I find that (for me) if I try to use a combox for longer comments, I get off track, distracted and I miss things. For me, it is easier to just make a new post.
So, these questions are from a comment in a previous post, "Mutual Submission"
1. I am assuming then that you are getting the idea of the husband being the “rightful authority” from Ephesians 5 and 1 Cor. via the word, “head?”
Not necessarily. The vast majority of times that "head" / kephale is used in the New Testament it means literal head. The rest of the times we have to, we must look to context.
Matthew 21:42 uses kephale:
"'The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?
Is a cornerstone a symbol of unity, or foundation or leadership? Or all three?
Since this verse is referencing Psalms 118: 22,23, what is the word used for cornerstone and how is that word used in other places? It is used for source of a river, a literal head of a body and to indicate a ruler/chief.
Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.(ex 18:25)
I'm only looking for a indications of how a word was used; In English a single word can have different meanings, so it is with this kephale.
1 Cor. 11 and Eph. 5 both use head to reference the husband as head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Is this a metaphor for unity or for leadership (or both)?
Kephale is used twice in Ephesians prior to chapter 5.
(Eph 1: 21-23 ...far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Is this a metaphor for unity or leadership?
Colossians 2:9,10 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
Is kephale in this passage a metaphor for unity or leadership?
In context, the Eph 5 passage reads:
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
It starts out, wives, submit to your husbands. Why? Because he is your head.
How should they submit? As the church submits to Christ.
- wives submit to your husband
- because
- the husband is the head of the wife
- as Christ is the head of the church
- now (so)
- as the church submits to Christ
- so wives submit should submit to their husbands.
Is this a metaphor for unity, for leadership or both?
(NOTE: I believe that wives should not follow their husbands into sin or stand by them and allow them to sin. We belong to a perfect God who would not expect us to follow Him into sin)
~~~~~~~~~~
2. You mentioned structure vs a sinner w/in the structure. Do you think the head/body analogy was given to emphasize rightful *structure*, to show us who is the leader in the relationship?
When you look at the bullet points above we see the what (submit) the because (the husband is the head) the therefore (as the church submits to Christ) then what (wives should submit to their husbands.
- What is structure? husbands are the head of their wives as Christ is the head of the church.
- what happens as a result of the structure> wives submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.
~~~~~~~~~~
3. Do the other (2) examples of Head/Body in Ephesians support this view of the analogy?
Head as leader? The one is chapter one does.
(Eph 1: 21-23 ...far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
The chapter four use is a metaphor for unity in the body, but not a metaphor for marriage.
Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
This does also not rule out the metaphor being about leadership AND unity (given the metaphor of "head" in chapter 1)
~~~~~~~~~~
4. Do the other (2) examples given in 1 Corinthians 11 support this view, too?
Since that chapter is about the differences in how men and women should pray and prophesy in worship, it's hard not to read in gender roles and differences.
~~~~~~~~~~
5. Did the people in the Jewish and Roman/Greek culture think of a human’s head as the part of the person that was the authority?
If in both the Old and New Testaments have examples where the same word is used for the literal head and leadership, it would be reasonable to read the possibility that those cultures at least accepted the metaphor.
~~~~~~~~~~
6. Was Paul supporting the *authority structure* of slavery when he gave instructions to masters and slaves in Ephesians and Colossians?
The difference is that Christ and the church were never used as a parallel for masters and slaves. Slavery is not a "mystery", marriage is.
~~~~~~~~~~
7. If not, why didn’t Paul just flat out give orders to abolish the structure of slavery? Wasn’t he catering to culture by not just saying outright that it was a less-than-best system?
One of the implications of this has to do with the NT authors' strategy on slavery: Should Paul tell the slaves to rebel? Could he write an emancipation proclamation? When we think through this issue, it is plain that the NT writers simply could not outright condemn slavery (the disastrous results of Spartacus' rebellion [in spite of the Hollywood portrayal] would have been etched in their minds). Further, to whom would such a directive be pointed? To the pagan masters? They do not place themselves under God's law and are not a part of his kingdom program. Paul's exhortations to them would be meaningless. To the slaves? They are powerless to bring about their own freedom apart from overt actions (e.g., rebellion, running away). Further, such actions hardly comported with the gospel: change is to take place from the inside out, not from imposition on social structures. (The one exception to this had to do with ultimate allegiance and worship: civil disobedience was always encouraged when it came to having to choose between Christ and Caesar.)
Paul's letters are written to Christians, not unbelievers - he addresses Christians in marriages, Christians in slavery, Christians as master - and gives instructions to all of them.
Sue
Ellen,
Matt. 21:42 - your point was unclear
Ex. 18:25 - the word kephale does not occur in this quote.
Eph. 1:21-23 Christ has a relationship to two different things in this verse, first to "other powers" over which he is ruler, second to the church, to whom he is as head is to body. The church is most emphatically not put under his feet, nor does the husband put the wife under his feet. I don't know why this verse is ever brought up to defend complementarianism.
Eph. 5 the head is the saviour of the body, the head serves the body as the body serves the head.
There are several different head relationships in ancient culture, as far as I can see.
1. One seems to be "head of a race or tribe" - the origin, but maybe dead so not the ruler.
2. One seems to be "over" but over in the sense that the thing under is under the feet.
3 The last is "as head is to body" in unity and mutuality, one having something that the other needs.
In ancient culture, there were two opposing viewpoints, the dominant viewpoint,
In Aristotle’s view, the heart is the central part of the body, both spatially and in terms of hierarchy. It is the part that is formed first in embryological development. It is the source of bodily heat and thus primarily responsible for nutritive functions. And it is the primary seat of emotions and sensations, for it houses the ‘central sense organ’, a kind of coordinating centre that processes the information derived from the peripheral sense organs (with which it is connected through the blood vessels) and that issues decisions to the limbs and other parts of the body involved in action and motion.
Thus Aristotle takes a radically different view from the Hippocratic writer quoted above. In Aristotle’s theory, the brain has no psychological significance, it is just there as a kind of refrigerator, balancing the bodily heat generated by the heart and exercising a cooling influence on the process of digestion.
But Aristotle was neither the first nor the last to advance the cardiocentric view. In Classical Greece and Rome, it was generally believed that the heart played a major role in the mediation between the mental and the physical. And initially it was the heart, rather than the brain, that was considered to be the seat of mental processes, including intellectual functions like thinking, memory and imagination.
From Homeric times onwards, humankind’s thoughts, beliefs, but also emotions and states of mind like anger, ambition, courage, valour, grief and pride were located in the upper parts of the thorax, in the diaphragm or the heart. And although the physiology of the heart and the pulse were only partly understood, there was little question about the central importance of the heart in the functioning of the human organism as a whole. The cardiocentric theory of the mind became the dominant view in antiquity and was upheld by medical writers but also by the Stoics, a school of philosophers with strong medical interests, who regarded it as the seat of the ‘ruling part of the soul’ – the intellect.
The contrasting viewpoint,
Yet while Plato and the Hippocratic writers based their views largely on speculation and on occasional findings derived from animal anatomy, a more ‘scientific’ view emerged when Greek physicians in 3rd-century BCE Alexandria dissected the human body and discovered the nervous system. Their views were more fully developed by the Roman authority Galen in the 2nd century CE, who in a series of experiments on animals showed that it was the brain that was the origin of the nerves and the centre of sensation, consciousness, speech and intelligence, thus depriving the heart of any cognitive significance.
Yet Galen’s experiments were not sufficient to persuade the Aristotelians and Stoics, who continued to stress the central role of the heart. For emotions, they argued, also have a cognitive aspect to them, just as beliefs and thoughts are often accompanied by feelings of pleasure and pain.
In order to account for this, Greek medicine characteristically resorted to two speculative ideas: the concept of pneuma or ‘spirit’, a kind of delicate airy substance within the body that was believed to mediate between the brain and the heart, between thoughts and emotions, and to be responsible for the translation of ‘mental’ states into ‘physical’ action and vice versa; and ‘sympathy’ (sympatheia), a notion that was called in to account for the simultaneous emotional experiences in different bodily parts, and which proved to be a very useful concept to refer to psychosomatic connections that escaped empirical validation.
So the head and the body together are mediated by the pneuma which translates mental states into action. The most important thing I think is the sumpatheia which exists between the two.
If you say that the husband is the brain of the wife then you must posit that the husband is the -
"sensation, consciousness, speech and intelligence" of the wife. Is he? Is Christa the sensation of the church? Is he the speech of the church? Then why does the church proclaim?
From Hearts and Minds
Sue
The difference is that Christ and the church were never used as a parallel for masters and slaves. Slavery is not a “mystery”, marriage is.
I think that is why egalitarians think marriage is about mutual submission. One person being leader and the other follower is not a mystery. It is lots of things, but not that!
I am short-sighted, so I didn't really get all that fine print, I am not sure how Wallace's quote but my guess is that Paul was telling slaves to stay within the system and wives to stay within the system, what choice did they have?
But we should help the system change in the direction of God's law, that one should love one's neighbour as oneself.
Ellen
I believe that it is possible to read complementarianism into these passages.
To deny that there is more than one possible reading of these passages is not realistic.
Sue, I realize that kephale is Greek and the Old Testament was written in Hebrew so no, kaphale would not appear in Exodus.
That is why I made the point that the word used in Matthew to quote Psalm 118 is not Hebrew, but quotes a passage that IS written in Hebrew. Since the writer of Matthewew was most likely aware of both the language that he wrote in AND Hebrew, he also most likely knew the translation.
The Hebrew word used for the literal head in Hebrew has alternate meaning of "chief" or "source" as does the Greek word.
If you read "the wife should submit to her husband because he is her head and Christ is the head of the church. Now as the church submits to Christ so the wife should submit to her husband" with the presupposition that "head" cannot mean leader and that "as the church submits to Christ so the wife should submit to her husband" does not carry the implication of an authority structure, then of course you will not see it.
If you come with a presupposition that the overall message of Scripture shows the church and Christ (and Israel and God in the OT) as a model for marriage AND that the overall message of Scripture shows the husband has the spiritual leader of the home, then it is not difficult to read that it is at least possible that "head" means leader (AND unity), indicating the sacrificial and loving leadership that Christ has for His church should be modeled by men.
It is also possible that the direction "as the church submits to Christ so the wife should submit to her husband" means that the wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
Ellen
It is also possible that the direction “as the church submits to Christ so the wife should submit to her husband” means that the wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
Sorry, that either sounded condescending or it sounded as though I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet...
It is also possible that the direction quoted means exactly that.
Ellen
I don't know why this verse is ever brought up to defend
complementarianism.
Because it is an indication that there is more than one possible meaning to kephale.
Does it mean that the husband has his wife under his feet? No, and if you're intellectuality honest you will know that I never said so.
What is does mean is that the word kephale is used in the New Testament to indicate authority.
Sue
re. Ex.
Sue, I realize that kephale is Greek and the Old Testament was written in Hebrew so no, kaphale would not appear in Exodus.
What I meant was that in the Septuagint, the Greek translation for that verse, the word kephale is not mentioned. That is, when the Hebrew word for "head" seems to refer to rulership, it is not translated into kephale in Greek.
So, in the Septuagint, in Greek, there is no word for "head" at all. It is simply left out. I don't know how you came to choose this verse, but it really had no Greek word for head in it at all.
Regarding under his feet. My point is, if head means rulership, and relates to having someone under your feet, I don't see how that could possible related to marriage.
Frankly, after reading Grudem's study on kephale, it all became clear, as with his other studies, that what he is arguing against is ever so much more likely to be true, than what he is arguing for.
I am not sure that authority relates to the head-body relationship. I am not sure that the word head relates to authority, it puzzles me because the word head meant a little raiding party, an advance party in the army, not the general. The word head had a lot of meanings and it certainly did have the meaning source as well.
Sue
What I am trying to communicate and I am not doing very well, is that the word head in Hebrew and the word head in Greek are not equivalent in meaning, except that they both translate the physical head, but in their figurative use, they are not equivalent. This is the same with French and German as well. You cannot possibly say that the physical "head" means leader in French, German or Greek. It simply is not used this way. There are two words for head in French and German and one means leader and the other means physical head. So if you say as head is to body, in Greek, French and German and you use the word for the physical head, you are not communicating anything at all about leadership.
I don't mean that complementarian exegesis is impossible, I just mean that it is neither obvious nor certain that complementarian exegesis is the right one.
So if regarding the male as the natural leader of the female, doesn't work in real life, is not necessarily in the Bible, and entails enormous suffering without glorifying God, why teach it?
Molly
Thank you for taking so much time to respond, Ellen. I really appreciate htat. Suzanne, I appreciate your comments as well.
Question:
In Ephesians, the head/body analogy is used three times, the last time in reference to marriage.
In the first two uses, is "head" specifically talking about leader (in reference to the body?)?
For example, what is the authority being talked about at the end of Ephesians 1? Is it authority "over the Body," or is it authority over everything else? And would it be fair to say that if she is the Body, then when "He put all things under His feet," that would mean she was the feet? If she is "in Him," as the whole of the first chapter describes, then can we honestly say the word "head" is referring to his ruling over her, or of her being in him and their ruling together (by grace, and only by grace!)?
In Ephesians 4, the head/body analogy seems like it's one explaining the purpose for leadership in the NT church---aka, to grow everyone else up into the head (to work themselves out of their "position", no less)...this does not seem to support a heirarchal authority structure either.
So by the time I get to the head/body analogy in Eph. 5, I'm having a difficult time seeing it "proved" as being an analogy to emphasis heirarchal structure.
To me, the head/body analogy appears to emphasize one-ness, not rulership. The entire text of Ephesians 1 supports this, with the emphasis on the church being one with Christ (as opposed to the emphasis on being in a heirarchy).
Those are my thoughts. I realize I could be wrong, but I can't see any other explanation clearly fitting all three examples.
Ephesians 5 should logically fit with the flow of the entire book... *shrugs*
Can you elaborate on the two other examples we see in Ephesians regarding head/body---on how you see the analogy existing to show heirarchal authority structure?
Ellen
I think that if you set up leadership against unity you have a false dichotomy.
I have no problem with serving the ultimate leader and loving the ultimate bridegroom.
Christ is leader and lover at the same time.
That is why I don't have a problem seeing a loving, one-flesh, complementarian marriage as Biblical and loving.
So if regarding the male as the natural leader of the female, doesn’t work in real life, is not necessarily in the Bible, and entails enormous suffering without glorifying God, why teach it?
Sue, doesn’t work in real life,
You have yet to prove that it is the system that doesn't work, when in reality it is the MISUSE of the system that doesn't work.
is not necessarily in the Bible,
you have yet to prove that it is NOT necessarily in the Bible - if it is in the Bible and it is not taught that is a problem also.
and entails enormous suffering
You also have yet to prove that it is the system that causes the suffering - many in complementarian marriages would say otherwise.
without glorifying God
Many others believe that a one-flesh couple in a loving complementarian marriage that strives to model Christ and the church IS glorifying God.
why teach it?
Because we believe that it IS Biblical.
Molly
I agree that leadership can exist in a relationship of unity. Egalitarians say that. (One-ness does not mean that no one ever leads).
The difference here is that comp's are saying that a head is The Leader and a body is The Follower.
When even human physiology tells us that a person is "led" by *all* of it's parts, not a mere one of them.
One part does not "rule" the body. If you shoot someone through the heart, the whole person dies. A whole person is made up of many parts, all of them mutually interdependant, all of them taking turns in leading and following, in initiating and responding.
The analogy of the whole person being split up into head and body makes quite a point, which is that you CAN'T split up a whole person into head and body...unless you want them dead.
And yet we go and do exactly that with the analogy, dissecting and dissecting.
From a sheer anatomical perspective, the head and body analogy shows us the oneness/unity of the thing.
The head of the body is a good honored thing. No one is saying that a head should not be honored, or that the leadership abilities of the head should not be respected and admired.
The body of the head is a good honored thing. No one should say that the body of a head is not a noble thing. There is no lesser here. If the head doesn't have the body, the head is dead, and vice versa.
If all head is showing us is "Leader," then a leader doesn't really need a body, does he? A leader is independant--he can do with or without a follower. Leader/follower analogy doesn't work with head/body analogy for that very reason. A leader doesn't *need* a follower, but a head *needs* a body.
Paul chose this specific analogy to try and express a mystery to us. Was the mystery that men are leaders over women? What would be the mystery behind that---it was already common "knowledge" that men were superior to women. The mystery is something Paul gave us some big clues to---"and this is the mystery: the two shall become one."
Why is this a mystery? Two shall become one? Is that talking about sex? Lots of people have sex in all sorts of ways---does that cause oneness? Is Paul talking about one person leading the other person, therefore a "oneness" in purpose (becuase one person has the purpose and the other person gets to carry it out)? Why is that so mysterious? That's how the world has worked ever since the Fall.
So what is this mystery that Paul is so overwhelmed and excited with? Male rule with the addition of the guy now being told to be sweet about it? Why is that so mysterious? It is just an upgraded version of the existing patriarchy?
Whatever this mystery is, we are certainly given MAJOR clues about it, in the quoting of the famous Genesis 2 passage, in the description of Christ loving the Church (evoking pictures of Him washing the disciples feet), etc...
Surely the great and beautiful "mystery" isn't an "upgraded" patriarchy, is it?
Wandering wondering thoughts...
Molly
Ellen
Maybe the great and beautiful mystery is the loving leadership of Christ and the church as a model for marriage.
If we could solve the mystery, it wouldn't be a mystery 😉
If all head is showing us is “Leader,” then a leader doesn’t really need a body, does he? A leader is independant–he can do with or without a follower. Leader/follower analogy doesn’t work with head/body analogy for that very reason. A leader doesn’t *need* a follower, but a head *needs* a body.
Does Christ *need* us as much as we need Him?
Sue
Ellen,
What I was trying to say as I have before, but maybe not terribly clearly, is that the exegesis of the Greek in order to get to complementarian ethic is very torturous and what you did in this post does not represent what is actually there. But you just go on anyway.
Over and over again you post things about the scriptures, you mention what you think it says, and then when I show you that it is not there at all, you just change subject and claim what you believe is in the Bible anyway. But where?
Can you see how your arguments don't hold together. So, in my view a person can't even twist the scripture to prove the points you go for here.
1. It is not Biblical at all, and you have yet to show me how it is.
2. It doesn't work more than a percentage of the time, because there are many things that women are better at than men, about half and half, so if the husband is leader all the time, there is an enormous waste of time and energy doing things in the least efficient way half the time.
3. Suffering because almost every married complementarian woman I have read about in depth admits the enourmous difficulties of suppressing normal desire for simple personal autonomy and entitlement to make basic decisions. By autonomy, I mean very basic things like giving five dollars at work, but she can't because all their donations must be the spiritual decision of the husband, things like that.
Ellen
The point I was making is
1) is the word used for literal head in the New Testament NEVER used as a metaphor for leader?
2) is the word used for literal head in the Old Testament NEVER used as a metaphor for leader?
I think that we should drop any pretense of you pretending that you think there could possibly be any other interpretation other than that which you see.
3. Suffering because almost every married complementarian woman I have read about in depth admits the enourmous difficulties of suppressing normal desire
For years it was thought that ADD was a disorder that produced failures and criminals. Dropouts and convicts were all ADDers.
Why? Because they were studying convicts and dropouts.
Then they started studying other demographics, little girls that daydream, little boys who want to run, Thomas Edison, Phyllis Diller, Robin Williams...
When you study criminals with ADD, all ADDers are criminals.
When you look at abusers and women who are miserable who are complementarians, all complementarians are abusive and miserable.
Maybe it's time complementarians stop being demonized.
Sue
1. Not usually. Maybe as a metaphor very infrequently, not normally, absolutely not. The meaning of ruler for head never occurs in a classical Greek lexicon, but it does in the NT Greek but only because of the NT instances aaaand this is because the authors of the lexicons thought that is what it meant.
It always seems to me pretty ambiguous. For example, Adam is the head of the human race. Or David is the head of the nation. So David is the ruler, but is that the main point in the verse. I forget, but I don't think it is proven.
2. proving anything about head in the OT does not prove anything about head in the NT because they were often not used as a translation of each other.
3. I do think that there are many possible interpretations. But Grudem et al, have made such a fuss that there interpretation is the only one. So, I am not pretending. I am saying there is more than one possible interpretation. But there is no one interpretation which can be proven to be completely wrong, of egal and comp.
The problem is that comps are, some of them, calling egals disobedient to scripture, non-Christian, rebellious, giving in to culture, etc. That is the background. But I say egals have helped women get an education, get the vote and many other things.
I can't accept that. If comps stopped trying to excommunicate as it were egals then we could all take a deep breath.
Molly
Ellen said,
"Does Christ *need* us as much as we need Him? "
Molly replies:
My answer would be NO WAY! He is all-sufficiant and eternal, whereas we are created beings.
But that's sort of my point, Mz. Ellen. :o)
Is the head/body analogy saying that husbands are just like Christ-to-the-church in *ALL* ways?
If so, then are men all-sufficient whereas women are insufficient? Are men all-powerful whereas women are weak? Are men all-knowing whereas women are fallible? Etc...
It sounds a little ridiculous, I think. So we have to say that the head/body analogy is NOT saying men are like Christ-to-the-Church in all ways. Then it must be saying that they are like Christ-to-the-Church in a particular WAY.
That means the question is, what is that way?
Hence the importance for seeking (open to all the possibilities, not coming to the table with our options already narrowed down) to understand what the point was behind the head/body analogy, versus assumption.
We are told the meaning of this head/body analogy is "a great mystery." I ask again, validly (I think-lol), what's so dang mysterious about women being ruled by men, sweetly or rudely?
Dude, that's not a mystery---that's plain old human history!
LOL,
Molly
Btw, if husbands are just like Christ-to-the-church in ALL ways, then the patriarchalists are 100% right.
Molly
Ellen said,
"Does Christ *need* us as much as we need Him? "
Molly replies:
My answer would be NO WAY! He is all-sufficiant and eternal, whereas we are created beings.
But that's sort of my point, Mz. Ellen. :o)
Is the head/body analogy saying that husbands are just like Christ-to-the-church in *ALL* ways?
If so, then are men all-sufficient whereas women are insufficient? Are men all-powerful whereas women are weak? Are men all-knowing whereas women are fallible? Etc...
It sounds a little ridiculous, I think. So we have to say that the head/body analogy is NOT saying men are like Christ-to-the-Church in all ways. Then it must be saying that they are like Christ-to-the-Church in a particular WAY.
That means the question is, what is that way?
Hence the importance for seeking (open to all the possibilities, not coming to the table with our options already narrowed down) to understand what the point was behind the head/body analogy, versus assumption.
We are told the meaning of this head/body analogy is "a great mystery." I ask again, validly (I think-lol), what's so dang mysterious about women being ruled by men, sweetly or rudely?
Dude, that's not a mystery---that's plain old human history!
LOL,
Molly
Btw, if husbands are just like Christ-to-the-church in ALL ways, then the patriarchalists are 100% right.
***trying to post this again, since it didn't appear to go through the first time.
Clay
There was a time when sincere Christians vigorously supported slavery to the point of much bloodshed. They had "proof" from the Bible.
I disagree with your above point. There are at least as many scriptures which identify my relationship with God as that of slave/master as there are which parallel marriage with Christ/Church.
Romans 6:22
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God,
Rom 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ,
Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
Here is what the flesh and blood slaves were told:
Eph 6:5 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ;
and WHY?
Eph 6:6 "not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,"
does this not sound an awful lot like a few verses up where wives are told "submit to husband in everything as unto the Lord"?
Ellen
>I disagree with your above point. There are at least as many scriptures which identify my relationship with God as that of slave/master as there are which parallel marriage with Christ/Church.
Right, but marriage is a relationship between two humans; it is not that a marriage is between a human and God.
When we are called bondservants of Christ it is that we are actual slaves, with Christ as the owner. that is not a parallel, that is a reality.
Molly
And yet it is an *equal* reality that we are His brethren, His body, His bride, His beloved...
Point being, each specific relationship analogy given to us in the Scriptures shows us a "word picture" emphasizing a certain unique aspect of our relationship with Christ, helping us comprehend a little better this huge One into which we've been called...
So the Head/Body relationship: practically, what would that word picture be given to help us comprehend? One way to find the answer is to ask what is a body or head/body analogy used for elsewhere in the NT writings to emphasize?
Ellen
And yet it is an *equal* reality that we are His brethren, His body, His bride, His beloved…
Yes - we can still be submissive to God in all things and still be the beloved bride; telling us that leadership doesn't mean loveless.
Why (referring to Eph 5) does Paul instruct wives (specifically) to submit to (specifically) their husbands?
In v. 24, immediately after the head metaphor, an example is made of the church's submission to Christ, followed by an instruction for wives to submit to their husbands in the same way.
What does this mean?
Molly
Could it (possibly) mean that wives were literally legally bound to be in subjection to their husbands?
(Otherwise, we need to read more into Paul's instructions to slaves, who were also legally bound to be in a state of obedience. That Paul told them to continue to remain obedient didn't mean that God ordained them to be obedient, did it? Or was Paul just speaking to people within the framework of the world they lived in?).
I'm not asking if the cultural application is the correct meaning, btw. I'm just asking: is it one valid option?
But you still haven't answered my question. *ha!* In your opinion, the NT references that draw on body metaphors to make their point...well, what IS their point? What is "the main point" of the body metaphor when used in the NT (WHY does Paul choose to use the word-picture of a human body so often?)? I'd really like to hear your take on that.
Warmly,
Molly
Ellen
What is "the main point" of the body metaphor
when used in the NT (WHY does Paul choose to use the word-picture of a
human body so often?)? I'd really like to hear your take on that.
Well... I never said my ADD was cured. 😉
I think that reject that there must be a main point, when some metaphors work best because there ARE two points.
If a body metaphor has a "main" point of unity, do we reject the other aspects of the metaphor, or do we accept the package?
Could it (possibly) mean that wives were literally legally bound to be in subjection to their husbands?
When Paul talked about meat sacrificed to idols, he talked about the culture and said that we should pay attention to the weaker brother and curtail the freedom that we have to eat or not eat, if it would cause the weaker to stumble.
Paul knew how to refer to culture when writing guidelines.
But the instructions for submission do not have a reference to culture, they carry a reference to the eternal Christ, His bride, and how marriages are to model that eternal relationship.
Sue
On the head,
1. It represents the whole - "How much per head?" common in Greek
2. It unites the rest of the body
3. it nourishes the body
4. it formulates thought and expression
5. it experiences sensation
6. it combines with the body to activate the body
7. it makes decisions.
Now, here is the problem, which of all these are the points of comparison for the metaphor. Does the husband formulate thought for the wife, does he experience pain for her, well he must experience her pain as if it were his pain. That is natural, but should the wife say that since he is the head and she the body, she may validly ignore any pain that he experiences. Is this what it means. And may a wife not love her husband, since it is not instructed?
Is the wife really to be so totally without regard for the feelings of her husband but only looking to obey him. I do not believe that we can partition out the parts of the soul, some to the man and others to the woman.
Ellen
Sue, if older women are instructed to teach younger women how to love their husbands, (Titus 2), then it could be understood that older women were once younger women and were taught to love their husbands, as younger wives should now be taught to love their husbands.
Interestingly, the passage also includes wives (specifically) being subject to (specifically) their husbands; the opposite does not appear.
Thankfully, we have the whole counsel of Scripture, which gives us a model of how we are to relate to others. Husbands love as Christ loves His bride, wives, submit to your husbands as Christ's bride submits to him.
Older women, teach younger women to love their husbands (...) to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
Clay
I am the bondslave of Christ, and I am the bride of Christ. Personally I take great comfort in Jesus being a "husband" to me and doing for me what the Bible indicates human husbands should be capable of doing: nourishing, cherishing, understanding, loving respecting (Eph 5, 1 Pet 3)
the human slave/master relationship was a reality and is in the immediate context and part of Paul's little package of "instructions for submission" in this passage. (Chapters were not in the original greek)
Eph 6:5-6 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,
Clay
Personally I take great comfort in identifying with Jesus as my "husband" who nourishes, cherishes, and understands me, meets unmet needs, and fills the empty places with HIS lavish unfailing love. 🙂
Clay
oops, bad formatting on my part...
the middle vertical black line is my reply to the quote above it...
Ellen
Slavery was a reality, as marriage was a reality.
If you recognize both as authority structures, then if we lump them together if we ditch the institution of slavery, then we must also ditch the insitution of marriage and I'm not ready to do that.
(If I get a little hard to follow, I just had a very large glass of wine (to wash the motrin down).
We have two authority structures; one of those was instituted by God, the other by man. God regulated both. We may have "ditched" slavery, that does not make it any less of an example of authority structure. We most likely should not be quick to ditch marriage as an institution.
Sue
Ellen,
Labour is the constant as a universal need, should this function be filled by a master - slave approach, or an employer employee approach. Each one has its problems, but our society does not consider slavery an option any more.
Likewise, marriage is the constant a continuing contract and a universal need, the question is should it be filled by a superordinate - subordinate asymmetrical relationship?
In Titus it was clear that women taught younger women to be subject as a witness to the word of God. It was for a particular situation, within the context of wives already being in law subject, as were slaves in their own way.
Sue
Most of the people I know that are married don't regard marriage as an authority structure. It doesn't impact on their marriedness or the longevity of their marriage or anything like that.
Ellen
Most of the people that I know have the understanding that men have the responsibility of leadership in the home and church.
Of the people I know, it has not impacted on their marriedness or the longevity of their marriage or anything like that.
The divorces that I have a reason to know the reasons behind, the causes have been selfishness (equally on the part of the male and female), unfaithfulness (interestingly, with the people that I know, there have been more women who have stepped out than there have been men - and the women who have stepped out have all been in egalitarian marriages.)
I realize this is personal anecdotes; you also referenced people you know, so our experiences are different.
Ellen
After my test tonight, I'll pick through these com boxes and try to address points that I've missed (any that are missed are simply missed, not ignored)
Sue
We have two authority structures; one of those was instituted by God, the other by man. God regulated both. We may have “ditched” slavery, that does not make it any less of an example of authority structure. We most likely should not be quick to ditch marriage as an institution.
What I am trying to say is that no one is suggesting that anyone ditch marriage. I am just saying that lots of people don't see it as an authority structure. I am not disagreeing that some do, for sure, I guess, but actually of the people I know - no, I really don't know any marriages where it is an authority structure.
At work, no authority structure marriages, half divorced, husbands, in almost every case left first. Egalitarian, but not successful.
But I only know people with egalitarian marriages, that's it.
I am just saying that marriages can thrive without the "authority structure" thing. And since divorce is pretty constant across demographic groups, it appears that having an authority structure marriage does not make your marriage longer or happier.
So, frankly, if authority structure marriages went out with slavery, it wouldn't make any difference in my neck of the woods.
I do think, in spite of the lack of statistics, that authoritarian marriages would probabaly last longer because of the taboo against divorce that often accompanies it.
We now know, after my study on the BBB recently, that it is only in the last 30 years that people have thought there was submission before the fall. Most people have ideals about marriage that are not related to authority and submission, ideals that relate to intimacy and mutual respect.
Clay
"authority structure" in marriage is a consequence of the fall. A Titus 2 mature woman will be teaching younger women in a way which preserves freedom and dignity in Christ.
I realize that you are having some health obstacles at the moment and that dialogue on this post has died down now. I just wanted to post again to alert you of two things.
1. I found your blog by a google search on "oikouros" and I left a comment on that thread away back there in your archives
2. I have sufficiently stocked my own blog "A Wife's Submission" with the results of my experience and research on submission that I wanted to invite you to read (if you would like). I would especially draw your attention to the page tabs at the top of the homepage:
http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/