I thought this was quite an interesting story. The MacArthur, Piper, Sproul “Together for the Gospel” conference this weekend excluded women from attending. This is the report by a complementarian of his frustration with this.
http://michaelfbird.blogspot.com/2006/04/together-for-gospel-not-quite.html
– Andy
Comment by B-W
May 5, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Wow! Even for these folks, that’s bad! In fact, by allowing men who may not be involved in ministry, but denying women, regardless of their ministerial position, to attend, don’t they violate one of their very own articles?
From Article XVI of the now-infamous “Together for the Gospel” statement (this is also cited in the link above, but is not expressly called a contradiction the way I am doing.):
“We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women from meaningful ministry in Christ’s kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.”
If women can have “meaningful ministry” (within their God-ordained roles) why not let them attend?
Comment by bobbie
May 6, 2006 @ 3:29 am
And this is why the church limps along like a 1/2 paralyzed stroke victim speaking only out of one side of it’s mouth.
How very sad indeed.
Comment by Anne M
May 7, 2006 @ 7:17 am
It is a different gospel they are preaching really. Equalitarians often don’t want to acknowledge it either. This is why Paul challenged Peter in Galatians with determination. Peter started to rebuild what had been already abolished. Peter was the one to witness Pentecost and the one to whom God showed 3 visions before he went to the gentiles. He must have been some sort of a hero to Paul - the apostle to the gentiles. Yet, Paul challenged him publicly for violating the gospel. He did it single handedly as even Barnabas followed Peter.
This was even though Paul at some point circumcised Timothy to reach the Jews in the synagoques. For the Jews, circumcision was God’s genuine sign of the covenant with them. It truely was (unlike excluding women in today’s christianity). To reach them Paul was willing to circumcise Timothy out of love for his own people who did not know Christ yet. However, he considered Peter’s act of segregation from the non-circumcised as a serious offence to the gospel. Equalitarians often justify their silence in front of this kind of false gospel by loving the complementarians — fellow christians.
I want to challenge my fellow equalitarians to think what is love calling us to do if we sit in one of those comp. churches. What would Paul do today? What would Jesus do? I heard a DVD from the Willow Creek leadership summit recently, where there was a talk titled, ‘Barbarian way out of civilization.’ We need to be more barbarian and more loving.
Comment by Lori
May 7, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Bobbie, I was just having this conversation with another egal. woman, and she pretty much said what you said, but in different words. I am firmly convinced that the American church is not having the impact it could, both at home and abroad, because of the deep divisions caused by the whole egal./comp. debate. If we can’t even get our own act together, then how can we present a spiritual front against the devil? He loves to sow disunity among the church, and so I think he’s having a field day watching the Church self-destruct on this issue.
As for the conference itself, I’m amazed that they ever let women in at all (in the blog it says about 60 women attended, because they registered before the sponsors decided to crack down and only have men). I mean, why not just be blunt and admit they don’t want women doing anything in church except running the nursery or teaching children’s Sunday School? I would have more respect for them if they did. I don’t mind if somebody disagrees with me on an issue, as long as they clearly state what their position is. All this obfuscation and bending over backwards, however–women can have “meaningful ministry in Christ’s kingdom” as long as it’s not THIS kind of ministry or THAT kind of ministry–just confuses me and makes me wonder what they’re trying to hide.
Comment by Can Dance
May 7, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
Hopefully stuff like that will make people seriously question what comes out of their mouth. I mean, how much more degrading can you be? I also agree with the pp, I would much rather have someone state outright, “Well, women can only do this and this and if they do anymore than that they are rebelling against God,” or something to that effect. It’s a lot more honest about their position.
Too bad we can’t get them to come out and say what they *really* think, that women are inferior creatures. I guess that sounds too radical or something, but it’s the truth. That would turn a lot more people off to the ugliness of their position.
Comment by Jorge
May 9, 2006 @ 7:56 am
Lori said: “I mean, why not just be blunt and admit they don’t want women doing anything in church except running the nursery or teaching children’s Sunday School?”
Can Dance added: “Too bad we can’t get them to come out and say what they *really* think, that women are inferior creatures.”
Unfortunately, the caricatures just stated do not help to mend the division that exists between complementarians and egalitarians. As a complementarian, I totally disagree with what was just quoted. These statements just add more fuel to the fire.
Comment by Lori
May 11, 2006 @ 11:43 am
I just noticed on another Christian website that MacArthur has an article, “Does the Bible Deningrate Women?” I started to read it, but changed my mind. No, of course the bible doesn’t, as long as women don’t try to do THIS ministry or THAT ministry.
Also, I think it’s ironic that MacArthur has a book out profiling biblical women. I glanced at it, and it features Mary, Sarah, and other women famous for submitting. Somehow, I don’t think he’s ever going to write a book about Junia, Phoebe, or Priscilla–although I think I will! How about this for a title? “Biblical Women You’ll Never Read About in Other Christian Books.” :)
Comment by Can Dance
May 12, 2006 @ 11:40 am
I guess I don’t see how the hierarchical position *doesn’t* paint women as less than. And I will use Groothius’ argument, you can’t be subordinate in function due to your nature and your inherent person not be as well. It’s not logical. I see the hierarchical position as talking out of both sides of their mouth, and I guess I can’t see how anyone can see it differently. I hardly consider it “fuel” when it’s a statement of fact.
Comment by Jorge
May 16, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Can Dance,
Groothuis’ argument sounds more like the current Western argument for “equality” and less like what the Scriptures say.
Paul didn’t believe that to be “subordinate” in function meant an inferiority in personal worth (cf. Eph. 5:21-33; 1 Cor. 15:24-28). Instead, he affirmed the oneness of male and female, particularly in marriage (i.e. their equality in nature and worth being both created in the image of God; cf. Gen. 1:27) while at the same time forbidding women to exercise authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12; Eph. 5:21-33).
Dorothy Patterson has written a great article in the JBMW (pp. 72-80) responding to Groothuis’ chapter in DBE.
Complementarians want to be understood accurately, just as egalitarians. Let’s extend each other the same courtesy we want shown to us.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Can Dance
May 21, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
I think I understand the comp position pretty well actually. I also understand that they can’t come up with a very good response to the corner they have pushed themselves in when they talk out of both sides of their mouths and no, I will never see it any other way.
As for your references to Scripture, for some reason I can’t see them the same way you do because I reject subordination within the Trinity, which is considered heretical by most of the church for a very long time. However, it’s essential to your position to defend female subordination. Yes, I have read Dorothy Patterson and I found it lacking academically to say the least. You can’t have it both ways and I don’t understand why you guys try so hard. Wasn’t it easier when you were allowed to say women weren’t equal? 100 years ago, it was much easier to state your positions and not catch flak for it.
As for the “authority over men” catch-all that comps like to use. Please. I guess I shouldn’t teach boy children because you know, I am so much more vulnerable to heresies and wrong teachings then men; but don’t forget, I am allowed to teach those savages in the far corners of the earth whose skin isn’t white. Another thing, as you convienently won’t listen to Groothius because well, she is a woman, I still believe biblical equality can easily be “proven” without her argument, but she puts into words what is not being said by the hierarchalist camp.
Comment by Jorge
May 21, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Can Dance,
This is a hard issue. I know. I am merely seeking a dialogue in order to understand properly those I disagree with and also so that those who disagree with me understand my position correctly. Caricatures do no good in this debate. You said you are pretty familiar with the complementarian argument. Good for you.
But some of what you said (i.e. that complementarians “*really* think, that women are inferior creatures”) is neither accurate nor fair, so as a complementarian I felt the need to accurately state the complementarian position. Your response was quite telling.
After claiming complementarians cannot come up with a good response (I assume you are talking about Groothuis’ “equal roles = equal worth” view) you said “no, I will never see it any other way”. Well, that sure settles it then!
I briefly gave you a response, however, by pointing out that Paul had no problem whatsoever telling women not to exercise authority over men and wives to submit to their husbands. Clearly, Paul is advocating a difference in function between the sexes in certain respects, yet conservative evangelicals know that Paul did not view one sex as *superior* than the other. This is what complementarians are advocating. Just as Paul should not be charged with believing women are inferior, so too complementarians should not be charged with the same either. You did not respond to this directly.
Instead, you brought up the Trinity. Since you are familiar with the complementarian position then you should be aware of the distinction held between a subordination of nature or essence (which is a heresy both sides agree on) and a subordination of function.
We can talk about the Trinity if you’d like, but for now I’d just like to mention that if you want to follow that route of appealing to tradition to substantiate a position, then the egalitarian reading of passages such as 1 Tim 2:11-15 for example should be dismissed immediately.
Complementarians do not claim women can’t teach boys, etc. This sounds more like one of those caricatures I warned about before. As far as Groothuis’ argument, I’m trying to listen and understand. I don’t find it persuasive nor biblical. Again, maybe you can demonstrate *from the Scriptures* that equality in nature and personhood is dependent on function.
Your brother in Christ,
Jorge
Comment by TeriLynn
May 22, 2006 @ 10:18 am
Original books from the 1800’s about women are very revealing. I’ve read three of them so far and still collecting. What I found was:
1. It was common for men to speak of women’s lesser intelligence. It was considered fact.
2. Many women believed it , but many women did not.
3. The situation was tolerated by women, but most did not appreciate it.
4. This situation allowed men to use women to do most of the boring grunge work they didn’t want to do so they could tend to the more important work of men.
5. The system of social life of the times prohibited women from doing much to change this attitude because women were dependent upon men. Men wanted to keep it this way, being quite aware of their own personal benefits.
6. Men spoke openly to women about women’s value resting in their ability to be recreationally uplifting to men, and of course their supposedly innate skills in cooking, nurturing children, and keeping house.
7. It wasn’t until women were able to support themselves more fully that women were able to stand up and fight for their own worth before men.
It was really interesting for me to notice that there was a clear parallel between the way women were treated and kept in subservient status and the way slaves were treated and kept in subservient status. I strongly suspect that without insistent training in a child’s early years, women are not going to believe these lies any more. And even among those that do, many will discard them as they mature and grow in knowledge of biblical values and truths.
Comment by TeriLynn
May 22, 2006 @ 11:11 am
Here is a quote for you…….
From “Women’s Worth and Worthlessness” by Gail Hamilton 1872
He was protesting the idea of teaching a woman anything wherein she might have a professional ability to work with.
“”Why herein is a marvelous thing.’
‘that you should spoil a horn in the futile ambition to make a spoon?’
‘but the horn is good for nothing’
‘that is the beauty of it. Your great charm is that you are of no use. Your ignorance of every thing which no gentleman’s library should be without is truly appetizing. One never knows where your absurdity will crop out next; curiosity is therefore, always on tip-toe, and life worth living. Now go and make yourself a useful member of society, and you will spoil the whole. Useful members of society are already as the frogs of Egypt for multitude. Do not you turn into one!’
‘but the true woman, my dear ——’
‘Hold your tongue, my dear. If you are dissatisfied with your place, and wish to hire out as cook in a genteel family, I will give you a character; but if you wish to live a rational life, pray you keep clear of all these utilities. A hard fate thrusts them upon some of our fellow-mortals; but Heaven has mercifully exempted you, and has given you moreover, a rare advantage by endowing you with a brilliant inaptitude for every thing useful. Anybody can do everything; but for doing nothing, and doing it with ingenuity, I don’t know your equal. The consequence is that you are, if not always an agreeable, at least an available companion.”
And there in a nutshell you have this man’s idea of a woman’s worth. Now mind you not many women believed men who spoke like this. They kept their mouths shut and worked around it.
TL
Comment by Dorcas
May 22, 2006 @ 11:37 am
Jorge, I thank you for wanting to dialog. I am wondering if it is possible anymore. This makes me sad, but I can’t see around it.
I don’t think there are many complimentarians who would recognize that they are really saying things that indicate “women are inferior.” It is not conscious, in most cases. (In a few it is, and is stated as such, but those are rare.) I know this comment sounds patronizing, and I do apologize for that, but I will never see the “seperate but equal” values in complimentarian theology as anything but demeaning. I simply cannot. And I have lived, worked, attended church and ministered on both sides of the “fence.” I know the subtle prejudices. They are not righteous. They are not holy. They are not even mildly okay for me anymore. “More barbaric and more loving”? Wow, Anne, what a thought!
Comment by Amyl
May 23, 2006 @ 9:07 am
Paul also had no problem telling men to submit to their wives (Ephesians 5:21).
Treating a perfectly capable adult like a subordinate by:
- preventing her from using her gifts to full (e.g. the gift of leadership)
- restricting her personal autonomy and her control over her marital relationship by denying her an equal part in the decision-making process
- expecting her to obey your commands purely because you are a man and she is a woman
IS treating her like an inferior.
Comment by Jorge
May 24, 2006 @ 9:32 am
Amyl,
Paul does not tell wives to submit to their husbands. Paul admonishes believers to submit to one another in the Lord (Eph 5:21), but that should not be taken to mean that every believer is to submit to every other believer in exactly the same way. (Should parents submit to their children? Or should my pastor or leaders, for example, submit and obey me? Cf. Heb. 13:17) Neither does this mean that all commands for submission in Scripture are unequivocally reciprocal, nor that by inference husbands should submit to their wives in the same way as Paul and Peter clearly, directly, and specifically admonishe wives to voluntarily submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, 5). Context is important here.
How are believers to submit to one another (Eph. 5:21)? Paul explains this in the following verses: wives are to submit to their husbands (5:22, 24), children are to obey their parents (6:1), slaves are to obey their masters (6:5) – that’s how believers are to submit to one another, according to Paul. (Paul does, however, encourage slaves to seek their freedom in 1 Cor. 7:21; cf. Philemon 1:15-16.)
Peter T. O’Brien explains the use of the verb “to submit” in V. 21 in his commentary on The Letter to the Ephesians in the Pillar New Testament Commentary series (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 401-402:
“[T]he term regularly functions to describe the submission of someone in an ordered array to another who was above the first, that is, in authority over that person. Further, none of the relationships where this verb appears is reversed: husbands are not told to be subject to their wives, nor parents to children, nor the government to citizens, nor disciples to demons. The word does not describe a ‘symmetrical’ relationship since it always has to do with an ordered relationship in which one person is ‘over’ and another ‘under’. In this sense the term is not mutual in its force…believers are argued to be submissive to those who are in authority over them…Furthermore, in its other New testament instances the semantic range of our verb does not include acting in a thoughtful or considerate way, or showing mutual courtesy, deference, or respect. The term, then, should not be assigned a meaning that is outside its semantic range, especially when its usual meaning makes good sense in this context. We are not suggesting that acting in a loving, considerate, self-giving way is absent from the household table; only that words other than ‘submit, be subordinate or submission’ are used to describe this loving service (cf. vv. 25, 28, 29).”
As per your other comments, Paul (as complementarians should do) encouraged women to exercise their gifts to the fullest within the God-ordained roles for men and women. Praise the Lord for women in ministry! Marriage isn’t a dictatorship. The husband is to love his wife as he does his own body, even more so, as Christ loves the church (Eph. 5:25-33). He is to treat her in an understanding way, showing her honor, as she is a fellow heir of life with him (1 Pet. 3:7). This means her thoughts and opinions are extremely important to him and are essential for decision-making. Totalitarianism in marriage is ruled out by Scripture. The God-honoring husband should never command his wife to obey simply because she is a woman. He asks his wife to follow his lead because she trusts God in his word when he calls wives to submit to their husbands.
The caricature presented above would seem to relegate women to an inferior status. But when these caricatures are corrected and understood according to the word of God, then women should be seen as equal and heirs with men, while exercising complementary roles.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by TeriLynn
May 25, 2006 @ 11:41 am
The main issue of upotassomenoi is voice. If I tell someone to submit, I am commanding they come under me (coming under, or yielding is the main meaning) , my authority, my desires, my wishes (the tone and part of the meaning of upotasso is respect, see verse 33). But the ending menoi or mai that is added to upotasso in the instances we are discussing (Ephe. 5:21) bring a whole new picture. Instead of men commanding women to come under their authority, or even one man commanding women to come under male authority, we have something else that changes the tone and the picture. We have Paul first telling all brethren, male and female of all ages, to yield themselves to one another. Specifically, the tone is that each person is to command themselves (that takes away the issue of others taking authority over) to take a respectful attitude toward each other. It becomes self telling self to mold oneself under instead of exalting oneself over. Then we have Paul turning to the wives and saying, ‘and you too’ toward your husband, as if to say, this attitude includes the arena of marriage.
So because Paul is saying to control self, there is no issue of anyone taking authority over of anyone else.
There is also no mantle of leadership given to husbands as comps like to read into this section. When Paul tells wives to respect their husbands in the same manner as they do to the Lord, he also turns around and tells husbands to respect their wives as their own body, without which they would have no life. The body does not live without the head, and the head does not live without the body. The picture Paul is trying to paint is one of a unity of respect and honor, not only of the whole body, but of all our intimate relationships: marriage, children, slaves.
If one reads the entire chapter we can see that first, Paul tells all to love one another sacrificially (including spouses to one another) in verses 1-2. Then he bookends this in verse 21 by telling all to respect one another and yield, honor, make room for the other by telling them to submit one to another (including spouses). I use the term book end because those exact two issues Paul addresses to both parties in the three groups from various angles. Thus, he has laid out the picture of loving and respecting, with the verses 1-2 and 21, and in between those verses he goes into some detail into how that is accomplished: staying in the light and the fruit of the Spirit, redeeming the days with wisdom, being filled with the Spirit, praising God, always giving thanks, etc. It is that entire picture that we are to carry over into each of those relationships and which EACH PARTY is to live toward the other.
This leaves no room for one having the attitude of taking authority over but rather changes the attitudes (especially of those culturally given authority) to one of how can I benefit my spouse, my parent, my child, my master, my slave. And how can I do this giving honor to Christ.
Comment by TeriLynn
May 25, 2006 @ 11:54 am
Jorge wrote: “The God-honoring husband should never command his wife to obey simply because she is a woman. He asks his wife to follow his lead because she trusts God in his word when he calls wives to submit to their husbands.
The word used to mean “obey” throughout the N.T. is (h)upakouo. It is also used to mean “listen, heed”. It’s a fairly precise word for those meanings: listen, obey, obedience, obedient. The verb is derived from akouo, was commonly used in secular Greek from Homer on. The adj. hupekoos, obedient, is in the Greek O.T., in Deut. 20:11 of subject peoples and in Prov. 4:3, 13:1 of a son’s obedience to his father.
In Acts 12:13 hupakouo means to open in the sense of “answering the door”. Elsewhere the verb group is used extensively and predominantly by Paul denoting obedience. And generally this obedience includes submission to earthly authorities.
As a side note some might find it interesting, that in the Greek translation of the O.T. this was the word used when God told Abraham to “listen” to whatever Sarah has said. He listened and heeded her words (obeyed). (Gen. 21:12) :)
The conclusion one cannot help but reach is that if Paul had meant obey or obedience in the places he used (h)upotasso or more specifically (h)upotassoMAI, then Paul would have used hupakouo instead. Fact is he did not.
Thus we must honestly conclude that no husband ever has any “right” to ask his wife to obey him expecting it is due to him.
Comment by Jorge
May 26, 2006 @ 10:52 am
TeriLynn,
The ending on the verb hupotasso in verse 21 (submitting, hupotassomenoi) does not “bring a whole new picture” to the term. The ending menoi is the form the verb takes while functioning as a middle/passive participle in the sentence. The verb in verse 21 is a present, middle/passive, participle; that is why it has that specific ending. The standard Greek lexicon (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; i.e. BDAG) defines the middle/passive form of our verb “to submit” as “become subject…subject oneself, be subjected or subordinated, obey” (1042). For a parallel, the exact same verb form is found in 1 Peter 2:18 where Peter says “Servants, be subject [hupotassomenoi] to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust” (ESV).
If I understand you correctly, you are saying since Paul tells “all brethren, male and female of all ages, to yield themselves to one another,” what he means is that “each person is to command themselves…to take a respectful attitude toward each other”; and because he tells every person to do this for oneself (i.e. “command themselves”) then “that takes away the issue of others taking authority over”. So, it seems you take the verb “to submit” in verse 21 to mean have a “respectful attitude.”
The verb “to submit” in v. 21 does not have “respect” as one of its meanings. It simply means to subject oneself. When Paul and Peter want to say respect, they use another term (phobos; Eph. 5:33; 1 Peter 2:18). The two words are not synonymous. As I quoted before, Peter T. O’Brien points out that “in its other New Testament instances the semantic range of our verb does not include acting in a thoughtful or considerate way, or showing mutual courtesy, deference, or respect. The term, then, should not be assigned a meaning that is outside its semantic range, especially when its usual meaning makes good sense in this context.” (The Epistle to the Ephesians, PNTC [Eerdmans, 1999], 401)
If you are subject to someone, you are under their authority. Just look up the NT usages of the verb hupotasso (e.g. Luke 2:51; 10:17; Romans 13:1; James 4:7, and more). When Paul says believers are to submit to one another, as I said before, he explains how: wives are to submit to their husbands, children to their parents, and slaves to their masters. That is how believers are to submit to one another and makes perfect sense of the context. It also makes sense of the meaning of the term. Again I should point out that no where are husbands told to hupotasso their wives (cf. Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5).
I agree that Paul is trying to paint a picture of unity, but unity does not automatically rule out authority. You are right in that “no room” is left “for one having the attitude of taking authority over” as if in a forceful way. Instead – using the passive form – wives, children, and slaves are to subject/submit themselves under those who are in authority over them – husbands, parents, and masters. To ensure no abuse is present by those in authority, namely, husbands, parents, and masters, Paul tells husbands to love their wives like Christ loves the church (v. 25), fathers not to provoke their children (6:4), and masters not to threaten their slaves (6:9).
As far as the use of the term “obey” goes, can you show me from Scripture where hupotasso does not carry the notion of “obedience”? It is one of the meanings of the term hupotasso, though as you pointed out, hupakouo more strongly means obey.
By the way, in the quote you quoted I used the term “obey” because that was the exact same word Amyl used. I was responding to what she said.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by TeriLynn
May 26, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Jorge,
This is an interesting conversation, and I hope that The Scroll will allow us to continue a bit as we have time as I have done a fair amount of research on this subject and love to share my thoughts on it.
Here is an excerpt for you:
“But hupotassomai is a voluntary attitude of being responsive to the needs of others (see Chapt. 2 this volume). The spirits of the prophets are ‘subject’ to the willingness of the prophets to take turns in speaking.” John Bristow in “What Paul Really Said About Women”, pg. 65 bottom paragraph.
In 1 Cor. 14:32 we have Paul telling those with prophetic revelation to be submissive, hupotassomai, to one another. According to your hard locked definition, “If you are subject to someone you are under their authority”, this could be confusing trying to figure out which of the prophets are to be the one the others are subjected to as it truly is impossible for everyone to be in authority over everyone. Unless the voice of subjecting oneself does indeed bring a whole new picture of the self becoming the authority.
As I may not have said very clearly, upotasso in the active form could be used of one person compelling another to yield/submit to their authority. However, in the imperative middle voice form one’s self becomes the authority that is doing the requesting. As you said, ““become subject…subject oneself”. IOW, tell yourself to become submissive to. What one is to instruct oneself to become submissive to is not defined in the meaning here, but the point is to instruct and compel oneself rather than someone else doing the instructing and compelling. The difference being that if someone else is doing the compelling, they are indeed often (though not always) an authority figure. But when one compels themselves, it does not automatically make the person(s) one is compelling themselves to be submissive towards an authority.
Now it is quite plain that the masters/owners of slaves would indeed be an authority figure, as are parents of children. This is likely why Paul chooses to use the word “obey” with them. There is nowhere in Scripture where husbands are defined as an authority over their wives.
As for the idea of the sense of authority being ingrained in the meaning of upotasso, there are other words more suitable to convey that thought. They would be forms of archo (ruler) or despotes (master). As you are probably aware all words have a range of meanings to be fine tuned by the contexts in which they are used. While upotasso can indeed be used in the sense of an authority compelling subjects to be subject, that is not its only meaning or its only use.
In Ephesians 5:33 we see Paul summing up the section about marital mutual submission. He reminds the husband that he is to love and he reminds the wife that she is to revere or respect. I would say that Paul thought that part of the range of meanings of voluntary submission at one’s own discretion (imperative middle voice) includes the concept of respect. Certainly respect is an attitude that all Christians should have toward one another regardless of the types of relationships they share: marital, relatives/children, employees, bosses, fellow workers, church members, etc. In my opinion there is much more in depth meaning to that word, in this context, then we have entertained. And an attitude of respect would be an important element.
Comment by Jorge
May 30, 2006 @ 9:59 am
TeriLynn,
It’s getting harder to keep this short!
In 1 Corinthians 14:32 Paul does *not* tell prophets “to be submissive, hupotassomai, to one another.” It is not to “one another” but the spirit of the prophet to the prophet him/herself. Here is the text in its context:
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” (v. 29-33a, ESV).
Paul’s concern here is orderliness in worship. He does not want prophetic utterances being proclaimed in a disorderly way. Prophets should take turns prophesying. If one prophet receives a word from the Lord, he/she is not to immediately proclaim it if another prophet is speaking. In other words, the spirits of the prophets (i.e. the revelation that has been revealed to the prophet by the Holy Spirit) are subject to the prophets (he/she can exercise control so that the utterance is not uncontrollably spoken forth while someone else is speaking). The Holy Spirit does not force someone to speak while another is giving a revelation. (For more on this see Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, rev. ed. [Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2000], pp. 96-98).
So this is not saying that all prophets are subject to one another. Instead, it is saying that the workings of the Holy Spirit within the prophets are under their control when prophesying so that they are able to maintain orderliness in worship.
David E. Garland, in a recent commentary on 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), says the following concerning verse 32 of chapter 14:
As the glossolalist is able to control when to speak and when to keep silent, the prophet is able to restrain the prophetic spirit and determine when to speak and when to keep silent…The “spirits of the prophets” (14:32; cf. Rev. 22:6) refers to the impulses of the Spirit at work in the prophets…or to the manifestations of the Spirit’s work…The urge to prophecy is subject (hypotassetai) to the prophet. The impulse to speak may still be present, but the speaker can restrain those impulses and must yield the floor to another who receives a revelation, (pp. 661-662).
You said: “As I may not have said very clearly, hupotasso in the active form could be used of one person compelling another to yield/submit to their authority.”
Agreed.
You said: “However, in the imperative middle voice form one’s self becomes the authority that is doing the requesting. As you said, “‘become subject…subject oneself’. IOW, tell yourself to become submissive to.”
Saying that the self “becomes the authority that is doing the requesting” is a rather odd way of putting it. I don’t agree with the way this is being said. The request is coming from Paul who says believers are to submit to one another (i.e. wives to husbands, etc.). Since our verb is in the middle voice, the request is being made, contextually, to wives, children, and slaves so that they might of themselves come under the authority of their husbands, parents, and masters. This we agree on.
You said: “What one is to instruct oneself to become submissive to is not defined in the meaning here, but the point is to instruct and compel oneself rather than someone else doing the instructing and compelling.”
The context of Ephesians 5:21-33 does show how believers are to submit to one another, namely wives, children, and slaves are to be submissive to husbands, parents, and masters. I agree that the force of the verb (being in the middle) is on wives, children, and slaves to voluntarily submit. I agree that Paul is not requiring husbands to compel their wives, for example, to submit to them. We agree on that.
You said: “The difference being that if someone else is doing the compelling, they are indeed often (though not always) an authority figure. But when one compels themselves, it does not automatically make the person(s) one is compelling themselves to be submissive towards an authority.”
The second sentence is confusing and I’m not sure I quite understand it. I’ll take a stab at it anyway. I think what you are saying is that if one voluntarily submits to another then that does not make the other an authority. Is that what you’re saying? If it is, then I disagree. The mere fact that one is submitting (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) automatically places one under the authority of another. That is the definition of the verb to submit. (Dictionary.com defines the verb ‘to submit’ as follows: “To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another”). In the Greek the same is true. To submit is to place oneself under the authority of another.
You said: “Now it is quite plain that the masters/owners of slaves would indeed be an authority figure, as are parents of children. This is likely why Paul chooses to use the word “obey” with them. There is nowhere in Scripture where husbands are defined as an authority over their wives.
As has been said above, when Paul and Peter tell wives to voluntarily submit to their husbands, they are in effect saying to them to be under their husbands’ authority. (And obey is in the semantic range of our verb and is implied if one is subject to another.) The notion of authority is imbedding in the word “hupotasso,” whether in the active or passive or middle voice. There is simply no way around it. I have search in lexicons and grammars for the notion of hupotasso (in the middle) functioning without connotations of authority and have not found it. If you are aware of any lexical and grammatical source that can substantiate your claim, please provide it.
Newman’s A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament defines hupotasso in the passive: “be subject, submit to, obey, be under the authority of; take a subordinate place (1 Cor 14.34).” I can cite other lexicons that agree. Even in the NT, our verb does not demonstrate the meaning you claim it has. You have not been able to provide a valid example of the use of hupotasso (in the middle or any other voice for that matter) that substantiates your claim.
Yes of course there are other words that convey authority, like ruler and master. But Paul uses hupotasso which conveys the notion of yielding to someone as an authority one way or another. The word he uses perfectly conveys the notion of coming under an authority. I think I asked you this before: please find me a use of the verb hupotasso where it does not have connotations of one coming under the authority of another. I don’t think you will find such a use.
You said: “I would say that Paul thought that part of the range of meanings of voluntary submission at one’s own discretion (imperative middle voice) includes the concept of respect.”
Respect might be an implication of coming under ones authority, but it is not in the semantic range of the meaning of the verb (whatever voice it is in) hupotasso . You have yet to substantiate this claim. Again, when Paul wants to talk about respect, he does so clearly using the word that means respect in Greek, phobos/phobeomai (see Eph. 5:33). That Paul might use the verb “to submit” alongside “respect” does *not* make them synonymous. This is important to come to terms with. It might mean when he talks about submitting (which is to come under the authority of another, etc.) he also associates respect with that action. Just look at 1 Peter 2:18 for an exact parallel.
The verb means what it means. “Words don’t go on a holiday,” my professor used to say. I know that sometimes when the voice of a word is changed, the meaning can be different. But lexicons and grammars tell us this. Our verb does not mean “respect” in the middle and I have yet to see a lexicon and/or grammar that would agree with you. In light of the lack of evidence I cannot agree with your explanation.
I am sorry this has gone long. Thanks for having this conversation with me.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Alex
May 30, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Jorge,
I share the same stubborn attitude as Can Dance when it comes to being egalitarian. However, I wish to be honest about this, as she does too. Do you feel that your view might change at some point Jorge, or are you as stubborn as we are?
TeriLynn pointed out an interesting parallel between slaves and women insofar as they both were treated subserviently. I want to raise a question for you that I hope will help change your mind. When we find the household codes, or more generally, a list of people groups told to submit to another people group in the NT (i.e., wives submitting to husbands, slaves to masters, children to parents), in what ways are those statements true today? In order to avoid trolling, I will try to be more perspicuous.
To begin, here is a quote from your recent post: “[Paul requests] believers…to submit to one another (i.e. wives to husbands, etc.). Since our verb is in the middle voice, the request is being made, contextually, to wives, children, and slaves so that they might of themselves come under the authority of their husbands, parents, and masters.” First of all, if they are to submit to one another, then your “i.e. wives to husbands” will not be complete unless you also say husbands should submit to wives, since that would be submitting to one another. Second of all, it seems there is a disparity between the way we understand the people in these groups today.
We certainly have no problem today, whether complementarian or egalitarian, to have children to be submissive to their parents. Children are dependent and vulnerable, and therefore need to be teachable and submissive so that they can grow into full moral adults. At some point, they will live independently of their parents and the nature of the relationship will change, even to the point, perhaps, that the children will care for their parents in old age. But I think, and hope, that most would have a problem telling slaves to submit to their masters today. The reason why is because our country, and most countries like ours, no longer practice slavery, and most agree that this is a good thing. So, that statement, even though biblical, must take on a fresh meaning today. In order to interpret a statement such as this, we contextualize it.
While it is good to focus our exegetical tasks on the Greek word meanings, we also should be aware of the context in which these words take their meaning. Slavery, in its very concept, has a different contextual meaning for us today than it would for a first-century Christian. For us, we might think of Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, the civil rights movement, or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. These people and events lend to a concept that has a different cultural connotation because of our particular history. There is an obvious difference between the concepts of children/parent relationships and slave/master relationships. So where does that leave us with gender?
I am not accusing you of advocating slavery. In fact, without knowing you, I’m certain that you would not advocate slavery based on what you have said. I am also not saying the Bible is wrong. What I am saying is that the way we think through these exegetical issues is important. And I am quite certain that you would explain the command for slaves to submit to their masters in a way that did not advocate slavery. What this means is that while these three categories (i.e., children, women, slaves) seem to fit nicely together for your argument, it turns out they are very different from a contextual standpoint. If we are willing to say that slavery is a concept that should not govern any social relation in our context because of the inherent equality between races, why can’t we say there is an inherent equality between the sexes, meaning both functional and essential equality? Certainly, the issue of gender seems to be closer to slavery than to parent/child relations.
I eagerly await your reply.
Comment by TeriLynn
May 31, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
Hello Jorge,
David Garland wrote some excellent thoughts none of which disagree with anything I said, and all of which I agree with. My guess is that you may have an unconscious problem with the words “one another”. In reality saying “the prophets are subject to the prophets”, or blue cows are subject to blue cows” is exactly the same as saying “ the prophets are subject to one another,” or “ blue cows are subject to one another.” They both mean the same thing.
This statement:
“As the glossolalist is able to control when to speak and when to keep silent, the prophet is able to restrain the prophetic spirit and determine when to speak and when to keep silent” describes self instigated control at ones own discretion. He is not describing another prophet restraining another prophet but each prophet restraining themselves in consideration of the other prophets. Do you see the similarity with Ephe. 5:21?
The following list was taken from Listening to the Spirit in the Text, written by Gordon Fee.
“In the early church everything was done allelon (”one another”). They were members of one another (Rom 12:5; Eph 4:25), who were to build up one another (1Thess 5:11; Rom 14:19), care for one another (1Cor 12:25), love one another (1Thess 3:12; 4:9; Rom 13:8; 1John passim), bear with one another in love (Eph 4:2), bear one another’s burdens (Gal 6:2), be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another (Eph 4:32), submit to one another (Eph 5:21), consider one another better than themselves (Phil 2:3), be devoted to one another in love (Rom 12:10), and live in harmony with one another (Rom 12:16).”
A year or so ago I read an article by Wayne Grudem; part of the article revolved around Eph 5:21. He said that the word “allelon” here means “some to others,” not “to one another” because in marriage submission is unilateral. In Grudem’s opinion marriage is never two-sided, therefore allelon does not mean to one another in this particular Scripture.
What Grudem did in this statement was to give a perfect example of deductive reading. He brought his preconceived ideas about marriage (“in marriage submission is unilateral”) and used his personal theory to infuse into Scripture and thus change the meaning of this section of Scripture. Ephesians 5:21 literally precisely says that all Christians in every walk of life are to be subject to one another. And Scripture repeats this attitude from different angles throughout. Yet, Grudem would have us believe that only marriage is exempt.
In order to truly understand these Scriptures one really must lay aside preconceived thoughts and concentrate on the section of Scripture being addressed. Read the whole chapter before and after. Get the gist of where Paul was coming from and heading toward and then come back and look at the individual parts.
Comment by Jorge
June 1, 2006 @ 9:00 am
Alex,
Greetings! Hypothetically speaking, it is possible that I change my view because I haven’t already decided (unlike some) that I will *never* change. As I have become more persuaded with the complementarian position, however, I have sought to listen and understand the egalitarian position.
As far as your question concerning Eph 5:21 and “submitting to one another,” (some of what I will say will also respond to TeriLynn’s post as well) I believe that the context fleshes out what Paul meant by “to one another” – not everyone to everyone, but wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters. This not only makes sense in the immediate context, but it also makes sense of the meaning of the term Paul used (“submitting”) and how his readers would have understood this word.
It also makes sense of the comparison Paul uses between the submission of the wife to the husband and the submission of the church to Christ in the same immediate context (not to mentioned Paul calling the husband “head” of his wife just as Christ is the “head” of the church).
It also makes sense of Paul’s exhortations elsewhere for wives to submit to their husbands (Col. 3:18) and children to obey their parents (Col. 3:20) and slaves to obey their masters (Col. 3:22). Paul does not switch this pattern by saying that husbands should submit to their wives, nor does he say children should not obey their parents, etc. Paul again exhorts wives to be submissive to their husbands in Titus 2:5, not the other way around. Peter also echo’s Paul in 1 Peter 3:1-5 when he exhorts wives to submit to their husbands. Again, the order is not reversed.
As far as slavery is concerned, you are right, I do not advocate slavery. I anticipated this would come up and said the following in post # 17: “Paul does, however, encourage slaves to seek their freedom in 1 Cor. 7:21; cf. Philemon 1:15-16.” Slavery is not something instituted by God nor endorsed by Scripture; instead it is regulated. (I am well aware that, unfortunately, Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries tried to defend slavery according to the Bible.) The verses cited above speak powerfully to that issue.
Paul’s reasons for wives submitting are not because of a temporary situation. Look at the reason he gives in Eph 5:23, right after saying “wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord,” he says “for” (in Greek, hoti meaning “that, since, because”). Paul is giving a reason for wives to be submissive to their husbands. The reason is that, according to Paul, “the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.”
I know there is a debate concerning the meaning of the word “head.” Let’s put that aside for the moment. Has this reason that Paul gave changed in the 21st century? Irrespective of what one believes Paul meant by the word “head,” his reason is routed in the analogy of Christ being the head of the church.
I think it is far easier to get into discussion about wives submitting to their husbands than it is to talk about husbands loving their wives. To be honest, I find Paul’s exhortation to husbands in Eph. 5:25-33 far more difficult than anything else. As a new husband I must say I am frightened by Paul’s exhortation. I pray that God will help me to love my wife as Christ loves the church.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Jorge
June 1, 2006 @ 10:41 am
TeriLynn,
Hi. Your words are in italics.
David Garland wrote some excellent thoughts none of which disagree with anything I said, and all of which I agree with.
Great. I agree with him as well.
My guess is that you may have an unconscious problem with the words “one another”.
I don’t think so.
In reality saying “the prophets are subject to the prophets”, or blue cows are subject to blue cows” is exactly the same as saying “ the prophets are subject to one another,” or “ blue cows are subject to one another.” They both mean the same thing.
Yes, of course. I understand that. But equating Paul’s statement “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” with your statement “the prophets are subject to the prophets” is *not* the same thing. That’s my point. What does Garland say “the spirits of the prophets” refer to? He says it “refers to the impulses of the Spirit at work in the prophets…or to the manifestations of the Spirit’s work.” So it is that impulse of the Spirit that is subject to the prophet, not one prophet to another prophet, as you argued.
Remember what you said before:
Post #21: “According to your hard locked definition, “If you are subject to someone you are under their authority”, this could be confusing trying to figure out which of the prophets are to be the one the others are subjected to as it truly is impossible for everyone to be in authority over everyone.”
I have tried to argue that you have misunderstood 1 Cor. 14:32 because Paul is not saying prophets are subject to prophets (i.e. to one another). He is saying that the workings of the Spirit within prophet A is subject to prophet A (i.e. the “spirits” of the prophets are subject to the prophets). He is not saying that prophet A is subject to prophet B, C, D, etc. so that, as you put it, everyone is confused as to who they should be subject to.
Citing Garland you comment: “As the glossolalist is able to control when to speak and when to keep silent, the prophet is able to restrain the prophetic spirit and determine when to speak and when to keep silent” describes self instigated control at ones own discretion.
Agreed. But let it be clear that what the prophet is in control of is the impulse of the Spirit within him/her. This isn’t a self-subjection or self-submission. Two things must be distinguished in this verse: “the spirit of the prophet” (which is the object doing the subjecting by coming under the authority/disposition of the prophet) and the prophet him/herself.
He is not describing another prophet restraining another prophet…
Of course not. He is talking about the “spirits” of the prophets being subject to the prophets.
…but each prophet restraining themselves in consideration of the other prophets.
As I have said above, the subjection is not to oneself. It is the workings of the Spirit that is subject to the prophet, as Garland so clearly explains. This is so that the prophets can prophesy in turn, in an orderly and godly fashion.
Do you see the similarity with Eph. 5:21?
Not in the way you have argued.
As far as the term “one another” in Eph. 5:21, see my response to Alex.
In order to truly understand these Scriptures one really must lay aside preconceived thoughts and concentrate on the section of Scripture being addressed. Read the whole chapter before and after. Get the gist of where Paul was coming from and heading toward and then come back and look at the individual parts.
I agree. The context in Eph. 5 explains what submitting to one another means – wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters. Again I would refer you to my response to Alex above.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Lori
June 1, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
Y’all have done a pretty thorough job of parsing the Greek words here, so I won’t attempt to add to it. However, here are some thoughts.
1. If Paul was against all women speaking in all churches for all time, then he must have been very hypocritical. He tells the Corinthian women to prophesy in church. He commends Phoebe and calls her a diakonos, which is translated “deacon” every other time it’s used in the NT. He commends Pricilla and calls her a “co-worker.”
2. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
If “head” is supposed to be translated as “authority over,” than does Christ not have authority over women? Does God still have authority over Jesus right now, since the verb used here is present tense? If this is supposed to be a top-down model of hierarchy, then why is God listed last?
3.
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Why does Paul suddenly jump from the plural “women” to the singular “a woman” in the middle of this passage? If he had wanted to say that all women should be barred from teaching men for all time, then wouldn’t he simply have said, “But I do not allow women to teach?”
And Paul must be somewhat confused here. “Likewise” at the beginning of this verse translates as “in the same manner,” and refers to the men praying in public. Wouldn’t Paul be contradicting himself, then, by turning right around and saying that women shouldn’t speak in church?
Comment by Jorge
June 2, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Lori,
Hi. I’ll try to answer your questions from a complementarian perspective. It would have been helpful if you would have cited the verses you made reference to. Ah well.
1. Complementarians do *not* believe “Paul was against all women speaking in all churches for all time” in an unqualified and absolute sense because, as you said, “He tells the Corinthian women to prophesy in church.” Complementarians agree that Paul “commends Phoebe and calls her a diakonos, which is translated “deacon” every other time it’s used in the NT.” We agree that Paul commends Prisca (Rom. 16:3) as a fellow-worker.
2. You asked: “If “head” is supposed to be translated as “authority over,” than does Christ not have authority over women? ”
Christ does have authority of women (and men) because, as Paul says in Ephesians 5:23, “Christ is the head of the church,” (i.e. men and women) not to mention the fact that he is the creator of all things! You posed this question in such a way that no matter what anyone thinks “head” means here the question still stands: is Christ not the “head” [= whatever you have in mind] of women? And if indeed “head” does mean “authority over” why is Christ’s authority over women questioned, as if in the world we can’t be under any kind of authority or else we supplant Christ’s authority over us? It seems you are setting up a false dichotomy. But this isn’t necessary. Weren’t Christians told to submit to the authority of governing authorities (Rom 13:1)? Were slaves under the authority of their masters? If so, did that mean that they were not under the authority of Christ? Of course not.
[Does] God still have authority over Jesus right now, since the verb used here is present tense?
Did God have authority over Jesus when Paul wrote that verse? Note that Paul penned those words *after* the resurrection. What do you think has changed since Paul’s day that would give you the impression that Jesus isn’t under the authority of God now? (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
If this is supposed to be a top-down model of hierarchy, then why is God listed last?
First, the mere fact that God is the head of Christ, who is the head of man, who is the head of women, clearly shows that God is overall no matter what “order” he appears in this verse. Second, Paul probably says that God is the head of Christ right after saying the husband is the head of the wife in order to demonstrate that inferiority in function does not necessitate inferiority in nature, essence, or value.
Why does Paul suddenly jump from the plural “women” to the singular “a woman” in the middle of this passage? If he had wanted to say that all women should be barred from teaching men for all time, then wouldn’t he simply have said, “But I do not allow women to teach?”
3. That Paul uses the singular and not the plural to represent women is not surprising since the singular “woman” speaks representatively to that gender. Compare, for example, 1 Cor. 11:3. Paul uses the singular “man/husband” and the singular “women/wife” to represent both genders.
And Paul must be somewhat confused here. “Likewise” at the beginning of this verse translates as “in the same manner,” and refers to the men praying in public. Wouldn’t Paul be contradicting himself, then, by turning right around and saying that women shouldn’t speak in church?
No. It sounds like you are arguing with Paul, not complementarians! The term can mean “likewise” and/or “in the same way/manner” and most translations render it “likewise” (ESV, NASB-Updated, and the NET) or “and also” (NIV), “also” (RSV and NRSV), “in like manner” (NKJ), etc., because Paul is not saying the exact same thing to the men and women. He is connecting what he has said in that just as men should do A and B, women should do X and Y.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Cecily
June 3, 2006 @ 5:12 am
I’m not a scholar, but I think I have something to add to this.
I grew up as a missionary kid in Pakistan, where the prevailing power structures are strongly patriarchal and feudal, especially amongst the Hindu tribal outcaste people my parents worked amongst.
Landowners basically own the serfs, who are born into debt to them, and can never repay them. They are exploited and mistreated and effectively property. As if it couldn’t get worse, there is a gender pecking order too. Women are property of their husbands. Child brides are the norm. One woman I knew was married to her husband at the age of nine. He was about 18 at the time. Whoever is in authority, generally has a pretty absolute hold on the people below him, and the whole system revolves around everyone knowing their place - who’s above and who’s under them.
Now a lot of these uneducated, simple people - who were basically slaves - got converted. And when they realised their freedom in Christ, they could do either of two things. Either, they could buck the system and rebel against the authorities - the landowners (or in the women’s case, the men) - which were strongly in place. Or, they could show the grace of Christ within that system. By submitting graciously, as to Christ, they were showing a completely different attitude than had ever been shown. In time, if the landowners are converted, the system will be changed from the inside out because of their gracious attitude. Feudalism will be no more because all will be equal in Christ.
Having this cultural perspective gives me a different view on the Ephesians passage. If you look at the whole of Ephesians, it talks a lot about power, God’s and ours. I think Paul is speaking to the existing power structures of the day, and saying ‘act Christianly within what exists. Eventually it will change, but not through outward revolution’.
This applies well to slavery of course. It applies to marriage, not by getting rid of the institution of marriage, but by eliminating the power roles within the marriage. Some will say, but how does that apply to children? Of course we want children to obey. But you haven’t seen how much children in patriarchal cultures are also property of the dominant male! If grandpa or landowner or whoever is the ‘patriarch’ says jump, the kid jumps, no matter what the order is.
So the arguments about what submit means are important, but don’t forget the context and the principle in the context. Act Christianly within what exists, and eventually it will change.
Comment by Lori
June 3, 2006 @ 7:28 am
1. I’m glad both sides can agree that godly women such as Phoebe and Priscilla should be honored. However, that does raise the question: are modern women allowed to serve as deacons? Are they allowed to plant churches and disciple men?
If not, then what are women allowed to do today? If they are allowed to speak in church, then what forms of speech are they allowed to practice? In the statement of faith for MacArthur’s conference, it said something about “We believe women should be allowed to pursue their ministries.” What exactly are those ministries?
2. What do you think has changed since Paul’s day that would give you the impression that Jesus isn’t under the authority of God now? (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
Actually, the church has rejected the doctrine of the eternal subordination of Jesus for most of its history. (Kevin N. Giles, “The Doctrine of the Trinity and Subordination,” here on CBE’s website)
It has to be admitted that there are texts in the Bible that can be quoted…to support the eternal subordination of Jesus…What has to be asked is, how do these texts relate to the texts that speak of the Son as God (Jn 1:1, 20:28, Rom 9:5, Heb 1:8), or as the Lord—the title used of Yahweh in the Greek Old Testament (Acts 2:21, Rom 1:3, I Cor 1:2—more than 200 times), or as equal with God (Phil 2:6), or as “head over all things” (Eph 1:22, Col 2:10)? This tension in the texts called for a hermeneutic that could make sense of the whole, without rejecting any of the parts.
So, for Athanasius [early church theologian], the being/nature/essence and the works/operations/functions of the Father and the Son are one. The three divine beings are one being and one in action. Who they are and what they do cannot be separated.
In enunciating this principle, Athanasius perfectly captured biblical thinking. This unity of being and action between the Father, Son, and Spirit, first spelt out by Athanasius, is a constant theme from this point on in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. On this basis it is held that to eternally subordinate the Son or the Spirit in work/operation/function by necessity implies their ontological subordination. If one person on the basis of personal identity alone must always take the subordinate role, then he or she must be a subordinated person, less than his or her superior in some way.
Early in the fifth century…, another great theologian, Augustine of Hippo gave his mind to restating the doctrine of the Trinity…. For him, the unequivocal divinity and unity of the three “persons” is the foundational premise. Then, making Philippians 2:4-6 the key to a right reading of Scripture, he insists that all texts that refer to the equality in divinity, majesty, and authority of the Son speak of his eternal status, and all texts that refer to some subordination or frailty speak of his temporal and voluntary subordination in the incarnation for our salvation.
The article also mentions that both the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople specifically rejected the doctrine of Christ’s subordination.
And if Jesus is supposed to be subordinate to God, then why does Paul list Jesus at the top of the hierarchy in I Cor 11:3?
3. You merely restated my question in reverse. If “a woman” is supposed to represent all of womankind, then why didn’t Paul also say, “Likewise, I want a woman to adorn herself with proper clothing…But a woman will be preserved through the bearing of children”? Why did he suddenly change tense instead of remaining consistent throughout the passage?
4. According to the dictionary, “same” means: “Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.”
So let’s see. Paul says “In the same way, I want women to adorn themselves…” What is the antecedent of “in the same way”? To what is that phrase referring?
Comment by TeriLynn
June 3, 2006 @ 10:38 am
“If one person on the basis of personal identity alone must always take the subordinate role, then he or she must be a subordinated person, LESS than his or her superior in some way.”
This always was the thinking behind ontological subordination until recently when patriarchalism was redefined as complementarianism. I’ve been reading several old books (1870’s to 1910) and ALL of them deal with the tension behind considering women inferior in some fashion. Though most women believed they were not in positions to be able to counter these beliefs by men, they did not believe it themselves and resented what was viewed as male arrogance.
Comment by TeriLynn
June 3, 2006 @ 11:03 am
Hello Jorge,
“In other words, the spirits of the prophets (i.e. the revelation that has been revealed to the prophet by the Holy Spirit) are subject to the prophets (he/she can exercise control so that the utterance is not uncontrollably spoken forth while someone else is speaking). The Holy Spirit does not force someone to speak while another is giving a revelation.”
Are you reading this as saying that the Holy Spirit is subject to the discretion of the prophet? Generally, when Scripture is referencing the Holy Spirit it reads the “the Spirit,” not “the spirit of.” “The spirit of the prophets,” is referencing the inner personal spirit of the individual. The “of” is a point of possession. We do not own or possess the Holy Spirit.
While it is true that the Holy Spirit is always subject to the willingness of the individual to yield in all of the gifts, that is not what is being said in the Corinthians 14 verse. The spirits of the prophets are “subject” to the willingness of the prophets to take turns in speaking. It’s about taking turns in speaking, so that the prophets must yield to each other. They must exercise discretion for the benefit and consideration of the other prophets, for the ultimate good of orderliness.
I’ve often wondered how that might have looked in their time when the meetings were more casual than ours today. Would their prophecies be a mixture of prophetic preaching/teaching as well as future prophecy, or just future prophecy, the way we term it today. I’m inclined to believe that most of their prophetic speeches were preaching and teaching. Thus it would be like the rabbi meetings where discussion was more open. Perhaps, one speaker might say, “Mine is about the end times; anyone else have anything relevant?” Another might say, “Mine is about honoring your neighbor and so is Josephus’s.” So they might decide ahead of time who the three or so (I don’t think it was an inflexible number) speakers would be. The assemblying together of the Christians must have been so much more alive and spiritual than it is most of the time today.
Comment by AV
June 3, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Actually there is quite a range of semantic meanings for the word “hupotasso”. For example the Henry, George, Liddle & Scott Greek Lexicon gives definitions such as: to be implied in or associated with, subjoin, append, post in the shelter of, to be obedient. The KJV New Testament lexicon says: a voluntary attitude of cooperating, assuming responsibility and carrying a burden, a military term regarding the arranging of troops. Dr. Ann Nyland (Greek scholar) in her study of the papyri said it had the common meanings of: support, append and uphold. She also stated that in this common usage it did not occur with the meaning of “submit” as we know it in English.
I understand that modern complementarians now view women as fully human and equal in value and that inferiority in function does not necesarily mean inferiority in value or humaness. We are only inferior in “function” or “role”. However, this still makes women inferior at some level. It is also a forced and permanent subordination.
Regarding 1 Cor. 15:28 and the word “submit”: To say that Christ is equal in essence to God but is subordinate in function is still a statement which destroys the full equality of the Triune God. If “hupotasso” only means “to obey/to be subordinate to an authority” then this scripture ranks Christ under God’s authority. Christ is equal in essence but not equal in authority. Therefore Christ is not fully equal in all attributes. To say that God has authority over Christ is also a confusing statement because Christ said after the resurrection that He had all authority (Matthew 28:18). However, if “hupotasso” had a meaning of “unite” then the verse sense and maintains the total equality of the Triune God.
Regarding 1 Cor.11:3: The same is true for the word “kephale” (head). There are multiple definitions for this word. To assume a definition of authority would place Christ under God’s authority (in the present tense) and destroy the full equality of the Triune God. Of course I believe that Christ is God and Christ has all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18). If the definition of “source” is used in verse 3 the fully equality of the Triune God is preserved. The source of woman is man (as opposed to something inferior, which is exactly what the Greeks believed.) and Christ is from out of the Godhead.
Based upon the usage of the words “kephale” and “hupotasso” and to be consistent one would have to believe in the eternal subordination of Christ in order to justify gender subordination.
Also, when studying 1 Cor. 11:3 it’s important to view the entire context of the text surrounding it. This verse is used to keep women out of leadership roles in the church. However, if you read the entire passage the topic is about prayer and prophesy and the use of head coverings during these worship activities - not about leadership functions. Paul says nothing about church leadership. The only time Paul uses the word authority is in verse 10 and he says that the the woman has authority over her own head. (Some Bibles add words like “a symbol of” but those words don’t appear in the Greek text.)
It’s also interesting to note that nowhere in the Old Testament are women commanded to submit to the authority of or obey their husbands.
I teach a course on this subject and could write 100s of pages about it. For me it’s important for the complementarians/traditionalists to know that the egalitarian position is 100% biblically based. I actually use 1 Cor 11:3-16 and Eph. 5:18-33 as a “proof text” in support of equality.
Remember, the first preachers of the Gospel were women sent by Christ to men.
Comment by Kathryn Vance
June 6, 2006 @ 12:10 am
If our complementarian friends would study the arguments used 150 years ago to deny women the right to vote or to justify slavery, they would sound more than vaguely familiar. They are the same arguments used today to bar women from leadership roles. The Divine Order of Command, the Headship of the Man, etc. Why has the word “submission” suffered so much misuse? It simply means to make yourself available. It is so easy to take some verses out of context. Do our friends on the other side simply close their eyes and choose not to read about Deborah the prophetess and Judge of Israel? What of Huldah, Phoebe, and so many other women? Women preached and taught in the Bible with God’s-and Paul’s- blessing and approval. To protect the Gospel they were enjoined to observe customs such as covering their heads, but they were not forbidden to preach. Please study all that Paul said about women, not just one or two verses.
Comment by Jorge
June 6, 2006 @ 8:48 am
Lori,
On whether or not women should function as deacons today that would depend on how a church defines the role of deacon. If it is defined in the NT sense, then women may serve as deacons for that would exclude positions of teaching and having authority over men in the assembled congregation (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 2:11-15). There is some debate within complementarianism about this, but many complementarians agree that women can be deacons without violating 1 Tim. 2:11-15.
You have asked a lot of good questions. The main issue is not to go against scriptural prohibitions yet to encourage women to function in ministry. I’m still working this out and don’t have all the answers. But to begin with, all that women were allowed to do in the NT women should be allowed to do today. That’s a good starting point.
For a helpful treatment in this regard, see Wayne Grudem’s section on “But what should women do in the Church?” in chapter 2 of his book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), pp. 84-101. (The entire book is available in pdf format for free at http://www.efbt100.com/).
Also, see Thomas R. Schreiner’s chapter, “The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Grand Rapids, MI: Crossway, 1991) pp. 211-227 [online edition] and the book Women’s Ministry in the Local Church, by J. Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt (Grand Rapids, MI: Crossway, 2006). Both of these books are available for free in pdf format at on the cbmw Web site. As far as what is meant by the statement of faith for MacArthur’s conference, I would recommend you contact MacArthur’s ministry and ask what ministries are open to women.
It is really important when talking about the doctrine of the Trinity to distinguish between the functional subordination of the Son and “subordinationism.” The latter is a heresy rejected by the church because it taught that Jesus wasn’t full deity equal with the Father in nature and essence. Complementarians do not hold to the doctrine of *subordinationism*. Giles’ selective quotations of church fathers such as Athanasius and Augustine and Calvin have been called into question. The eternal subordination in function of the Son to the Father is *not* a heresy that has been rejected throughout Christian history. Even egalitarian author Craig Keener concurs that this is not a heresy. See his article “Is Subordination Within The Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18 in Context,” Trinity Journal 20NS (1999): 39-51.
Egalitarian author Rebecca M. Groothuis, who is against the eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father in the Trinity, nevertheless concedes, “It is by no means clear from Scripture that the members of the Godhead are related to one another in terms of an eternal structure of rule and submission. This is a debatable point of theology on which conservative scholars disagree” (emphasis added, Good News For Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995], p. 57, cited in Wayne Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions [Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004], p. 406).
Also, see the following articles:
Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr. “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42/3 (September 1999): 461-476. [online at ]
Peter R. Schemm, Jr. “Kevin Giles’s The Trinity and Subordinationism: A Review Article.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7/2 (Fall 2002): 67-78 [online]
I do not think that 1 Cor. 11:3 presents a “hierarchy” in they way you are insinuating, as if in first place comes Jesus because he is mentioned first, and in last place comes God because he is mentioned last. I do not know why Paul presented them in this order. But clearly, if there is some sort of “hierarchy” in this passage, God is overall because he is the “head” of Christ and no-one is the “head” of God – regardless of what order Paul places this. It is also clear that Christ is the “head” of man and man is the man is the “head” of woman. How do you see this passage?
So let’s see. Paul says “In the same way, I want women to adorn themselves…” What is the antecedent of “in the same way”? To what is that phrase referring?
I think you are trying to find something in this verse that’s not there. The antecedent is that men should pray lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling. (Actually, more accurately the antecedent is “without anger or quarrelling.”) Hey, as a complementarian, I’m all for women praying with holy hands in the air without anger or quarrelling! So what point are you trying to make here?
Thanks for responding.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Jorge
June 6, 2006 @ 8:52 am
TeriLynn,
Are you reading this as saying that the Holy Spirit is subject to the discretion of the prophet?
Yes, with regards to the gift of prophecy.
Generally, when Scripture is referencing the Holy Spirit it reads the “the Spirit,” not “the spirit of.” “The spirit of the prophets,” is referencing the inner personal spirit of the individual. The “of” is a point of possession. We do not own or possess the Holy Spirit.
I agree that the Holy Spirit is *not* our possession, as if we “own” him. But the context indicates that it is, as Garland says, the impulses of the Holy Spirit that the prophet is able to subject with regards to prophesying. You even said it yourself below.
While it is true that the Holy Spirit is always subject to the willingness of the individual to yield in all of the gifts, that is not what is being said in the Corinthians 14 verse.
I disagree! I think that is exactly what is being said in 1 Cor. 14:32 when Paul says “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” The context is about the gift of prophecy and the work of the Holy Spirit in each prophet to declare what God has brought to their mind. You said it so wonderfully: “the Holy Spirit is always subject to the willingness of the individual to yield in all the gifts.”
Thank you for making me take a closer look at this passage. But I do not see the connection between Eph 5:21. Our concern was with the verb “to submit” in this passage. You originally brought this passage up and asserted that Paul told the prophets to submit to one another (which I have shown is not what Paul was saying) and that if we take the verb “to submit” in its normal usage where one comes under the authority of another, then that would created confusion as to which prophet one is supposed to submit to.
This problem you posed is presupposed on a false understanding that Paul said to the prophets “submit to one another” which he did not say nor imply. According to the verse you cited – “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” - the one doing the subjecting is not the prophet him/herself, but the “spirit of the prophet,” which refers to the impulses of the Holy Spirit at work in the prophet. The object being subjected to is the prophet. So the prophet has no excuse, according to Paul, for uncontrollably prophesying while someone else is prophesying. Why? Because the Holy Spirit does not take over their bodies and force them to prophesy. This is because, as you so wonderfully explained, “the Holy Spirit is always subject to the willingness of the individual to yield in all the gifts.” That is exactly what Paul is saying in that particular sentence we focused on.
Again, there is no talk of “submitting to one another” with the verb being used by Paul to refer to the relationship prophets have to one another. That is why there is no parallel in the “one another” sense you argued for. What is clear from this verse that mirrors Eph. 5:21 and following, is that the verb “to submit” means to come under the authority of another.
Concerning what “prophesying” was in the NT, I don’t think it was equivalent to “preaching and teaching.” Elders are the ones who are required to be able to teach, functioning as the leaders of their congregations. But scholars from all sides debate this.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Jorge
June 6, 2006 @ 8:59 am
I will respond to AV and especially Kathryn Vance soon. Please be patient as more people have joined this conversation, making the amount of time and research it takes to respond extremely great! I am also a newlywed who would rather spend more time with his wife than on the internet!
Thank you all.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Jorge
June 6, 2006 @ 9:50 am
(I forgot to add this to my post to Lori)
With reference to the shift of women in the plural (1 Tim 2:9-10) to the singular (vv. 11-12) I don’t see any significance. As I said before, women in general may be represented in the plural (as can clearly be seen in 1 Cor. 11:3). What significance do you see here?
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by TeriLynn
June 6, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
Hello Jorge,
Just a quick note.
“The spirits of the prophets.” Notice the plural. I am not familiar with any other Scripture that refers to The Holy Spirit as “spirits.” Could you please provide me with ones that you know of?
Comment by TeriLynn
June 6, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Hello Jorge,
You wrote: “With reference to the shift of women in the plural (1 Tim 2:9-10) to the singular (vv. 11-12) I don’t see any significance.”
Pretty much every little nuance in Scripture has meaning. What I see is a deliberate shift from speaking generally to all women, to the singing out of either a specific woman or a specific relationship. The specific relationship would likely be a woman and her teacher since the primary subject of verses 11-12 is the phrase “let a woman learn”. Everything said after that is subject to the context of the emphatic letting of a woman to learn. Whom does she learn from, but a teacher. And likely if there was a specific incident that Paul was referring to (and I think there was since the whole epistle was written in response to something Timothy wrote) there would be a male teacher since the pharisees did not allow women to learn at that time. This would be why Paul would then say that the woman should learn in quietness (the usual attitude of students) and not be grasping for authority that would not be hers as a student. This refers back to vs. 6-7 where “some” have desired to be teachers without having first learned.
Comment by TeriLynn
June 6, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
I just saw this: “I am also a newlywed who would rather spend more time with his wife than on the internet!”
A newlywed eh. :) Awesome! Many blessings to you. Any dialogue you have time for is welcomed. Most of us also have busy lives (even if we’re not newlyweds :) )
\o/ \o/ \o/
Comment by Jorge
June 9, 2006 @ 8:54 am
AV,
God bless you. You words are in italics.
Actually there is quite a range of semantic meanings for the word “hupotasso”. For example the Henry, George, Liddle & Scott Greek Lexicon gives definitions such as: to be implied in or associated with, subjoin, append, post in the shelter of, to be obedient.
There is no question that hypotasso has a “range of semantic meanings.” I have not disputed this. In fact, all words have a range of meanings, though some more than others. In addition to the definitions you cited, Liddell-Scott also cites the following: place or arrange under, subject. It should be noted, however, that the Liddell-Scott lexicon is primarily for classical Greek usage. BDAG is the standard lexicon for the Greek of the New Testament (Koine) and the writings of the second century church fathers. I am not saying that Liddell-Scott is not useful for NT exegesis. Gordon D. Fee (New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 3rd ed. [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002]) notes that the Liddell-Scott “lexicon will augment the data available in the BDAG, especially in giving the history of usage and range of meanings in Greek antiquity” (p. 92).
BDAG lists two basic meanings for the word hypotasso (p. 1042):
(1) “to cause to be in a submissive, relationship, to subject, to subordinate”
Under this we find two subdivisions: (a) the active and (b) the passive. For the passive: “become subject…subject oneself, be subjected or subordinated, obey.”
(2) “to add a document at the end of another document, attach, append, subjoin (common in official documents…)”.
This second (2) set of meanings coincides with those you cited from Liddell-Scott. But what should be noted is that BDAG does not list any NT references under this second set of meanings as it does for the first.
The KJV New Testament lexicon says: a voluntary attitude of cooperating, assuming responsibility and carrying a burden, a military term regarding the arranging of troops.
I had some difficulty at first tracking this reference down until I realized that this was an online lexicon (Strong’s no. 5293) found at http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5293&version=kjv. What you did not mention, however, was that none of what you cited was actually listed in the 6 definitions provided by this term. Those 6 are:
1. to arrange under, to subordinate
2. to subject, put in subjection
3. to subject one’s self, obey
4. to submit to one’s control
5. to yield to one’s admonition or advice
6. to obey, be subject
What you cited came after these definitions. Moreover, you cited quite selectively too. Here is the complete paragraph:
A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader.” In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”
You left out the “under the command of a leader” part. Nevertheless, this does not tell us how the word was used in the NT. The 6 definitions above more accurately reflect its NT usage.
Dr. Ann Nyland (Greek scholar) in her study of the papyri said it had the common meanings of: support, append and uphold. She also stated that in this common usage it did not occur with the meaning of “submit” as we know it in English.
BDAG lists these as well. This isn’t new. But with reference to the term’s “common usage…not occur[ing] with the meaning of ‘submit’ as we know it,” what time frame does she say this word lacked such meaning? Certainly this is not the case in the NT era, as all standard lexicons clearly show.
Regarding 1 Cor. 15:28 and the word “submit”: To say that Christ is equal in essence to God but is subordinate in function is still a statement which destroys the full equality of the Triune God. If “hupotasso” only means “to obey/to be subordinate to an authority” then this scripture ranks Christ under God’s authority. Christ is equal in essence but not equal in authority. Therefore Christ is not fully equal in all attributes.
Does anyone notice the underlying presupposition here? The belief that difference in function necessitates an inferiority in being, nature, and essence is *not*, I repeat, *not* a biblical truth. This cannot be demonstrated from Scripture. AV’s statement that “ To say that Christ is equal in essence to God but is subordinate in function is still a statement which destroys the full equality of the Triune God if false. Do you think that when Jesus said in John 14:28 that the Father was greater than him, that at that moment Jesus wasn’t equal with God in nature, being, and essence (cf. John 1:1, 8:58; 20:28)? I don’t think so. See my post above to Lori for more on the Trinity.
To say that God has authority over Christ is also a confusing statement because Christ said after the resurrection that He had all authority (Matthew 28:18).
After his resurrection, Jesus had been given all authority in heaven and earth. 1 Cor. 15:28 demonstrates that this authority isn’t over the Father.
However, if “hupotasso” had a meaning of “unite” then the verse sense and maintains the total equality of the Triune God.
And where did we get “unite” from? Where are these words coming from? It seems if someone doesn’t think a word fits then they can just make up new definitions. Look at the way hypotasso is used in verse 27? Paul uses it 3 times there. You cannot accept the plain reading of 1 Cor. 15:28 because of your false presupposition.
Regarding 1 Cor.11:3: The same is true for the word “kephale” (head). There are multiple definitions for this word. To assume a definition of authority would place Christ under God’s authority (in the present tense) and destroy the full equality of the Triune God.
There is your false presupposition again.
If the definition of “source” is used in verse 3 the fully equality of the Triune God is preserved.
Here is it again as well.
Based upon the usage of the words “kephale” and “hupotasso” and to be consistent one would have to believe in the eternal subordination of Christ in order to justify gender subordination.
The eternal subordination of the Son is not necessary for the justification of the complementarian position. It is helpful, for sure, but not required. There are egalitarians who believe in the eternal subordination of the Son (e.g. Craig Keener) as well as complementarians who reject the subordination of the Son.
I could comment further on the rest of what you said, but I’ll pass on it for now.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by TeriLynn
June 9, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
Hello Jorge,
Just a quick thught. You wrote: “Does anyone notice the underlying presupposition here? The belief that difference in function necessitates an inferiority in being, nature, and essence is *not*, I repeat, *not* a biblical truth.”
The point being missed here is that when one says that woman submits to man BECAUSE she is woman (which is the patriarchal position), then one is also implying her essence, her being as part of the qualifications for being the submitter. In other words, man is leader because he is male, women is submitter and follower because she is female. This definitely sets up a superior vs inferior positioning. When one’s function is based upon inherent design then one sets up classes of inferior/superior valuing.
And you are correct that none of this can be demonstrated from Scripture. In Christ we are all on the same level ground at the foot of the cross. And in all relationships we are admonished to submit one to another in the fear of God (our creator, who is our true leader), consider one another better than self, carry one another’s burdens, and be clothed with humility.
Comment by TeriLynn
June 9, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Some interesting thoughts on the new subordinationist theories.
http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2006/03/against-new-subordinationists.html
Comment by TeriLynn
June 11, 2006 @ 11:31 am
I’ve been contemplating on the concept of eternal subordination. The hierarchalists claim that a hierarchy has always existed in the Godhead leaving Christ eternally subordinate to the Father. They don’t mention the Holy Spirit but a hierarchy would imply that the Holy Spirit would then be eternally subordinate to the Son.
The hierarchalists use this concept to then say that the first female human who was formed second, while the male human was formed first, sets up a similar hierarchy as the Godhead so that women are to be eternally subordinate to men.
This implies that the concept of the Godhead was founded on an order of God the Father being first, not on birth but on primacy. God the Father is more what? Is God the Father more important than God the Son or God the Holy Spirit? I cannot figure that one although I’ve read much of the claims.
However, while the claim is that there is an eternal hierarchy in the Godhead, Christ clearly corrected the Sadduces when they tried to figure out which husband a wife would be subordinated to in heaven.
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
So if there is no eternal subordination of wives/women in heaven, why is there a need to claim that there is eternal subordination of the Son in order to claim earthly subordination of wives? And if the reasoning is that God the Father is more important in some way than the Son, then the implication by comparison is that a husband is more important in some ways than a wife which appears to cancel out the “equal but different” mantra.
hmmm?
Comment by Jorge
June 11, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
Kathryn Vance,
It is pretty easy to dismiss complementarianism by associating it with socio-historical evils rather than engaging it according to the exegesis of Scripture. Similarly, today the pro-homosexual movement in Christianity is doing similar things in linking the prohibition of practicing homosexuals in active ministerial positions in churches with other socio-historical evils. This type of reasoning is powerful in its emotive effect. No one wants to be associated with such and such an historical evil, so because of the social pressure exerted by society many people simply just ‘fall in line’ with the culture. It seems you are trying to do the same with me (and by implication other complementarians) – shame on you.
I agree with Thomas Schreiner who said, “The truth or falsity of both views [i.e., complementarianism and egalitarianism] must be established by an intensive exegesis of the biblical text,” not by societal pressure (“An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 2nd ed., ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005], p. 86).
To say that complementarians “close their eyes and chose not to read” the various testimonies of women in the Bible is to demonstrate your lack of familiarity with complementarian literature. To imply, also, that complementarians are only familiar with one or two verses from Paul’s writings is unfortunate. I’m sorry you had to go there.
God bless you.
Your brother in Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Jorge
June 12, 2006 @ 7:43 am
TeriLynn,
There is one other instance in the NT where the word “spirits” in the plural is used to refer to the Holy Spirit – more specifically the workings of the Holy Spirit. It is actually in the very same chapter we are considering. 1 Corinthians 14:12: “So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit (pneumaton, which is literally translated “Spirits”), strive to excel in building up the church” (ESV). For a comprehensive explanation of the meaning of “spirits of the prophets” in 1 Cor. 14:32, see the recent post on my blog.
The parallel between Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Corinthians 14:32 that you tried to draw just isn’t there. The verb “to submit” in 1 Corinthians 14:32 is between the workings of the Holy Spirit in the prophets (i.e. “the spirits of the prophets”) and the prophets themselves – not the prophets to the prophets (i.e. “the prophets are subject to one another). The object doing the voluntary submitting is the workings of the Holy Spirit within the prophets to the prophets.
A prophet could not claim “I could not control myself because the Holy Spirit compelled me to interrupt the worship service with a revelation!” No, because the Holy Spirit subjects himself in the gift of prophecy to the discretion of the prophet so as to maintain orderliness in worship.
Perhaps the discussion would be more fruitful if we actually spent time on Ephesians 5:21 and following rather than on 1 Corinthians 14:32.
In Christ,
Jorge
Comment by Jorge
June 12, 2006 @ 9:24 am
TeriLynn,
Pretty much every little nuance in Scripture has meaning.
I do not dispute that. I agree.
What I see is a deliberate shift from speaking generally to all women, to the singing out of either a specific woman or a specific relationship. The specific relationship would likely be a woman and her teacher since the primary subject of verses 11-12 is the phrase “let a woman learn”.
Did you mean “singular” here instead of “singing”? I am assuming you did. What about the possibility that in using the plural Paul was addressing the women in Ephesus, then by switching to the singular (some scholars refer to this as the generic singular) he was addressing all women everywhere?