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:27 pm #

    Sorry…disagree about the “teaching being Scriptural” part, not about the helping women escape abuse part.

    Abuse is sin and should be condemned as such. Complementarianism is not sin. (copy and paste as necessary)

  358. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:28 pm #

    What Ware said is wrong and unbiblical.

    You believe that the teaching of male leadership is unbiblical…I disagree.

  359. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:32 pm #

    Ware has changed the words of scripture for Gen. 3:16. All arguments that women are subordinate in creation are simple interpretation and were not held by the church fathers, who taught that women were subordinated by the fall.

    I make the argument that Ware said,

    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,

    This is simply dangerous.

  360. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 12:33 pm #

    What is termed by some as complementarianism, by which they mean masculism or patriarchy but did not want to use these words and so picked a word ala Orwell’s doublespeak, is a form of sanctified sin, IMO. But this is next to impossible to see if you believe in it. It is similar to being a slaveholder, one cannot see that slavery itself is wrong.

  361. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:35 pm #

    Don, Abuse is sin and should be condemned as such. Complementarianism is not sin. (copy and paste as necessary)

  362. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 12:35 pm #

    By sin I mean missing the mark, that is, not aiming for God’s best. Instead they entrench and justify, when repentence is called for,

  363. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:38 pm #

    Thank you, Don. Some women experience it as unsanctified sin.

    There is absolutely no connection between sexual complementarity and complementarianism, which is ALL about teaching that marriage is an authority-submission relationship.

  364. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:39 pm #

    Abuse is sin and should be condemned as such. Complementarianism is not sin. (copy and paste as necessary)

  365. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 12:45 pm #

    Non-egals tend to infantilize the wife, she is not a fully functioning adult, she is a sub-male, somewhere between kids and males. Some women might even want this in order to duck full responsibility, but an adult is supposed to be fully responsible.

    But for a man to be domineering is a sin, a theory is not a sin, but actions based on that theory certainly can be. It comes to do when can a wife say NO and what can the husband do about it if she does? My claim is she can ALWAYS say NO and the husband must accept it.

  366. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:46 pm #

    A man should NEVER be told that his sin is a response to her sin.

  367. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:52 pm #

    The problem is that an abusive husband escalates the demands. At first it is just, “get my breakfast” and then “have my breakfast ready before I enter the kitchen” and then “why did you buy this (less expensive brand of) orange juice?” and then he just knocks the juice on the floor and if the wife apologizes, because an apology on her part is her admission of her sin, he is now justified in punishing her by walking out and leaving the broken glass and orange juice all over the kitchen floor for her to clean up before the children need breakfast, 5 minutes later.

    Try living with that for 50 years!

  368. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:54 pm #

    Abuse is sin and should be condemned as such. Complementarianism is not sin.

  369. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm #

    “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”

    Another reason this teaching is so dangerous is because Ware is giving the husband the right to determine when and if the wife is unsubmissive. And since unsubmissivness by the wife is sin in Ware’s eyes…he is teaching, in effect, that the husband can determine what is sin when it comes to his wife.

  370. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm #

    Complementarianism is not sin.

    It can be dangerous to your health.

  371. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 12:57 pm #

    abuse can be dangerous to your health. Complementarianism is not sin.

  372. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 12:57 pm #

    The way I would word it is non-egals that are very mature in a Christian sense have an almost egalitarian marriage. The danger is that many believers are NOT mature for various reasons and given a non-egal message to these is reckless.

  373. Sue June 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm #

    abuse can be dangerous to your health. Complementarianism is not sin.

    NO, abuse IS dangerous to your health. Let’s get this straight. Being hit, being deprived of any need, being restricted in your access and egress of your own home is by definition, dangerous to your health.

    Anything that justifies, or can be used to justify abuse, is extremely dangerous.

  374. Sue June 29, 2008 at 1:02 pm #

    I agree, Don, that many complementarians have a somewhat egalitarian marriage relationship. They adjust and submit to each other for the sake of love and mutual happiness.

    This message is dangerous to others who do not treat each other with love and respect.

  375. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 1:03 pm #

    Don, our churches are full of the unregenerate. And when Ware teaches a man that he has the power and authority to determine when his wife is sinning, it becomes very dangerous indeed. Ware teaches this by saying that the wife is being unsubmissive. Who determines this? The husband, of course.

    The husband gets in the way of the Holy Spirit. I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved. Truly saved. Focus on what happened on the Cross and to examine ourselves if we are in the faith. How about a conference on the Beatitudes! They are a far cry from wanting power and authority over another person.

  376. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:03 pm #

    Complementarianism is not sin.

  377. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:04 pm #

    What we have here is the same-old-same-old “does the Bible really say” complementarian vs. egalitarian debate.

    It’s not going to be solved here today.

  378. Molly June 29, 2008 at 1:06 pm #

    Ellen, Denny, and others,

    Do you believe what Ware said about the salvation of women?

    This, in my opinion, is HUGE, the sola fide for men but not for women. I don’t understand why Ware’s speech is being hailed as “biblical” when it denies women salvation by faith alone. Christ’s work on the cross was enough for men but not for women? I cannot understand why this is being accepted instead of denounced.

  379. Sue June 29, 2008 at 1:08 pm #

    Complementarianism is not sin.

    Tobacco is not sin either. I still don’t smoke it.

    How about a conference on the Beatitudes!

    Great idea.

  380. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:09 pm #

    I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved.

    There you go…it’s all about silencing those who do not agree.

  381. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:10 pm #

    Complementarianism is not sin.

    Tobacco is not sin either. I still don’t smoke it.

    So don’t do complementarianism.

    Tobacco is legal (and I enjoy a cigar now and again)

  382. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 1:14 pm #

    “I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved.

    There you go…it’s all about silencing those who do not agree.”

    Actually, it is about going back to basics and going back to the word of God instead of gobbling up what mere men say the word of God says. It is about being a Berean.

  383. Sue June 29, 2008 at 1:16 pm #

    Molly,

    This teaching of childbearing has also infiltrated the scriptures. For example, the NET Bible notes say,

    This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, …….

    (5) “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view τεκνογονία is seen as a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role. (

    6) The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost, in which “saved” means “delivered” and in which this deliverance was from some of the devastating effects of the role reversal that took place in Eden. The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy of part for the whole that encompasses the woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man, though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the outworking of redemption).

    This is nuanced a bit but the message is there. It is all about the submission to the male.

  384. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 1:16 pm #

    I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved.

    There you go…it’s all about silencing those who do not agree.”

    Oh, I did not mean to communicate that at all! What I meant to communicate was the fact that this secondary doctrine is being put in a primary position and Ware, within the SBC, understands that our churches are filled with the unregenerate. (We just passed a resolution on this at our annual conference…it is a huge problem and everyone knows it)

    So, why not channel the time and energy these scholars/preachers have into a focus on the saving power of the primary Gospel?

  385. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:18 pm #

    Actually, it is about going back to basics and going back to the word of God instead of gobbling up what mere men say the word of God says. It is about being a Berean.

    And complementarians believe that they are.

    Lydia says, “I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved.

    …I would like to see the end of this teaching…

    Corrie, if you think this is about studying Scripture and not about silencing complementarians, read the above quotes.

  386. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:20 pm #

    What I meant to communicate was the fact that this secondary doctrine is being put in a primary position and Ware, within the SBC, understands that our churches are filled with the unregenerate.

    I believe that if you take a look at sermon topics at any given complementarian church, sermons on gender-roles will be in the minority.

  387. Sue June 29, 2008 at 1:25 pm #

    Ellen,

    So don’t do complementarianism.

    Tobacco is legal (and I enjoy a cigar now and again)

    Who would go to an abused woman married to an abusive man and taunt her with these words?

    “So don’t do complementarianism.”

    As if she has a choice! This is callous.

  388. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:26 pm #

    Who would go to an abused woman married to an abusive man and taunt her with these words?

    Please supply a quote from CBMW or any other complementarian taunting an abused woman so. I was speaking directly to you…you do have a choice and you chose.

    Please supply a quote.

  389. Sue June 29, 2008 at 1:27 pm #

    if you think this is about studying Scripture and not about silencing complementarians, read the above quotes.

    I seek to engage complementarians on the word of God, all the time. They censure the TNIV, they refuse to admit the plain reading of scripture, the only allowable readings.

    Why do they not engage?

  390. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:28 pm #

    Something like, “abuse is a good thing…” I’d really like a quote.

  391. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:30 pm #

    You said, <I seek to engage complementarians on the word of God, all the time.

    you want to see them silenced:

    …I would like to see the end of this teaching…

  392. Sue June 29, 2008 at 1:33 pm #

    you want to see them silenced:

    I want to see dangerous teaching stopped.

  393. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    For the rest of the conversation, please google for “complementarianism vs. egalitarianism.”

  394. Paula June 29, 2008 at 1:42 pm #

    I made a comment 7 hours ago and it’s still in “moderation”.

  395. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 1:46 pm #

    Ellen,

    Does anybody here really and </honestly believe…that Bruce Ward really and </honestly approves of abuse toward women?

    It depends on what kind of abuse you are talking about. I believe that Ward promotes male narcissism and exploitation of the wife, as I have said. This exploitation is a subtle form of abuse. He promotes a double standard between husband and wife and suggests that the husband-wife relationship is about a husband’s will having more credence than his wife’s. He claims that a wife who wishes her will to have credence as well is sinning, whereas a husband wishing his to have credence over hers isn’t. He erroneously equates a husband’s authority with his will.

    You have not engaged with any of this in your comments.

    What is the pattern in Scripture of leadership in the church?

    I would say it has to do with qualification and calling. Godly leaders in Scripture are those who are humble yet qualified, with abilities, spiritual gifting, and special anointing — things we would identify with “calling.” These are also qualifications of godly servants.

    Another note about leadership: I think the point of Jesus’ and Paul’s spiritual leadership wasn’t that they dictate what the rest of us are to follow as underlings, but that we do as they did. They set the example for us to copy and exhorted us (by extension, through Scripture) to a life of faith in the unity of the Holy Spirit, as in Romans 12.

  396. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 1:48 pm #

    Ellen, I hate censorship on doctrinal debate. What I said in response to you was this:

    Oh, I did not mean to communicate that at all! What I meant to communicate was the fact that this secondary doctrine is being put in a primary position and Ware, within the SBC, understands that our churches are filled with the unregenerate. (We just passed a resolution on this at our annual conference…it is a huge problem and everyone knows it)

    So, why not channel the time and energy these scholars/preachers have into a focus on the saving power of the primary Gospel?

  397. Sue June 29, 2008 at 1:49 pm #

    A few people have written to say that they have been moderated off.

    I really appreciate that he no longer moderates me. Maybe he just can’t decide what to do.

    If I were him I might close this thread and go back to the authenteo post and try to respond to that issue.

    However, now maybe all your comments will go through

  398. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 1:51 pm #

    I want to thank Denny for allowing this debate. I consider complementarians my brothers and sisters in Christ.

    Blessings to you all.

  399. Michael June 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm #

    “If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”

    Dr. Russell Moore

    Denton Bible Church

    June 29th

  400. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm #

    Molly,

    Bonnie, that interpretation assumes that Peter’s instructions to wives had only to do with spiritual-law matters (that wifely submission is a law of God) and not with practical matters.

    I appreciate your point. Yet I don’t believe that spiritual-law matters are divorced from practical matters (I’m not a gnostic ;-) ), nor do I believe we should ignore cultural considerations to which Peter wrote.

    I think that, no matter what the cultural conditions, the human condition is that a husband’s “disobedience” (or lack of being persuaded, as some translations read) will always be dangerous in some way to his wife. But I see the point of that passage as being submission as Christ submitted under unjust treatment (ch. 2) so that the disobedient husband may be won over, i.e., by his wife’s pure (chaste) and respectful behavior.

  401. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm #

    “I agree, Don, that many complementarians have a somewhat egalitarian marriage relationship. They adjust and submit to each other for the sake of love and mutual happiness.”

    Sue,

    There are complementarians that teach that this would be a “same-sex marriage”. Was it Moore who said that just recently? And this is exactly what Moore and Ware and others are complaining about in their teachings. Compromise and adjusting one’s self and desires and will for the other is the stuff of egals. In a true comp marriage, it is the man who is served and it is his will that matters.

    Don,

    “Non-egals tend to infantilize the wife, she is not a fully functioning adult, she is a sub-male, somewhere between kids and males. Some women might even want this in order to duck full responsibility, but an adult is supposed to be fully responsible.”

    This is so true and this is what truly bothers me about complementarianism. They say that men and women are equal but it seems like lip service because when their teachings are fleshed out, women are infantilized and treated less than adult. Just look at every comp/egal discussion. It usually boils down to a comp givin an analogy about one’s child and obedience to the parent as if that is parallel to the marriage relationship.

  402. Sue June 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm #

    Michael,

    “If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”

    I appreciate that contribution. But in reality how do you decide when the abuse begins?

    For example,

    The problem is that an abusive husband escalates the demands. At first it is just, “get my breakfast” and then “have my breakfast ready before I enter the kitchen” and then “why did you buy this (less expensive brand of) orange juice?” and then he just knocks the juice on the floor and if the wife apologizes, because an apology on her part is her admission of her sin, he is now justified in punishing her by walking out and leaving the broken glass and orange juice all over the kitchen floor for her to clean up before the children need breakfast, 5 minutes later.

    IMO the abuse starts with the narcissistic, self-serving me-first-ism of Ware’s sermon. Men should leave all mention of wives submitting to women’s meetings. Men should not be told that they are the authority. This is not scriptural.

  403. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 2:29 pm #

    Michael,

    ““If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”

    Dr. Russell Moore”

    Thank you for posting this. I assume that this is from today since you dated it June 29th?

    I am glad to hear that a woman should not submit to abuse. But, what happens when she goes to the pastor/elders for counseling concerning the abuse? Will she be blamed for the abuse because she was not submissive enough or that she had challenged his authority because she didn’t agree with him on a certain point and told him so?

    I have heard from too many women who have gone to their pastors for help with physically violent men and they always get the talk about how they are causing the abuse because they are not submissive enough.

    I have heard many people teach that a man would not abuse a woman if she were truly submissive.

    It isn’t enough to say that a woman shouldn’t submit to abuse.

    He still needs to clarify his dangerous statements about wives causing their husbands to violently respond to them because of some so-called challenge to their authority. That statement gives abusers an excuse to look for rebellion in order to lessen their sin.

    Did he do that today, also? Did he mention the subject at hand?

  404. madame June 29, 2008 at 2:47 pm #

    “If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”

    Dr. Russell Moore

    Denton Bible Church

    June 29th

    Michael,
    Who defines abuse? what counts as “proper” abuse that frees a woman from submission to her husband?

  405. madame June 29, 2008 at 3:06 pm #

    I agree, Lydia, teaching like Dr. Ware’s needs to be carefully assessed. He needs to bear in mind that not everyone listening is as spiritually mature as he is.

    A very well loved guest lecturer at the Bible college I went to taught counseling. He told a story of a woman being abused by her husband and how the pastor had sent her home, told her to pray for him every evening, and warned her that the beatings may become worse. (He may have been using Patterson’s story). Sure enough, she was beaten and went to church, very angry at the pastor. The husband went to church that day, answered to the altar call and received Jesus. The professor used the story as an example of how 1 Peter 3 can be put into practice today.

    The young wannabe-pastors in training were soaking this “wise counseling” in. Some of them had some objections, but most believed that was the “Biblical” way to counsel a woman who is being abused.

    These young men graduated a year later. Many went into ministry. Many went into foreign missions.
    One of them became the assistant pastor of a church in an underprivileged housing estate. He counseled a woman whose husband drank, beat her and owned loads of pornography, to go back to him. This woman had 5 children and was divorced.
    Thankfully, the senior pastor was a bit wiser and told the young assistant pastor to let him do the counseling.

    Basically, these preachers don’t know who is listening to their preachings and what will be retained. Ware’s words could easily be used to justify an abusing husband’s actions.

    He also forgot to mention that a man shouldn’t be trying to push his will through in the first place. That’s not love. That’s sin.

  406. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 3:10 pm #

    “If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”

    Dr. Russell Moore

    Denton Bible Church

    June 29th”

    But this is confusing! Ware just taught that the unsubmissiveness of the wife is sin. The husband would be the one who would decide what is submissive or unsubmissive to him. So he is deciding what is sin.

    Does this mean that in the instance of abuse, her unsubmissiveness is NOT sin? Who decides this? The husband at that point can’t because HE is the abuser. Would verbal abuse qualify?

  407. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 3:12 pm #

    By the way, Is her husband still her ‘head’ when he is abusing her?

  408. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 3:59 pm #

    Lydia,

    By the way, Is her husband still her ‘head’ when he is abusing her?

    A great question. I think the answer is “yes;” iow, I think that husbandly headship is an ontological reality. But because husbands are human, not possessed of deity like Christ, and do in fact err, headship cannot be equated with rule, or leadership, or authority. I think there is a kind of authority in headship, and sometimes leadership, or a kind of leadership, but the definition of husbandly headship must be greater than, or beyond, these things. (does that make any sense?!)

  409. Sue June 29, 2008 at 4:22 pm #

    Bonnie,

    In my former church where there was the teaching that the head was the authority, an abusive husband was declared “no longer head” and ostracized. The pastor did not know what else to do. I find this teaching very damaging for men and women both.

  410. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm #

    “I think there is a kind of authority in headship, and sometimes leadership, or a kind of leadership, but the definition of husbandly headship must be greater than, or beyond, these things. (does that make any sense?!)”

    Well…not to be unkind…but not really. :o) This is where I think comp doctrine gets in trouble. Does it mean authority or not? Does it mean ‘leading’ or not? Is it both? Is it rule? Where is the line drawn? What are the exceptions to the rule where she can be unsubmissive and not be in sin. Who decides what those exceptions are?

    Mutual submission is so much easier to understand and apply!

  411. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    For me, the uses of kephale/head are metaphors and in each case one needs to discern what the metaphor is. They do not need to be all the same metaphor. In Eph 5, for example, it is a head/body metaphor with Christ and the church and with the husband and wife. This is a unity metaphor, not a leadership metaphor.

  412. madame June 29, 2008 at 5:27 pm #

    Lydia,

    ” This is where I think comp doctrine gets in trouble. Does it mean authority or not? Does it mean ‘leading’ or not? Is it both? Is it rule? Where is the line drawn? What are the exceptions to the rule where she can be unsubmissive and not be in sin. Who decides what those exceptions are?

    Mutual submission is so much easier to understand and apply!”

    Phew! Exactly. It is not easy.
    I think that well understood, the few texts that are directed straight at married couples are essentially describing mutual submission. This submission is expressed in different ways (I think). No spouse is given the right to have his/her way. No spouse is given the right to “rule” over the other one. God didn’t tell Adam to rule over Eve. He didn’t tell the men to exercise headship or authority. He told wives to submit because the husband is the head, but then he turned around to the heads and told them to love sacrificially.

    I think we can understand that a man has a responsibility to lead by example. But women also have it, especially if they are dealing with husbands that aren’t saved or who are “disobedient” (believers? I don’t know!)

    The message seems to be “go into marriage prepared to pursue unity by laying down your life and serving your spouse”.

    Of course, there are a lot more passages in the Bible that are good guidelines for any relationship, including marriage. Some teachers restrict themselves to a very small handful of verses and seem to miss the essence of them while they are at it.

  413. Michael June 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    Dr. Russell Moore is just as talented and a spiritual speaker as Dr. Bruce Ware. My wife and I have been very blessed to attend Denton Bible these past two weeks to hear the both of them.

    I posted #400 so that those who have been distorting Dr. Ware’s excellent and easily understood message from last Sunday might see better the stance of Southern Baptist Seminary on the issue of abuse. They are colleagues and both quite clearly do not tolerate spousal abuse.

    It is very disheartening that such good men with wise words can be taken out of context.

    Dr. Moore made the matter more spiritual than Dr. Ware’s, if memory serves, and he does well to explain the spiritual warfare occurring in Ephesians and how chapter 5 pertains to that warfare.

    My comments are not expert enough to do justice to Dr. Moore or Ware or their expertise, but I encourage those who are interested in sound biblical wisdom and who hold to Biblical authority to hear his sermon whenever it is available.

  414. Sue June 29, 2008 at 5:49 pm #

    They are colleagues and both quite clearly do not tolerate spousal abuse.

    I understand this and I believe you that these men do not tolerate abuse. Unfortunately I listened to the entire sermon and I cannot agree that his words have been taken out of context. The comments about childbearing are almost without precedent.

  415. Sue June 29, 2008 at 5:58 pm #

    I understand that Bruce Ware wrote this,

    The Trinity, for example, models equality of essence with differentiation of roles, which equality and differentiation are mirrored in man as male and female.

    And the substitutionary atonement was carried out by one who submitted freely to the will of His Father, thus demonstrating the joy and beauty both of authority (the Father who sent) and submission (the Son who obeyed).

    Doesn’t this passage associate the female role with the Christ on the cross and the male role with the sending and punishing father?

  416. Sue June 29, 2008 at 6:00 pm #

    I’ll try the link again. It was on Jollyblogger.

  417. Michael June 29, 2008 at 6:19 pm #

    “The comments about childbearing are almost without precedent.”

    Dr. Schreiner tackles the matter head-on:

    “We must face the starkness of the text. Paul actually says that a woman will be saved through childbirth; and the word teknogonia refers to the birthing of children, not the rearing of them (cf. 1 Tim 5:10). We are thus back to the original question – why does Paul say a woman will be saved through childbirth? Probably because the bearing of children marks off the role of women in distinction from the role of men. (Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, pg 286)

    I do hope we can treat his comments respectfully and that I am not just adding another reputable and good name to be tread on.

  418. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 6:32 pm #

    Michael,

    “I posted #400 so that those who have been distorting Dr. Ware’s excellent and easily understood message from last Sunday might see better the stance of Southern Baptist Seminary on the issue of abuse. They are colleagues and both quite clearly do not tolerate spousal abuse.

    It is very disheartening that such good men with wise words can be taken out of context.”

    Why is it that it seems that whenever someone quotes directly from one of these men, the “go to” response is that “you are twisting, you are misrepresenting”?

    Ware said that a man can respond in two different ways to a wife who “challenges his authority”.

    First, I have a whole problem with how he defines the role of “head” in that a head is served (his wife is not to expect him to serve her since that is HER role), a head’s will reigns and rules (his wife’s will is not important) and a head should get his own way.

    Second, Ware clearly states that a woman’s alleged “challenge” to her husband’s authority can cause him to respond to her in violence.

    That means, clearly and practically, that if a woman were not “overturn(ing)” her role and trying to take the part of the man’s privileged position of getting his way and being served, then he would not be abusive or passive.

    What is it that YOU see him saying about a man’s response of violence? You do not see that it is a dangerous thing to say that a woman’s “challenge to authority” is a reason why men are violent to their wives?

    I agree that his statement is very clear and I think we are understanding what he said just fine. No one said he was advocating abuse or that a woman should submit to abuse. That is a red herring. He has just handed abusers just one more reason to blame the victim instead of taking FULL and COMPLETE responsibility for their actions.

  419. Kathy June 29, 2008 at 6:34 pm #

    why does Paul say ‘a woman’ will be saved through (THE) childbirth?

    Where does Paul say ‘women’? Where does he talk about women in that passage? Paul talks about ‘a woman’, a particular woman through out but somehow ‘women’ is inserted into the text? How?

  420. Sue June 29, 2008 at 6:39 pm #

    You are right, Michael, Dr. Ware’s words are not without precedent. So complementarians as a rule believe that women are saved by remaining within their role? What about men that don’t fulfill their role? Are they still saved, or does the Bible not speak to that?

  421. Sue June 29, 2008 at 6:42 pm #

    Perhaps men are saved by not bearing children, since the bearing of children marks off the roles. Perhaps, as long as men stay on the side of the line of not bearing children, and women stay on the side of bearing children, everyone keeps to their roles?

  422. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 6:51 pm #

    Lydia,

    (does that make any sense?!)”

    Well…not to be unkind…but not really. :o)

    I don’t want my lack of ability to explain to take away from the importance of the thing I am trying to explain :-) A lot has to do with the way we understand these terms.

    The thing is, the fact that man is the head of woman and woman was made from man for man and not vice-versa has to stand for something. I’m just having trouble articulating exactly what. Which is lame, I know. I have a sense of it but have not yet come up with a good way to explain it. :-(

    What madame said, Some teachers restrict themselves to a very small handful of verses and seem to miss the essence of them while they are at it., is true. I’m trying to articulate the essence.

  423. Michael June 29, 2008 at 6:54 pm #

    Why is it that it seems that whenever someone quotes directly from one of these men, the “go to” response is that “you are twisting, you are misrepresenting”?

    I believe that is because sometimes wisdom is perceived through the vehicle of a statement, and not through legal and complex word scrutiny treatment.

    If scripture demonstrates that prostitutes enter the kingdom before Pharisees, surely we are careful in determining the meaning of this statement and do not conclude that an un-repentant and un-regenerate adulterer will enherit eternal life.

    We can arrive at this conclusion by taking into consideration all that scripture teaches.

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

    When we regard the full context of Dr. Ware’s teaching he clearly is not proposing spousal abuse as a means of dealing with spousal insubordination.

    Surely such a statement would demand some type of response from at least one other person in the audience – especially when considering the size of Denton Bible Church!

  424. Sue June 29, 2008 at 7:00 pm #

    When we regard the full context of Dr. Ware’s teaching he clearly is not proposing spousal abuse as a means of dealing with spousal insubordination.

    We absolutely and totally believe that he is not proposing spousal abuse for any reason.

    Could you please give an outline for “spousal subordination?” How is a bride to know her limits in marriage? Exactly how is this word defined so that a woman may know how to escape being insubordinate and thereby calling on her own head the response of spousal abuse. These are not trivial questions but lead to how a woman is to discern that she is being abused, and at what point she ceases to submit and seeks redress.

  425. Sue June 29, 2008 at 7:01 pm #

    Or an outline and definition of spousal insubordination?

  426. Michael June 29, 2008 at 7:03 pm #

    Some Bible teachers still believe in the authority of scripture. We may not understand what it means exhaustively throughout, but it’s necessary that we not bend the text to fit culture, if we are to make any progress in theology.

  427. Sue June 29, 2008 at 7:10 pm #

    Yes, a complete rejection of the convents of godly women who became nursing sisters, single women missionaries who live in remote places and translate the scriptures, the baptist women medical doctors of the 18th century.

    You call this progress – teaching women that they are saved through bearing children?

  428. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 7:11 pm #

    Michael,

    I’m curious to know whether you think I have distorted Ware’s words in my comments #s 79, 110, 133, 138, and 396, or understood them out of context.

    Know that I am not interested in either treading on or preserving anyone’s reputation or good name. I am interested in the doctrine that is being taught, and whether or not it is good and true.

  429. Michael June 29, 2008 at 7:13 pm #

    Sue, I’m not qualified to respond to numbers 424 and 425, but the first occurrence of physical abuse, and a woman should immediately contact her pastor and church and remove herself from the threat.

    Actually it should not get that far. Any signs of predatory behavior in any way should immediately be handled with solid Christian counseling, whether emotional or physical or any other manner, as well as arranging legal protection.

    If a woman feels threatened by her husband she needs to get away from him.

    The fact that such cowardly men are around kindles no mild indignation in me. Especially since I now have a daughter.

  430. Michael June 29, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

    Bonnie,

    The short answer is yes. Dr. Ware’s gracious presence in the room would melt your heart. He is an incredible and gifted teacher and deserves better treatment.

    I would feel very satisfied to become a fraction of the servant of Christ that Dr. Ware is.

  431. Sue June 29, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

    Actually it should not get that far. Any signs of predatory behavior in any way should immediately be handled with solid Christian counseling, whether emotional or physical or any other manner, as well as arranging legal protection.

    Thank you, Michael.

    And do you not think that the husband’s expectation that everything the wife does must be to fulfill his will might not perhaps be a sign of a narcissistic disorder that forshadows further abuse. Perhaps the wife should see her resistance to this narcissicism as a healthy sign of self preservation, instead of a sign that she is resisting her proper subordination to the male in creation.

  432. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 7:21 pm #

    Michael,

    Regarding women being saved through childbearing, what does this mean for single or infertile women? And is this not a work, a requirement, in addition to faith in the saving work of Christ?

    You also said, Some Bible teachers still believe in the authority of scripture.

    Certainly they do. I do too, and it seems from the comments that most if not all of the rest of the commenters here do as well.

    We may not understand what it means exhaustively throughout, but it’s necessary that we not bend the text to fit culture, if we are to make any progress in theology.

    Absolutely. But how, would you say, will we know whether or not we, or anyone else, are bending the text to fit culture?

  433. Sue June 29, 2008 at 7:21 pm #

    Women deserve better treatment. I can guarantee that there were women in that room who are suffering from emotional or physical abuse. This is just plain irresponsible.

  434. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 7:25 pm #

    “When we regard the full context of Dr. Ware’s teaching he clearly is not proposing spousal abuse as a means of dealing with spousal insubordination.”

    Michael,

    This is exactly what I said was NOT the argument but then you go and repeat it as fact as if this was the argument. This is a prime example of turning the tables. You have changed the argument and have put it back on us as if we are arguing the above when we are not.

    The argument is that Ware’s statement that wives can cause their husbands to react to them with violence when their husband perceives (this is the operative word) that their authority is being challenged is wreckless and irresponsible and dangerous. This is the argument.

    No one has stated that Ware is teaching that a husband should hit his wife when she challenges his authority.

    The scripture clearly teaches personal responsibility and makes no excuses for individual sin as I have already demonstrated in Jesus’ statement about the man who lusts in his heart.

    The problem is what Ware teaches concerning the privileged position of the husband and the dutiful position of the wife and how the husband’s perception and will rules reality.

    Is a husband supposed to serve his wife? Is a husband supposed to be concerned about how he may please his wife? Why does it seem that Ware is teaching that the answer to these questions is “no” and that this is her job/role to serve him and please him and not the other way around? After all, he used the term “overturn” which gives the idea that what the sinful wife is doing only belongs to the husband.

    A person who hits another person 100% owns that sin and there should be no ifs, ands or buts about it. Anyone who has known or has lived with an abuser understands how an abusive person can so easily justify why they abuse and it takes little to no provocation for the abuse to take place. We do not make justify that person’s behavior by making excuses for it.

    It is also concerning that the complementarians seem to blame the bad behavior of some men on women for everything from violence to passivity to all the social, moral and ethical evils of our world instead of taking responsibility for their own bad behavior. ie., “Men are passive and the church is weak because of women.” “Men don’t want to go to church because there are too many women.” “Men hit their wives because their authority is challenged.” “Men don’t lead because their wives won’t let them.”

    This attitude causes a ripe atmosphere for abuse.

  435. Paula June 29, 2008 at 7:31 pm #

    The thing is, the fact that man is the head of woman and woman was made from man for man and not vice-versa has to stand for something.

    It certainly does– it means Adam lacked something and Eve was to provide it. Adam = needy, Eve = provider. The scripture is very clear that it was Adam who needed help, and only Adam that, in all God created, whose alone-ness was “not good”. Eve’s being made from Adam proved her absolute equality to him, seeing that she was made of exactly the same material.

  436. Michael June 29, 2008 at 7:32 pm #

    “But how, would you say, will we know whether or not we, or anyone else, are bending the text to fit culture?”

    Glad you asked!

    If we interpret the scriptures in a way that makes us comfortable, we’ve likely gotten it wrong. :)

  437. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 7:33 pm #

    Michael,

    Thanks for your short answer, but a longer one would be more helpful. Your short one offers nothing in way of explanation; it merely defends Ware.

    As I said, I am not concerned with what kind of presence Ware has, or what kind of servant he is. This is nothing personal about Mr. Ware; I don’t even know him. I certainly am not mistreating him; I am discussing his claims. These have been made public; indeed, that was their purpose. Therefore it is certainly not out of line to respond to them. Couldn’t I turn that around and say that you are mistreating those who feel his words are in error? (which I am not doing, but that would be the equivalent of what you are doing.)

    Ware is accountable for his words, as we all are, and if he, or I, or anyone else are teaching falsehood, it is certainly not mistreating him, or me, or anyone else to point this out.

  438. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 7:35 pm #

    “The fact that such cowardly men are around kindles no mild indignation in me. Especially since I now have a daughter.”

    How would you feel if your son in law hit your daughter in response to her challenge to his authority when she disagreed with him and let her opinion (will) be known on an issue?

    How would you feel if your son in law hit your daughter because she had expectations that he would serve her when she was laid up with a c-section or a broken leg?

    Wouldn’t it be cowardly for your son in law or anyone else to suggest that he was violent because your daughter had challenged his authority and was trying to overturn the roles in the marriage where she expected him to serve her at times?

  439. Michael June 29, 2008 at 7:36 pm #

    Corrie number 434,

    I’ve not listened to Dr. Ware’s teaching in a couple of days, but I do not recall hearing him use the word “cause”. I think you confuse the matter when you adopt the position that his statement was purposed to demonstrate that husbands are caused to react violently by their un-submissive wives, as though the wife brings it upon herself.

    That is the distortion Ma’am.

  440. Sue June 29, 2008 at 7:38 pm #

    If we interpret the scriptures in a way that makes us comfortable, we’ve likely gotten it wrong

    Then one has to ask why men interpret scriptures to their own advantage. Since Ware forefronts the importance of the wife fulfilling the will of the husband, we have to assume that he has got it wrong.

  441. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 7:40 pm #

    “The thing is, the fact that man is the head of woman and woman was made from man for man and not vice-versa has to stand for something. I’m just having trouble articulating exactly what. Which is lame, I know. I have a sense of it but have not yet come up with a good way to explain it.”

    I do not really know what head means but I do know it does not mean authority over. In the context of the passage..’came before’ or source, fit.

    Woman was made from man… but so what? Paul talks about this in 1 Corin 11…after Eve ALL men come from women. But ALL things come from God. Messiah came through a woman.

  442. Michael June 29, 2008 at 7:42 pm #

    Ephesians 5 cannot be interpreted advantageously for men. It’s clear what men are to do for their wives.

    We are to imitate our crucified and risen Lord, giving himself for his Church.

  443. Sue June 29, 2008 at 7:44 pm #

    I am happy to supply Dr. Ware’s words. I do not want to take them out of context.

    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 by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.

  444. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 7:45 pm #

    ““But how, would you say, will we know whether or not we, or anyone else, are bending the text to fit culture?”

    Glad you asked!

    If we interpret the scriptures in a way that makes us comfortable, we’ve likely gotten it wrong. ”

    Yikes! The patriarchalists are in trouble, then. ;-)

    I mean, how much better could it get to have a doctrine where you are like God AND Christ in the roles of sovereign rule and glory (Christ’s example of submission and bondslave is left for the women) and where your will determines the fate of wife and you are not made by God to be challenged or told what to do, only listened to and where a whole gender was created just to serve you and acquiese to your needs and obey your edicts?

    If calling one’s self a “prophet, priest and king” does not make for comfort , then I don’t know what will.

    The patriarchal doctrine is the exaltation of the male and the subjugation and dominion over the female.

    Some might call that a comfortable arrangement.

  445. Michael June 29, 2008 at 7:48 pm #

    Sue, your number 443 does not lead to men being caused to behave violently toward their wives. There is no justification for this in this text. He simply does not say it.

  446. Sue June 29, 2008 at 7:49 pm #

    Michael,

    You said,

    Ephesians 5 cannot be interpreted advantageously for men. It’s clear what men are to do for their wives.

    We are to imitate our crucified and risen Lord, giving himself for his Church.

    So how do you explain this description of gender roles? (#415)

    The Trinity, for example, models equality of essence with differentiation of roles, which equality and differentiation are mirrored in man as male and female.

    And the substitutionary atonement was carried out by one who submitted freely to the will of His Father, thus demonstrating the joy and beauty both of authority (the Father who sent) and submission (the Son who obeyed).

    Hasn’t Ware made sure that women, and not men, represent the sacrificing Christ?

  447. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 7:49 pm #

    “If we interpret the scriptures in a way that makes us comfortable, we’ve likely gotten it wrong

    Then one has to ask why men interpret scriptures to their own advantage. Since Ware forefronts the importance of the wife fulfilling the will of the husband, we have to assume that he has got it wrong.”

    Sue, you beat me to it. That is the whole point and why being so paranoid of interpreting scripture through culture is so silly. We have been doing that for 2000 years! And it started with a cultural mis-interpretation of Gen 3:16.

    It has only been in the last 200 years that we have stopped interpreting scripture to condone or excuse slavery. Did we grow up? What changed? Or, did we stop interpreting it through the culture?

  448. Sue June 29, 2008 at 7:50 pm #

    It is a response. One thing makes the other thing happen.

  449. Michael June 29, 2008 at 7:53 pm #

    Corrie, we are like Peter asking Jesus about the beloved disciple if we do not focus on our own path and expectations (and perceived disadvantages) and proceed to scrutinize the path of another.

    With each following the will of God, husband and wife fulfill their duties toward one-another and the Lord, and the marriage then demonstrates the mystery of Christ and the Church.

    Marriage is so closely connected with the Gospel of Christ in ways I had no idea of until hearing Dr. Moore’s excellent teaching today.

  450. Michael June 29, 2008 at 7:55 pm #

    Sue, that is the incorrect inference on your part. The husband is free to respond how he chooses. He is not confined to an abusive response because of the actions of the wife.

  451. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 8:00 pm #

    “Corrie, we are like Peter asking Jesus about the beloved disciple if we do not focus on our own path and expectations (and perceived disadvantages) and proceed to scrutinize the path of another.”

    Amen. But that is exactly what Ware and others are doing when it comes to women and their ‘role’. And that is EXACTLY what he is teaching husbands to do when he makes the point that the husband gets to decide what is unsubmissivness from the wife and what isn’t. Ware says unsubmissiveness is sin. So, the husband gets to decide what is sin for the wife.

    That is interpreting scripture to your own personal advantage.

  452. Sue June 29, 2008 at 8:01 pm #

    Michael,

    the husband is free to respond how he chooses. He is not confined to an abusive response because of the actions of the wife.

    No, the point is that for Ware, the wife sins first, and one of the possible ways that the husband responds is by abuse. There is no mention of maybe the husband abusing his wife in a vacuum. It is a response.

    You ask me a question and I respond. I would not have responded if you had not asked. There is cause and effect. This was not an appropriate description of abuse. But fro Dr. Ware he thinks that is what scripture says because the interpretation of Gen. 3:16 had been changed to provide for this teaching as the plain teaching of scripture. One person makes sure the Bible has this in it. Another puts it in the Systematic Theology and everyone else preaches it.

    What about #415,

    The Trinity, for example, models equality of essence with differentiation of roles, which equality and differentiation are mirrored in man as male and female.

    And the substitutionary atonement was carried out by one who submitted freely to the will of His Father, thus demonstrating the joy and beauty both of authority (the Father who sent) and submission (the Son who obeyed).

    Does that sound right?

  453. Michael June 29, 2008 at 8:03 pm #

    What advantage does it serve for a man to interpret the text, as supposedly in his favor, as:

    25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 5:26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 5:27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 5:28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

    Men are responsible to God for a wife without blemish and are to give their lives to her as Christ has given himself to the Church.

    On the contrary, much will be expected of the man, and the model of his success is the crucified and risen Lord. I could not think of a higher-calling, or harder interpretation.

  454. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 8:04 pm #

    “That is the distortion Ma’am.”

    No, the only distortion is your claim that we are arguing something that we are not.

    Here are Ware’s words:

    “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 by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.”

    Clearly we can see that his words state that a husband “now respond(s) to that threat [challenge to their authority] either by being abusive………..or more commonly by becoming passive”.

    This goes to cause and to say it is not is splitting hairs.

    What about a third response? Why are there only two responses, both negative and sinful being proposed as an either/or type of scenario?

    Are you going to tell me that he is not claiming a cause and effect or that the wife’s challenge to his authority did not cause him to responde in one of two ways?

    If I said to you:

    “When I challenged my mother’s authority by not cleaning my room, she responded to me by refusing to let me go to the dance.”

    Is this a cause and effect statement? Could it be logically deduced that my challenge to my mother’s authority was the cause of me not going to the dance?

    Cause=Reason
    Effect=Result

    Another way to determine if this is cause/effect is to see if there is any relationship between the two statements? Yes, there most definitely is a relationship.

    Are you saying that there is NO relationship between the first part of Ware’s comment and the last? Are you claiming that you do not see any cause for the husband’s “response” to the wife’s alleged insubordination?

    Here is my statement that you said was distorted:

    “The argument is that Ware’s statement that wives can cause their husbands to react to them with violence when their husband perceives (this is the operative word) that their authority is being challenged is wreckless and irresponsible and dangerous. This is the argument.”

    When Ware said that husbands NOW RESPOND TO THAT THREAT either by violence or passivity are you going to say that I am distorting what Ware said by saying “wives can cause their husbands to react”?

  455. Michael June 29, 2008 at 8:07 pm #

    Sue, by your responding to my questions, am I responsible for how you respond? Or, have I merely elicited a response by instigating a scenario.

  456. Sue June 29, 2008 at 8:08 pm #

    Michael,

    Obviously translators cannot insert words into all the texts of the Bible wholesale. They can only get in one or two extra. I am talking about the “against” which has been inserted into Gen. 3:16.

    Look at #255 carefully and tell me what you think.

  457. Sue June 29, 2008 at 8:24 pm #

    Michael,

    The point is that the woman sins first. She is the instigator of the incident. This is a huge problem in abusive relationships. And she is the instigator, not by being abusive, but by not seeking the will of the husband ALL the time. If there is no handout to define subordination and insubordination at the wedding then it is open season on the wife.

    And does only the husband ever get to have any choice, any goals, any will. Could the wife have something that she wants to do. Not unless she is allowed.

  458. Lydia June 29, 2008 at 8:24 pm #

    “Men are responsible to God for a wife without blemish and are to give their lives to her as Christ has given himself to the Church.”

    Wow! You believe a husband sanctifies his wife?

  459. Paula June 29, 2008 at 8:35 pm #

    It is a case of cherry-picking which attributes of Christ men wish to have, and which they prescribe for women– as if women are not capable of reading God’s Word for themselves and seeing that ALL Christ’s disciples are to emulate his SERVANTHOOD. Men cannot say “We are like Christ in every way, except of course salvation, but we are our wives’ sanctifiers, priests, kings, and representatives. But women are only like Christ as servants. We are like God the Father to them.”

  460. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 8:38 pm #

    ESV 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    There is a sense that the husband or wife can sanctify the unbelieving spouse. But a husband is not a savior and simply should not even try.

  461. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 8:54 pm #

    OR, in the TNIV

    “14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

  462. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 9:02 pm #

    Lydia,

    Woman was made from man… but so what?

    I think it means a lot. I also agree with you that “head” does not mean “authority over.” See comment #195, or #240, where I responded to Ellen re: headship and leadership.

  463. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 9:03 pm #

    But this is Paul mainly addressing concerns of Jews who had been told in the Mosaic covenant not to intermarry with the 7 Canaanite nations, on pain of exclusion.

    P.S. Bruce Ware might be a very humble man and I agree that this is one test to see if someone is worth listening to, but this does not mean he cannot be wrong on something, yet be a believer. In other words, we need to see if his words line up with Scripture and see where they do and do not.

  464. Molly June 29, 2008 at 9:08 pm #

    Agreed, Ellen (#461). The sanctification is *MUTUAL.*

    The Ware-like complementarianism I spent 8 years in, however, taught unequivocally (based on how they interpreted Eph. 5) that a Christian husband would stand before God and answer for how “pure” he had made his Christian wife. The husband was to be her holy spirit, if you will.

    We were taught, though usually in much more flowery “Biblical” words, that my husband was my priest, the one who heard from God for me, the one who’s words were God’s words to me, who’s directives and commands were God’s commands to me (because my husband was the authority through whom God led me).

    None of these things are actually in the Bible, of course. They all require a heavy amount of interpretational license. And, very sadly, they were very very very harmful to our relationship. I was crushed under the weight of having a well-intentioned human playing holy spirit to me. And my husband was broken under the weight of trying to be the holy spirit. All around, it was an incredibly negative experience that I am daily shocked we managed to survive.

  465. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 9:09 pm #

    Michael,

    Ephesians 5 cannot be interpreted advantageously for men. It’s clear what men are to do for their wives.

    We are to imitate our crucified and risen Lord, giving himself for his Church.

    This is not how Ware has interpreted it in the quote Sue provided (at about the 9:12 minute mark in the podcast).

    I’ve not listened to Dr. Ware’s teaching in a couple of days, but I do not recall hearing him use the word “cause”. I think you confuse the matter when you adopt the position that his statement was purposed to demonstrate that husbands are caused to react violently by their un-submissive wives, as though the wife brings it upon herself.

    Then what is the cause of the husband’s reaction? And if it doesn’t have something to do with the wife’s actions, then why did Dr. Ware link the two in his statement?

  466. Paula June 29, 2008 at 9:09 pm #

    How can humility and “I have the final say by virtue of my flesh” live together in the same heart?

  467. Sue June 29, 2008 at 9:11 pm #

    Don,

    In my view the teaching that the wife does something first, that teshuqa means to “usurp authority” to be “against” to “resist authority” or “manipulate and control” is common to most complementarian teaching. It is not a small part that can be excised. It is in Grudems’s Systematic Theology and almost every complementarian theologian I can think of agrees.

  468. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm #

    “25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 5:26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 5:27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 5:28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

    Men are responsible to God for a wife without blemish and are to give their lives to her as Christ has given himself to the Church.”

    Michael,

    It says that Christ is the One who does the washing and sanctifying of His Bride (the church) not the husband.

    It says that men so ought to love their wives in the way that Christ gave up his life for His Church. It then goes on to tell us what that giving up of His life did for us. It does not go on to give a job description for the husband since all of that was already done for us by our Lord and Savior (we only have ONE of those, btw). The only thing in that passage the husband is told to do is give up his life for his wife. Maybe the comps should focus more on what that means than focusing on things the Bible never tells them to do or to be?

    “On the contrary, much will be expected of the man, and the model of his success is the crucified and risen Lord. I could not think of a higher-calling, or harder interpretation.”

    What do you mean by “higher-calling” or “harder interpretation”?

    Also, how do you fit Ware’s words about the privilege of the “head” into this “hard interpretation”.

    How hard is it to expect to have their way, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their wives fulfill their will, rather than serving them?

    How is that expecting more out of the man and how is expecting to be served modeled after Jesus who did NOT come to be served but to SERVE?

    Does that mean you disagree with Ware’s description of the rights of the husband?

  469. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 9:17 pm #

    Sue,

    Yes, the first is a dangerous teaching, that the wife is the first sinner when she says No.

    Teshuqa simply means wanting or desiring, derived from a stream wanting/desired to go downhill, nothing negative or even positive about it, that is determined by context.

    In a way what the non-egals need to do to the Hebrew or Greek text to get their interpretation out of something is good news for the egals, when people see what they do.

  470. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 9:17 pm #

    Michael,

    Men are responsible to God for a wife without blemish and are to give their lives to her as Christ has given himself to the Church.

    No, the passage does not say this! Where is the word “responsible”? Paul is saying that Christ gave the ultimate sacrifice, the greatest that He could, which would result in a church sanctified and without blemish. Michael, a man is part of the church, he is not Christ, not is he a substitute for Christ to his wife. He is to love her as his own body, affording her every concern and care that he gives his own.

    He is not responsible for her, he is responsible to God for the way he treats her!

  471. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 9:19 pm #

    In 1st century cultural context, it would be very surprising to see that Paul did NOT say for wives to obey their husbands, as that is what Aristotle taught was a part of law and order. In this case the silence SHOUTS, but many do not know the cultural context.

  472. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 9:19 pm #

    addendum to #470 — yet his actions toward her, if wrong, will surely sully her, and if good, will nourish her. But she is responsible for herself before God.

  473. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 9:20 pm #

    “How can humility and “I have the final say by virtue of my flesh” live together in the same heart?”

    That is a rhetorical question, right Paula? :-)

    My answer is that it can’t.

    Until I see the comps/pats teaching men to desire and become the lowest of all slaves after the pattern of Christ’s example, I will not believe that they really mean “servant leadership”. Right now, it looks like they are teaching how to lead the servant. They are too focused on the very thing Jesus told His disciples NOT to focus upon. They are like the pagans who hunger for authority and places of importance at the table.

  474. Sue June 29, 2008 at 9:21 pm #

    Don,

    What I was also trying to say :-) is that this is not an isolated and peculiar belief that Ware has. It is part of the program. It is a core teaching and in all the books.

    I heard Bruce Waltke blame the incidence of divorce on women resisting their role. I talked to him afterward and he backed down pretty fast. But in public he blamed women for the high rate of divorce. It is a very bad and pervasive trend.

  475. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 9:21 pm #

    An adult guardian of a child is responsible for that child. To treat an functioning adult in that way is to treat them like a child.

    Doing this can be harmful to both the husband and wife, the husband can remain immature as he gets his way, the wife can remain immature as she ducks responsibility.

  476. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 9:22 pm #

    Bonnie,

    “He is not responsible for her, he is responsible to God for the way he treats her!”

    Well and succinctly put. Here is another example of how comps/pats add to the word of God by putting in the word “responsible for” where that is not even inferred in that passage much less present in the original language.

  477. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 9:24 pm #

    Then what is the cause of the husband’s reaction? And if it doesn’t have something to do with the wife’s actions, then why did Dr. Ware link the two in his statement?

    What was the cause of Abel’s murder? Cain’s own sin? Cain’s sacrifice? Abel’s sacrifice?

  478. Sue June 29, 2008 at 9:25 pm #

    There is a very insightful comment thread on this post in response to Ware.

    I think some of them might be worth copying here.

  479. Paula June 29, 2008 at 9:25 pm #

    That is a rhetorical question, right Paula?
    Yep. And I agree, it can’t.

    God is still “not a respecter of persons”; he still “looks on the heart” and not the flesh; Jesus still tells his disciples “not so among you”, and he still expects all believers– male and female– to emulate his example per Phil. 2:5-11.

  480. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 9:26 pm #

    I do not think non-egals are monolithic, they come in a range of beliefs. For a teaching that is supposed to be “clear” there is quite a lot of differences of opinion as to exactly what leadership ministies in the church are forbidden to women and exactly when does abuse occur in marriage that a wife is justified in saying No to.

  481. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 9:28 pm #

    “In a way what the non-egals need to do to the Hebrew or Greek text to get their interpretation out of something is good news for the egals, when people see what they do.”

    Don,

    Yes, it is. This is exactly what is opening my eyes to the problem with the complementarian doctrine. I am actually quite shocked by how they play footloose and fancy-free with the scriptures when it suits them but remain steadfastly and rigidly literal and unmoving on the scriptures that pertain to women.

    I also have a real problem with the negative bent towards women in their doctrine. They cause suspicion to fall on a woman and all that she does by saying that women desire to usurp their husband’s authority. This, alone, will cause them to suspect a woman of sin whenever she has a dangerous opinion, idea, or thought of her own.

  482. Sue June 29, 2008 at 9:30 pm #

    Don

    I agree as far as the person in the pew is concerned. But I think that the teaching about the wife doing something negative first is in all the major writers.

    I compile some quotes.

  483. Ellen June 29, 2008 at 9:31 pm #

    This, alone, will cause them to suspect a woman of sin whenever she has a dangerous opinion, idea, or thought of her own.

    I’m guessing that you will be supplying a quote on that, right?

  484. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 9:37 pm #

    “14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

    Ellen, Paul is saying that if a husband or wife comes to Christ and their spouse doesn’t, the two need not separate. The saved one sanctifies the other — doesn’t save them, but sanctifies them so that their children will be holy. Yet if the unbelieving one wishes to leave, Paul says, let him or her leave, because, v. 16, “how do you know…that you will save your husband (or wife)?”

    I am not sure whether this relates to Ephesians 5 because Eph. 5 is addressed to believers, husbands and wives alike. I am not sure whether a believing wife would need to be sanctified, as in I Cor. 7:14, by her believing husband, or vice-versa.

  485. Corrie June 29, 2008 at 9:39 pm #

    “What was the cause of Abel’s murder? Cain’s own sin? Cain’s sacrifice? Abel’s sacrifice?”

    Ellen,

    Cain perceived that Abel was challenging his authority (he is the older brother) when Abel offered his sacrifice that pleased God and showed Cain up with his spiritual leadership. Older brothers, on their part, because they are sinners, now can respond to this threat in two ways- violence or he could become passive as Esau did.

    I don’t understand what your question has to do with the issue we are discussing?

    Has some expert bible scholar claimed that it was anyone’s fault other than Cain’s why he murdered his brother?

    We are discussing Ware’s statement about the wife’s sin causing her husband to respond in one of two ways.

    Help me understand what I am missing.

  486. Bonnie June 29, 2008 at 9:41 pm #

    What was the cause of Abel’s murder? Cain’s own sin? Cain’s sacrifice? Abel’s sacrifice?

    Ellen, how does this question relate to mine?

  487. Don Johnson June 29, 2008 at 9:44 pm #

    I think Ware was saying there were 2 WRONG ways (in his opinion) a husband could respond, but he neglected to discuss what he sees as the right way in the same breath. But I do think his statement could easily be misunderstood.

    Here are my quick comments on his 10 points.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).

    Not headship, which implies an ongoing role and so assumes the non-egal argument, but head, let’s be more Biblical in our terms.
    Yes, the man was the head/source of the woman in the garden.

    By referencing 1 Tim 2:13 he assumes he knows what “For” means, but it might in contrast mean that this was part of the teaching that is being repudiated by what Paul says. We simply do not know enough to know what “For” means in this case. Timothy knew, the word of God went forth and succeeded in its immediate goal and we are left not sure what it was. There was a large shared context between Paul and Timothy, Paul’s spiritual son, so in communicating with him Paul would know that Timothy would understand, but we are not Timothy, we are in the place of looking over Timothy’s shoulder but not sharing the large shared context. Humbleness is called for.

    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 ).
    Again, man was the head/source of the woman, as all men today are born from women, as Paul points out, and all come from God.

    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)” (