The CBE Scroll

Comment by Jamie

December 12, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

1 Cor. 11:3 is a big one that those who believe in male headship use (or abuse).

However, what without a doubt convinces me it’s not about male headship is that it’s NOT in a hierarchical order.

If it were in a hierarchical order, it would be:

head of every woman – man
head of every man – Christ
head of Christ – God

That’s not how 1 Cor. 11:3 is listed. Plug in “source” for “head” and then it makes sense:

“Now I want you to realize that the source of every man is Christ; and the source of the woman is the man; and the source of Christ is God.”

But back to your original question, why is it that 1 Cor. 7:4 seems to be ignored by so many who support “headship”?

A wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband’s? A husband’s body does not belong to his alone but to his wife’s? We’re talking actualy, physical BODIES here! And it’s mutual. To me that’s a high degree of authority that both husband and wife have over each other.

And then of course we mutually submit to each other out of reverence for Chirst (Eph. 5:21) and God has authority over everyone and every thing.

I’d say we have a good deal of reason to respect, love, and support each other equally in whatever it is the Spirit calls us to do, including leadership, regardless of who or what we are.

Comment by Deborah

December 12, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

I do (as an egalitarian) hold some significance for “head.” But this sense is not one of superior authority or leadership. And in fact, 1 Cor 11:3 is precisely the verse that most concretely convinces me of this. Christ was temporarily suboordinated to the Father in His time on earth, but this verse is in present tense in the original Greek as well as in English. The Father’s headship of the Son cannot be a hierarchical matter because there is no hierarchy in the Trinity, an error which original creeds strive to avoid, however popular it is becoming. If the Father is–now, presently–the head of the Son, this is in regards to some other unique aspect of their relationship. But I won’t go there now, as that is not the main question.

Comment by Deborah

December 12, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

Oh, and the verb “is” only appears once and applies to the whole string of relationships, so if we are going to say that it is “historical present” (a phenomenon in Greek), then it would have to be historical present for everything in the list (as in, once upon a time, the husband was the head of the wife).

Comment by Charis

December 13, 2009 @ 6:36 am

To build upon Jamie’s observation above:

“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman [is] man, and the head of Christ [is] God.” 1 Cor 11:3

I Corinthians 11 provides a very good clarification that the meaning of the word “head” in this context is most likely “source” (see definitions of head- kephale in the Middle Liddell lexicon at Tufts Perseus.)

Paul continues explaining and clarifying his earlier point:

8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.1 Cor 11:8-12

“the woman of the man”- The man was the SOURCE of the woman (in Genesis 2)

“the man also by the woman”- but for every other man since has come BY a woman (his mother).

Therefore, neither man nor woman is independent of the other, nor superior to the other.

Comment by Lin

December 13, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

First of all, that passage says “The head of Christ is God”. It does not say the head of Christ is the Father. That is significant. And the sequence is not hierarchical as it would be in Greek if male only leadership was the message. God would come first.

” In what ways have you been convinced from Scripture, or has God shown you, that male “headship”, or leadership, both in the Church and the home, is not what He had in mind at all?”

So Secondly, what convinced me that is not what it means is reading all of scripture. There is no prohibition on women leading or teaching men in the Old Covenant so why would there be a NEW prohibition in the New Covenant? It did not make sense.

Thirdly, there is no such thing as ‘headship’ in Greek. That is a made up word based on our Western understanding of head. Is there a ‘bodyship’?

Fourthly, If the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate clearly an authority position, He would not have used head. He would have inspired a clear Greek word for leader or authority.

Fifthly, Why would Jesus Christ sacrifice Himself and the temple veil be torn in two so that only married women have a layer or mediator they must answer to between them and their personal Savior? It makes no sense.

Comment by Liz

December 13, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

And I would like to say, Lin, that your comment makes really good sense to me.

Comment by Trevor

December 13, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

Well done all, these are the kinds of comments that we are hoping to tease out on this issue. As I’ve mentioned it is a sticking point for many and a verse, or concept, that some folks just can’t get their head around. So keep the comments coming.

Comment by Dave

December 13, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

For me it was not one verse that did it. I was about to finish Bible College and thought I should work out the women in ministry issue before I got called to a church. At the college I went to they did not really discuss the issue at all (except to say that only ‘liberals’ believed women could preach).

So I sat down, starting with 1 Tim 2, and went through all the verses that were supposed to be the comp trump cards. My conclusion was that none of the verses could be considered clear, conclusive and/or culturally relevant.

Since then I have been going on quite a journey of discovery. I am going against the flow in my denomination, so I have found that I need to be able to articulate my view! A part of the journey has included the way that egal thinking has slotted neatly into my understanding of God and the rest of the BIble.

I have enjoyed reading the perspectives of others on this thread!

Comment by Deborah

December 13, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

Oh, yes, the egal bit was a long and arduous process for me too. If you all really want THAT story… lol.

Anyhow, I was just focusing on “head” here and what THAT does NOT mean. And, actually, I do have dozens of pages of musings exploring what perhaps it DOES mean, but that is not for here methinks….

Comment by Amanda B

December 15, 2009 @ 12:39 am

The NLT’s translation, to me, actually makes the issue of “headship” in ministry a moot point. If a wife is responsible to her husband, that has no bearing on her relationship to any other man on earth. There is no logical reason why a wife can’t be submitted to her husband but in leadership over other men (assuming a complementarian definition of “head”).

It’s translations like the NKJV, “…the head of woman is man…” that pose a more difficult argument. I have three main thoughts on “head” in this case:

1) As has already been mentioned above, the rest of the passage reiterates the idea of “source,” lending credit to the idea that “head” = “source.”

2) It is clear that believing women are not under the headship of men as a group — for instance, we are not to follow the leadership of some random unbeliever just because he possesses the right chromosomes. Thus, it cannot be the case that all men must lead all women (and thus, all women must be under a man), because such a conclusion leaves us in theological fallacy.

3) Paul’s main point in 1Cor 11:2-16 is about head coverings. He is not seeking to establish a developed doctrine on the male/female relationship. Statements like this one in verse 3 are of course important, and we need to understand them and take them seriously, but that is not what he’s actually trying to drive home. If we read this passage, dismissing the head coverings as a culture-specific injunction, but trumpet 11:3 until we’re blue in the face, we have entirely missed Paul’s main idea. The “headship principle” is a secondary point to establish his stance on head coverings — it is poor scholarship to make it the main message of the passage.

Comment by Jane

December 16, 2009 @ 11:26 am

I think what needs to be focused on more, is what ‘leader’ ship Requires, according to Jesus, Paul, the LORD GOD, because when you look at the requirements and Duties of Leadership-Headship, in the Bible,

it in no way asserts a man’s right to micro-manage/rule/oppress women, and for any to ‘insist’ on that right is to be in outright defiance against the LORD GOD.

That is where there isn’t enough focus, and the Bible is VERY clear, about the ‘dangers’ of abusing power–in the book of Job, chapter 31-, where it is discussed about the ‘wicked in power who oppress’ and why its allowed and their ‘sentence’,

is pretty darn serious. And one I sure wouldn’t take lightly, and Paul, warned, WARNED, numerous times, about abusing power, over the flock, over others, as did Jesus.

Those are the scriptures that really need to be focused on, rather than the debate over the typical scriptures that false prophets and brute beasts pull out of context to ‘protect their wicked entitlements to be ‘gods’ theorie– because the Word of God, is quicker and sharper than Any two edged sword,

so, for those who insist on their ‘rights’ to Lord and to have Headship…some things to ponder, and I’ll just post a few–there are THOUSANDS, OF SCRIPTURES, I COULD USE…

“Look not every man on ‘HIS OWN THINGS’, but EVERY MAN also on the things OF OTHERS. LET THIS MIND BE IN YOU, WHICH WAS ALSO IN CHRIST JESUS: WHO, BEING IN THE FORM OF GOD, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL TO GOD BUT

MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION AND TOOK UPON HIM THE FORM OF A ‘SERVANT’, and was made in the likeness of men.” Phil 2:4-7

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of GOOD BEHAVIOR, GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY, apt to teach; Not given to wine, NO STRIKER, not greedy of filthy lucre; but PATIENT, NOT A B.R.A.W.L.E.R., not COVETOUS;…1 Tim 3:2-3 [btw, in dictionary, in to be a striker is to hit–to fight, that includes domestic violence and to be a brawler is to fight, to be verbally Abusive, which numerous times, Paul and others, say to MEN, is a no, no.

Colossians 3, read entire thing–malice, verbal abuse, lying, a huge no, no, in fact, those who do those things, it says, the WRATH of GOD will come down–uh, sort of serious, doesn’t add up to that whole insistence on the ‘right to rule’ over others, etc.,

that’s just three–there are tons of others, the point is, its THOSE scriptures, that just need to be quoted, they are Powerful enough in themselves, to address, those abuses of scripture, that some use, to protect their ‘stolen privileges to abuse and lord it over others.

and if they argue–let them argue with Jesus Christ.

Peace,

Jane

Comment by Sonnet

December 16, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

Gilbert Bilezikian in his article “I Believe in Male Headship” uses other New Testament verses to help us understand what the word *head* meant.

His free article is located at CBE…
maybe this link will work: http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

“Fortunately, the meaning of head can be easily determined within its scriptural use with reference to the headship of Christ in relation to the church, his body. Whatever function the head of the church performs in connection to the body defines the meaning of the term head in the New Testament.” (G. Bilezikian)

By using this approach, *head* appears to be defined within scripture as meaning servant provider or servant life-giver.

Comment by Sonnet

December 16, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

Jesus, the head of the church, taught us how to really live… how to love one another.
As the disciples followed Christ, they learned how to really love Him because “he first loved us.” When they learned that the Son and the Father are one, I think that it helped them to learn how to really love God (who they could not see) in spirit because they already loved God (Immanuel – in the flesh who they could see).

I believe this gave them a greater revelation of God’s nature and character. God is not just a distant, authoritarian Father to be obeyed or else!! God’s kindness and mercy led them (and leads us) to repentance and reconciliation.

In the fallen world, we’ve often seen “might makes right.” When husbands use their greater physical strength or their societal or religiously sanctioned entitlements to act in an authoritarian manner towards their wives, their marriages will be devoid of real intimacy and love. Wives will submit or obey out of fear or out of obligation.

God wants us to give freely and not under compulsion or obligation. We serve God by serving others. He doesn’t want us to feel forced to do it. When *head* is viewed as authority/leader, a wife is under compulsion to do what her husband asks or demands. When *head* is viewed as servant provider, one who loves her and cares for her like she is part of his own body, then the wife can willingly—happily!—serve him. They become united, bonded together, and seek after each other’s best welfare. Think of what a witness this example of covenantal marriage would look like to others… a tangible representation of Christ and His bride in our new covenant relationship with God.

Christ serving the church. The church serving Christ. Not a works-based motivation for service or legalism because we are trying to escape from a tyrant’s wrath and punishment, but a motivation to serve freely from love and gratefulness because of God’s love, mercy and grace towards us.

The *headship* title should motivate husbands to lay down their lives, their privileges and entitlements to raise up their wives to function on the same level with them. For a modern-day application, husbands should no longer “lord over” their wives by claiming final-decision-making power/authority. As each believing partner freely receives God’s love, this boundless love overflows out of us creating love for God and for others, equipping us to treat others the way we would like to be treated… with love, honor and respect and helping to restore us to pre-Fall relationships.

Comment by Jane

December 16, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

WOW, LOL, I LOVE this, when it happens,

you know, just browsing web before wrapping up some work and checking boards, etc, and so I’m reading this, and you know other than the use of headship in that authoritarian way and having focused on the abuses of that,

I’ve never really given much thought to it..what head means,

then I start reading/skimming through what you said Sonnet–and then, I don’t know, LOL, it just sort of Popped in my head [no pun intended],

Christ–the head, where Christ turns, his head to see, with his yes, the Church follows, with the Body. Why I thought that,?

Then, I asked, I wonder if that is why so many right now, are confronting sexism, etc.????? Globally as well as here at home.

And then, I do believe, there is a scripture, in Proverbs I believe [or maybe its something I recall someone telling me] about the man might be the head but the woman is the neck that turns it, I believe if memory serves me correct–that is a Middle Eastern saying.

Well, anyway, I just never thought/saw this as ‘head’ meaning, actual head with eyes, and where the direction of the head goes, the body follows. That it has more to do with the ‘direction’ of where the head goes–where the eyes go, etc., and then the body follows,

like ours does, if I turn my head towards the kitchen and then decide to go there…..my body follows.

So, I think–that ‘head’ is not about authority, its about Direction. Does that make sense? Anyway, I just saw this…I believe this is supposed to be spiritual, like, the head, turns this way or that way spiritually and the body follows, etc.

The body, would have to be in fellowship-communion–and confirmation that the head is right, in other words, I would think, that if the husband is the spiritual leader, and God says, go to such and such and witness here or do this work, the wife would also, have that prompting in her as well–some kind of confirmation.

Because its spiritual leading…doesn’t sound to me like its this authority dictatorship that its been made out to be, well, anyway, never saw that before. In that way that is,

and I suppose the man would have to be in tune with the Spirit [not of his own leading] for this headship to apply, in that way, otherwise, its just a man dictating and then its no longer spiritual…then its in the flesh, etc. Which of course, doesn’t glorify God, it just causes strife and a lot of problems.

Jane

Comment by Jane

December 16, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

Christ–the head, where Christ turns, his head to see, with his yes, the Church follows, with the Body. Why I thought that,? Sorry, that Should be, his head to see, with his Eyes.

Jane

Comment by Deborah

December 17, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

Jane, hi–you can find that quote about the neck in My Big Fat Greek Wedding but definitely not in scripture. I hear a lot of hierarchalist women use it w/ a certain tone of voice as to undercut their husbands in the one way they feel they are allowed to (b/c he is still the head). So from my background w/ it, I by no means feel it represents something of our ideal relating but more something of a release for female frustration.

Amanda–Never thought of #3 that way.

Sonnet–I only managed to skim portions, but we seem to have much in common w/ how we view these matters.

And to all (Jane, I don’t mean to gang up on you… this goes for you too!!)–I appreciate the diversity of considerations that you bring to the fore and the time you take to relay them. I am richer from these sorts of discussions. Grace and peace.

Comment by jane

December 18, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

Off topic here, but I wanted to pass this along to you. Some of you may be aware of her, I wasn’t, found her blog while looking for quotes [women missionaries] and she has some really Good writing, such as on Predatory Preachers and Sexual Discrimination, etc. [look to the side bar for her mini-blogs]

this blog, is called Egalitarian Eve, thought you’d enjoy.

http://egalitarianeve.blogspot.com/

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Jane

Comment by jlp

December 21, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

I guess the elder sees women this way:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/woman_domesticated

Comment by Jeske

December 22, 2009 @ 3:31 am

This may be somewhat off-topic, but I was wondering whether anyone knew where I can find a verse (by Paul, I think) which says something like if any believers are in disagreement, they must go to Christ who is the unity. I’ve read that long ago, but forgot where it stood. If anyone can help me, I’d appreciate it.

Comment by Lms526

December 22, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

This is an issue that I’ve given a lot of prayer and thought to over the last couple of years. I have to admit, some of these verses used to be a sticking point for me as well. I was raised in Churches were only men were allowed to be clergy. But in 2007, I attended a non-denominational retreat where I had the opportunity to listen to and interact with several female pastors. Before this experience, I didn’t know that there was a different perspective other than the male-headship/complementarian understanding of Scripture. There was no denying that these women pastors were spiritually gifted as both pastors and teachers. I couldn’t easily dismiss them as being disobedient to God. But I didn’t know how to square that with my understanding that women are not allowed to teach men. So I decided to do some online research. I eventually ended up ordering a book on Amazon.com called “Why Not Women” by Loren Cunningham, founder and president of YWAM. This book really helped broaden my understanding and helped explain some of these more difficult verses from an egalitarian perspective. Some of it was a little hard to swallow at first, but ultimately, I found the information to be freeing and empowering. After a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that I was an egalitarian. It wasn’t a quick process by any means. But I’m glad I went through it.

More recently, I read another book on the Quiverfull Movement by Kathryn Joyce. This book is not written from a Christian perspective, but she has some great insights about Patriarchy, male headship, and keeping women as perpetual children. This book also describes with great clarity the inherent dangers in this type of thinking. It is a very eye-opening book. I highly recommend both of these books to someone struggling with these types of issues. Both of these books are available from Amazon.com

1. Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

2. Why not Women?-By Loren Cunningham and David Hamilton

Blessings,
Lisa

Comment by Jane

December 22, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

“if any believers are in disagreement, they must go to Christ who is the unity.”

Its in Corinthians, where Paul is talking about suffering injustice and suing another member in a secular court–that it would be more beneficial to just let it go, etc. Because we don’t want the world seeing Christians as bickering, selfish, devouring folks–the world is that way,

we aren’t supposed to be that way. You have to also take that in light with what Jesus said about if someone wrongs you confront them, if they repent you have won back your brother, so forth, and then the forgive 7 times 70, etc.,

as well as all the numerous scriptures where Paul says for us to be of one mind, in Christ, be humble, not seeking our own interests but the welfare of others, so forth.

Then in James, it talks about the ‘judge’ whom is Jesus, standing at the door, that we are not to hold grudges, etc. And that be aware lest we devour one another, etc.

James is a good book, on that topic–because if you read that whole section, backwards, you can see that we war, because we have not, we have not because we ask amiss, and what is really Awesome about that whole content,

is that God, the Holy Spirit follows our desires to the point of Jealousy.

That means, what we lack, God is there, just waiting for HIM to fill–waiting for US to turn to Him…rather than to things, others, etc., that does cause the conflicts and strifes and inner turmoils and so forth.

I have found that the warnings–if you read the whole things, there is always that little Jewel in there, ‘smile’,

anyway, I don’t believe that we are to just ‘let’ injustice have full sway either, because even Paul, in Acts, did make statements about the injustices–so Paul wasn’t some pacifist mouse, by no means…

I think its really about attitude and whether our hearts have love or not, and that if we truly Love, in the Spirit, then we aren’t as apt to be ‘out to protect’ our own, sort of thing, because we know this life is temporal and so forth.

Easier said than done however, and sadly, many use those principles to be complicit to horrible abuses or injustices, so I think, it really boils down to our personal behavior, and how we react and live in the world–and to seek Wisdom,

which is through prayer. Not doctrine–we get into a trap when we rely on ‘doctrine’ alone–which can be the letter of the Law which kills, and we forget,

like James says, the Source, of all Life–God Himself.

Maybe, what we really struggle with, is not the lack of unity or injustices, Jesus said, in This world you will have trouble,

no, what we struggle with, is UNBELIEF.

Well–that is what I’m seeing anyway, hope that helps.

Peace,

Jane

Comment by Christina Park

December 23, 2009 @ 11:34 pm

This passage (Eph. 5:21-33) makes a lot more sense when studied in the original Greek, rather than the English translation.

There’s a great book called What Paul Really Said About Women, by John Temple Bristow, which elaborates on this passage and others like it.

There are two different Greek words for “head”, used separately depending on the situation. When Paul says “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church…”, the Greek word for “head” that Paul uses is not the word for ‘leader’ or ‘first in command’ (arche), but is the word “kephale” which refers to a different kind of “head”. The word kephale refers to the person who physically goes ahead of others to serve in a battle, or a literal physical head. It is a military term, referring not to the “director”, the “general”, or the “captain” in the battle, but to the first soldier into battle who renders his service before the second soldier, or line of soldiers, behind him.

Paul used the word “kephale” regarding husbands deliberately, given that this is a passage on mutual Christian submission (v.21), because it’s implication deliberately contradicted the popular view of the day from Aristotle that men should be rulers over women. Paul is indicating just what kind of “head” men are for women. It’s a play on words.

The words “kephale” and “arche” are not used interchangeably, and this is confirmed by the way Jewish scholars translated the O.T. from Hebrew into Greek in the Septuagint. When they encountered the Hebrew word for “head” in the O.T., which was “rosh” and could be used to mean “leader” or “physical head”, they chose the Greek “arche” when “rosh” was referring to “ruler” or “chief”, but they used the Greek “kephale” when “rosh” was referring to either a ‘physical head’ or the ‘first soldier leading others into battle with him’.

Additional confirmation of Paul’s intended meaning in Eph.5 is that the word Paul used for “submit” regarding wives was not the word for “be subject to” or “obey” (peitharcheo). He used hupotasso in its middle voice form (not the active form), which translates as a request of someone to be considerate of or responsive to the other person, not a description of that someone as submissive in status.

So, Paul is indicating that a husband is to be the “head” of service, going first in sacrificing his power and comfort to do God’s will concerning the marriage relationship, just as Christ is the “head” of the church as the “firstfruits” of this service (I Cor.15:20-23 “But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.”)- who sacrificed his privilege and comfort to serve the needs of the church, and just like God is the “head” of Christ by ministering to Christ’s needs and honor as God rose Christ from the dead (1 Cor.15:15). And, Paul says, women are to be willing to go in kind after the man serves the relationship goal.

The word “head” here refers to God’s role as initiator of ministry, not to God’s role as director and judge.

So, the man can fulfill his role as head of service by, among other things, apologizing first after a fight, being the first to sacrifice his free time to take care of the kids, and being the first to be considerate of what the wife would prefer in a joint decision.

Comment by Christina Park

December 24, 2009 @ 12:35 am

In other words, the husband is to be the first to “honor one another above yourselves” (Rom. 12:10), and concern himself with his wife’s edification.

Comment by Charis

December 24, 2009 @ 8:46 am

the word Paul used for “submit” regarding wives was not the word for “be subject to” or “obey” (peitharcheo). He used hupotasso in its middle voice form (not the active form), which translates as…

In three online sources I checked, hupotasso is in the PASSIVE voice in Ephesians 5:21, 24, as well as 1 Peter 3. (see S4A interlinear, interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm, and BLB

In the PASSIVE voice the subject is acted upon or receives the action expressed by the verb. No volition – nor even necessarily awareness of the action – is implied on the part of the subject.

As a garden is SUBJECT to the gardener, without volition nor choice.

The garden will flourish or die depending upon whether the gardener chooses to nourish and cherish or not. In this manner the wife is SUBJECT to the husband in EVERYTHING (PASSIVE), and the husband is to LOVE (4 times in the IMPERATIVE).

Husbands should be sweating about this subjection, not wives.

AND even CBMW husbands, if they understood this, would be going right to Ephesians 5:21 to INSIST that this (PASSIVE) SUBJECTION is MUTUAL!!!! :)

which it is

the mutual subjection of Ephesians 5:21 is in the PASSIVE voice.

Comment by TL

December 24, 2009 @ 10:57 am

My understanding of the wife’s instruction to be submissive to the husband in everything, is that she is to arrange herself under, support, honor and be connected to her husband in the whole of their lives together. She is not to separate from her husband in anything.

Comment by Charis

December 24, 2009 @ 11:21 am

TL,

Not to sidetrack, but how would that work in the case of Sapphira? I think a wife is called to oppose and expose her husband at times.

Which BTW is quite compatible with the Fact of her passive subjection (Eph 5:24, 1 Peter 3). Because she IS subject to him, and his choices will impact her (perhaps more than vice versa? since the Bible insists she is subject to him in EVERYTHING as the church is to Christ) she needs to oppose things which are going to lead to death for her and the household (for example see Abigail in 1 Sam 25 and the book of Esther)

Comment by Frank

December 24, 2009 @ 11:48 am

Trevor, I find it curious that the elder held out at first from supporting a woman pastor because of the NLT rendering of 1 Cor. 11:3. He must have had an earlier edition. Because in the 2004 revision of the NLT, the verse reads: “But there is one thing I want you to know: The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” But in most cases where this verse is a “sticking point,” it is because too many people assume it means “authority over.”

But as Christina Park points out in her comment, when you investigate how kephale was used both in the Septuagint and in Greek texts, secular and religious, that were contemporary with the NT, other than in the military sense of a “pointman,” this word is never used as a description of leadership.

And when used in connection with the body, it has the sense of nourishing source that promotes the growth and development of the body(cf. Eph. 4:15-16). And regarding Eph. 5:21-33, I like what Larry Richards has to say about the meaning and application of this text:

In Eph. 5 Paul continues his instruction on how to be “imitators of God” and how to live a life of love (5:1). There is to be harmony and mutual submission in the church (5:15-21). Then Paul shows how to maintain harmony in marriage (5:22-33)…It is very critical here not to read into this passage hierarchical notions. Instead, it would appear that “head” is used in its well-established sense of source and nourisher of life. Rather than demand from the church, Christ “gave himself up for her” (v.25). His purpose is not to rob the church of her identity but to help her achieve her full potential: “to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (vv. 26-27). The husband imitates Christ by [so] loving his wife–”feeds and cares for” her (again in the sense of head as source and norisher)–just as Christ does the church” (v.29) (cf. “Head,” EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF BIBLE WORDS, Zondervan, 1985, pp. 328-329).

The only real “sticking point” with me on 1 Cor. 11:3 is how this text is misused and abused to make the so-called “eternal subordination of the Son to the Father” the theological basis and warrant for maintaining “the permanent subordination of women to men.” This is an anti-trinitarian, anti-woman heresy that I detest and oppose with a purple passion. And for the last few weeks, on Cheryl Schatz’s website, I argued extensively with a complementarian regarding this very issue, apparently to no avail. But that’s all I will say about that endeavor.

Since it is Christmas Eve, I will now wish everyone a Merry Christmas. And a Happy New Year as well, before I forget. See you all in 2010. “Good Lord willing, and the creek don’t rise,” as my mom used to say.

Comment by TL

December 24, 2009 @ 7:10 pm

“Not to sidetrack, but how would that work in the case of Sapphira? I think a wife is called to oppose and expose her husband at times.”

Sapphira didn’t do that. She appeared to have obeyed him. It is my opinion that arranging oneself under in attaching oneself to another’s life, does not preclude opposing and exposing when deemed necessary. If you are really supporting the life of another, when they are going astray you warn them.

Comment by TL

December 24, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

And Merry Christmas everyone. Praying for all to have a blessed celebration…… remembering the humble beginnings of our Lord and Messiah.

Comment by Jane

December 24, 2009 @ 9:16 pm

“My understanding of the wife’s instruction to be submissive to the husband in everything, is that she is to arrange herself under, support, honor and be connected to her husband in the whole of their lives together. She is not to separate from her husband in anything.’

Well, gee, lets hope he doesn’t demand her to take part in raping their children or selling them or prostituting her self out, and her thinking that to submit means ‘she must obey’.

That is clearly, an abuse of scripture, in no way is submission meaning that one cannot separate from husband in anything, IF that were the case, then why does the Word also say, be separate from them, touch NOT their unclean things or that we are not to be unequally yoked or to disobey God, etc.

And to just ‘warn’ them, NO, I think there are times that yes, we are to obey God, over husbands, plain as day…and the Bible is very clear about our duty to obey God first. To say that women are supposed to submit in everything with this meaning that she cannot disobey,

is basically, putting ‘husband’ as Savior and as God – it’s idol worship, plain and simple. And in the case of Sapphira, it killed her…

why I believe that God put that in the Word, was to show that, no dumb dumb, you don’t disobey God in agreement with your husband, because guess what, her husband’s ‘supposed authority’ didn’t save her ass now did it?

NO, when it comes to sin, we are to obey God, husbands aside…to say otherwise, is putting a whole new twist and meaning on the ‘one flesh’ concept,

one flesh does not mean, a woman becomes brainless and without responsibility for her choices nor her moral actions. IF that were the case, then Jesus would have died for men, leaving MEN to be the Saviors for their wives,
and heck, wives could just sin galore with the permission of their so called ‘god husbands’,

na, I think, that is just taking submission to the really extreme degree–I don’t know if I concur with the passive text on submission either,

but, good grief, where does COMMON SENSE ever come into play, Seriously?

Jane

Comment by Jane

December 24, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

Sorry, don’t mean to be crass, esp today, but I’ve just grown a tad tired of the abuses of scripture, esp when reading numerous women rejecting Christ, all together, because there are teachings that go along those lines, women who have been horribly abused in the name of Jesus Christ,

and you know something, God showed His true nature in the life of Jesus, and Jesus was no pimp or dictator or despot. He healed women and men, His entire ministry, He healed and He nourished and He Loved,

NOT ONCE, DID HE DEMAND WOMEN TO SUBMIT TO ABUSE, not once…MEN have done this,

so why do we continue to perpetuate blasphemy? Because THAT is what it is,

God does not say, do not sin on one hand then make ‘exceptions’ to women, just because they have husbands who are jerks – clearly, to say otherwise, is really missing it.

Submission has to do with living in peace, being humble, willingness to serve; not this blind obedience garbage that is being spewed by the beast who is putting himself up as God today,

Submission has to do with honoring God, first and foremost. Heck, if we were to take the warped teachings of so many to heart, that would mean, if hubby dear demands a wife to worship satan or to take the number of the beast, well by golly she had better do it or else,

it’s nonsense, it’s just mind- blowing nonsense.

Enough said

Jane

Comment by David

December 27, 2009 @ 5:40 am

With so many comments, I hope I’m not repeating anything unnecessarily in these two comments:

I think that the basic misreading of one being the head of the other in the NT is that it is not about power over (that is a worldly misreading; because as fallen people we all love to have power), but, read in the light of the attitude of service which is to pervade relationships governed by love, it is about being unified: God and Christ are a unity, man and woman, a unity, etc.

The second point is the idea of ‘leader’. If we adopted a biblical concept and refered to ‘the servant team’ and the church servants, or referred to our paid brothers and sisters as ‘servants of the church’ a large part of the problem would go away…many men have no problem with women being servants, the shock would come when they realised that that is what we all are to be to each other.

Comment by Hailey

March 2, 2010 @ 2:07 am

This sermon is what led me to understand the bible’s words on male and female relationships differently. It’s profound, and wonderful, and hard to understand- it is good to wrestle with. Has anybody else seen this? http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.txt