Recently, I did a google search and found that a student in Michigan, named Chad Christian, wrote a paper in which he contrasted my view of egalitarianism with D.A. Carson's complementarianism. He concluded the paper by saying,
"While I do not firmly take a stance on either side of this debate, I believe that both Carson and Richardson exercise two extreme positions in this debate" (http://chaddchristian.blogspot.com/2011/03/womans-role-in-church.html).
To respond to Chad, let me say that first, I do not have an extreme position. I wrote him a response at his site, stating that my view of women and their gifts in the church does not negate the headship of the male and his authority in the home. After all, the New Testament shows us time and time again where wives are to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22 being a good example). I am one who believes in teaching what the Bible does...so I would not tell women to not submit to their husbands. This is the position of feminists, who I dub "extreme egalitarians." The Bible tells wives to submit; for those who refuse to acknowledge scriptural teaching on this are opposing Scripture, which is the exalted, inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God.
Last but not least, he writes that I oppose 1 Peter 3:7 as referring to spiritual authority. But what Chad does not understand is that I am defining "spiritual authority" in a different sense than he. He sees 1 Peter 3:7 as referring to spiritual authority, since the issue involved is headship in the home, which is given by God. I am referring to spiritual authority as having to do with the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4 and the Spirit giftedness of 1 Corinthians 12. I am discussing ecclesiology when I discuss spiritual authority, which I deem to be distinct from God-given roles in the home. After all, Paul does the same when, in the same passage that he tells wives to submit to their husbands (5:22), he also tells the Ephesians that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). Christ and the church are the example for the home, not the other way around. Many complementarians confuse which example is the standard...and thus, end up stifling the female voice in churches today.
I am not denying that in some sense, male headship in the home is spiritual authority; what I am denying, however, is that male headship can be used as the paradigm by which men and women are to operate as believers in the church. I believe that a woman can submit to her husband in the home and yet, operate in her God-given role to preach the Word (even if he isn't called to do so) in the church of God. I see giftedness by the Spirit (preaching, teaching, pastoring, apostleship, prophecy, etc.) as spiritual authority that is manifested apart from the gender of an individual and/or whether or not the individual is to submit or lead in the home. After all, there will be no marriage between man and woman in heaven (Matt. 22:30); if the church is to usher in the coming Kingdom of God (Matt. 6:10), and the coming Kingdom will have no marriage, then the church should be a divine institution where women are able to preach, teach, apostle, and pastor as God has given them ability. This does not undermine marriage; rather, if the wife is to be the glory of her husband (1 Cor. 11:8), and the wife is preaching and teaching as God has given her ability, then she does so "to the glory of her husband." The more the husband allows his wife to exercise her gifts, the more glorious for him she will be. Conversely, the more the husband forces his wife to sit on the sidelines while he does the work of God, the less glorious he will be for God and His Kingdom. What a shame that so many men have this mindset! I thank God for those who don't, and pray for those who do that one day, their hearts and minds will be changed.
Feel free to check out Chad's site if you so desire. Also, feel free to leave comments. God bless.
Showing posts with label Blog Responses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog Responses. Show all posts
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Missing Link
I discussed yesterday that while God’s Word tells wives to submit (not single women!), it does not tell the husband to RULE over his wife! Today, though, I wanna go back to some of the Scriptural passages we examined yesterday regarding this discussion of men being in charge—Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 3. In addition, I’d like for us to examine a part of Genesis 2. This discussion will focus on the implications of these passages of Scripture. It is my belief that complementarians are half-dividing the Word of Truth on this matter.
Let’s take a look at Ephesians 5. Just so everyone can read it without worry, I’ll paste it here:
22(AR) Wives,(AS) submit to your own husbands,(AT) as to the Lord. 23For(AU) the husband is the head of the wife even as(AV) Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is(AW) himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit(AX) in everything to their husbands.
Notice something here: there are two relationships being compared to each other—husband/wife and Christ/church. In both relationships, there is a leader and a follower: in the home, the husband is the leader, and in the church, Christ is the leader. Both the husband and Christ are heads, but the husband is ONLY HEAD OF THE HOME! He is head of the home because of Eve’s punishment back in Genesis 3. However, Christ is the head of the church and should be Lord of the home (the husband is the lowercase “l,” lord of the home).
Somehow, complementarians have distorted the Scriptures to their own liking. They will totally affirm the first part of Ephesians 5:22, that “the husband is the head of the wife.” But they will stop at that—to them, the fact that the husband is the head of the home means that now, the MALE is the leader of the FEMALE (all men are over all women); and then, when it gets to the church, now, the MAN rules over the WOMAN in church. Complementarians take God’s words to Eve in Genesis 3:16 and misapply it across all of society. I even know of complementarians who have said that if a woman is in a manager’s position over her husband in any given company, the man should leave that company (because the woman is not to be over the man, from 1 Timothy 2)! How absurd! Does God’s Word REALLY say that? Of course not.
Let’s look at the second part of verse 22: “For the husband is the head of the wife EVEN AS CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH…” Did you catch that? Christ is the head of the church, not the man, the husband, the deacon, the preacher, the teacher, the Pastor, the trustees, the musicians, the choir members, etc! NOONE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH BUT CHRIST ALONE! The husband is the lowercase “lord” of the home, but Christ is the uppercase “LORD” of the church! The man’s sphere runs to the home and ONLY the home; it stops when he reaches the church. Yes, his wife is supposed to acknowledge his headship in public before all, but his headship doesn’t give him the right to determine what gifts his wife has or whether or not she can use them. That’s not the husband’s call. The husband’s job is to lead in the marriage, NOT IN THE CHURCH! The husband only has one wife (monogamous), so he was never given the job of running the church, where there are lots of married women and single women alike. The husband has no authority over other women—only his wife!
Let’s look at 1 Timothy 3. Yesterday, I made the point that women can serve in the church as leaders as well; that, based on the chapter, Paul includes women when he mentions them later in 1 Timothy 5 and calls them “despots of the home” (literal translation of the Greek word “oikodespotein”). But let’s reexamine 1 Timothy 3 again:
1The saying is(A) trustworthy: If anyone aspires to(B) the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore(C) an overseer[a] must be above reproach,(D) the husband of one wife,[b](E) sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable,(F) hospitable,(G) able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but(H) gentle, not quarrelsome,(I) not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity(J) keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for(K) God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:1-5, ESV)
One of the qualifications for the leader is to be a good manager of his household. But notice what Paul says in verse 5: “for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”
I want us to look at the two verbs in this rhetorical question of Paul’s: the first is “manage” and the second is “care.” Paul uses the word “manage” with regards to the home (“household”); but what does he use in regards to the church? Does he use the word “manage”? Does he use the word “despot” as he did with the young widows? No. Paul doesn’t do anything of the sort—he uses the Greek word “epimeleisetai,” meaning “to care for.”
Don’t you see a difference in these two words? When a person manages something, they are over everything, as is a manager in a manufacturing plant or a corporation, for example. But does a person have to be the manager “to take care of” something? No.
To illustrate my point biblically, let’s go back to Genesis 2. Let’s read one verse of this chapter:
15The LORD God took the man(O) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Genesis 2:15, ESV).
Notice that, although Adam was the first human created, he was placed in the Garden as a steward—to work and keep the Garden. He was God’s assistant, but HE DID NOT OWN THE GARDEN! God owned the Garden, but He chose Adam to work it and keep it. And this is what God expects the leader in the church to do—work in the church and keep the church pure and spotless from temptation and error (to maintain doctrinal purity). So, while the man (or woman) can manage their homes, they are not to RULE the church—but to work it and keep it. The Lord owns the church just as He owned the Garden of Eden. Therefore, there is no room for power in the church. All the power belongs to Christ and He dispenses it as He sees fit.
There is no direct link here between the husband as head of the home and as head of the church; yet, it’s surprising that conservatives link “the church and home” in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. If you read works such as “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” by Grudem and Piper, you’ll find that they mention “church and home” or “home and church” several times throughout the pages. But the problem comes in when you have to prove that husbands were given RULE over the church, because they lead in the home—and that is proof that the complementarians don’t have.
This then, is the missing link—the connection between the husband leading in the home and leading in the church. Husbands, nor do wives, children, or church officials, serve as the head of the church. In fact, there is language from 1 Peter to tell us the role of overseers in the church:
2(C) shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,[a](D) not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;[b](E) not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not(F) domineering over those in your charge, but(G) being examples to the flock.
Peter tells the elders not to “DOMINEER” over those they serve. What are the leaders to be? Shepherds. And as shepherds, they are to lead LIKE THE CHIEF SHEPHERD. And what does the Chief Shepherd do?
11(H) I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd(I) lays down his life for the sheep. 12He who is(J) a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and(K) leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and(L) scatters them. 13He flees because(M) he is a hired hand and(N) cares nothing for the sheep. 14(O) I am the good shepherd.(P) I know my own and(Q) my own know me, 15(R) just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and(S) I lay down my life for the sheep.
The undershepherds and other leaders of God’s church are to care for the church.
Nowhere in the passages above do we read of leaders RULING the church. If complementarians want to “connect the dots” and show why men are the leaders of the church, they will have to invent interpretations and perform “Olympic exegesis” to do it.
Let’s take a look at Ephesians 5. Just so everyone can read it without worry, I’ll paste it here:
22(AR) Wives,(AS) submit to your own husbands,(AT) as to the Lord. 23For(AU) the husband is the head of the wife even as(AV) Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is(AW) himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit(AX) in everything to their husbands.
Notice something here: there are two relationships being compared to each other—husband/wife and Christ/church. In both relationships, there is a leader and a follower: in the home, the husband is the leader, and in the church, Christ is the leader. Both the husband and Christ are heads, but the husband is ONLY HEAD OF THE HOME! He is head of the home because of Eve’s punishment back in Genesis 3. However, Christ is the head of the church and should be Lord of the home (the husband is the lowercase “l,” lord of the home).
Somehow, complementarians have distorted the Scriptures to their own liking. They will totally affirm the first part of Ephesians 5:22, that “the husband is the head of the wife.” But they will stop at that—to them, the fact that the husband is the head of the home means that now, the MALE is the leader of the FEMALE (all men are over all women); and then, when it gets to the church, now, the MAN rules over the WOMAN in church. Complementarians take God’s words to Eve in Genesis 3:16 and misapply it across all of society. I even know of complementarians who have said that if a woman is in a manager’s position over her husband in any given company, the man should leave that company (because the woman is not to be over the man, from 1 Timothy 2)! How absurd! Does God’s Word REALLY say that? Of course not.
Let’s look at the second part of verse 22: “For the husband is the head of the wife EVEN AS CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH…” Did you catch that? Christ is the head of the church, not the man, the husband, the deacon, the preacher, the teacher, the Pastor, the trustees, the musicians, the choir members, etc! NOONE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH BUT CHRIST ALONE! The husband is the lowercase “lord” of the home, but Christ is the uppercase “LORD” of the church! The man’s sphere runs to the home and ONLY the home; it stops when he reaches the church. Yes, his wife is supposed to acknowledge his headship in public before all, but his headship doesn’t give him the right to determine what gifts his wife has or whether or not she can use them. That’s not the husband’s call. The husband’s job is to lead in the marriage, NOT IN THE CHURCH! The husband only has one wife (monogamous), so he was never given the job of running the church, where there are lots of married women and single women alike. The husband has no authority over other women—only his wife!
Let’s look at 1 Timothy 3. Yesterday, I made the point that women can serve in the church as leaders as well; that, based on the chapter, Paul includes women when he mentions them later in 1 Timothy 5 and calls them “despots of the home” (literal translation of the Greek word “oikodespotein”). But let’s reexamine 1 Timothy 3 again:
1The saying is(A) trustworthy: If anyone aspires to(B) the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore(C) an overseer[a] must be above reproach,(D) the husband of one wife,[b](E) sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable,(F) hospitable,(G) able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but(H) gentle, not quarrelsome,(I) not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity(J) keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for(K) God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:1-5, ESV)
One of the qualifications for the leader is to be a good manager of his household. But notice what Paul says in verse 5: “for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”
I want us to look at the two verbs in this rhetorical question of Paul’s: the first is “manage” and the second is “care.” Paul uses the word “manage” with regards to the home (“household”); but what does he use in regards to the church? Does he use the word “manage”? Does he use the word “despot” as he did with the young widows? No. Paul doesn’t do anything of the sort—he uses the Greek word “epimeleisetai,” meaning “to care for.”
Don’t you see a difference in these two words? When a person manages something, they are over everything, as is a manager in a manufacturing plant or a corporation, for example. But does a person have to be the manager “to take care of” something? No.
To illustrate my point biblically, let’s go back to Genesis 2. Let’s read one verse of this chapter:
15The LORD God took the man(O) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Genesis 2:15, ESV).
Notice that, although Adam was the first human created, he was placed in the Garden as a steward—to work and keep the Garden. He was God’s assistant, but HE DID NOT OWN THE GARDEN! God owned the Garden, but He chose Adam to work it and keep it. And this is what God expects the leader in the church to do—work in the church and keep the church pure and spotless from temptation and error (to maintain doctrinal purity). So, while the man (or woman) can manage their homes, they are not to RULE the church—but to work it and keep it. The Lord owns the church just as He owned the Garden of Eden. Therefore, there is no room for power in the church. All the power belongs to Christ and He dispenses it as He sees fit.
There is no direct link here between the husband as head of the home and as head of the church; yet, it’s surprising that conservatives link “the church and home” in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. If you read works such as “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” by Grudem and Piper, you’ll find that they mention “church and home” or “home and church” several times throughout the pages. But the problem comes in when you have to prove that husbands were given RULE over the church, because they lead in the home—and that is proof that the complementarians don’t have.
This then, is the missing link—the connection between the husband leading in the home and leading in the church. Husbands, nor do wives, children, or church officials, serve as the head of the church. In fact, there is language from 1 Peter to tell us the role of overseers in the church:
2(C) shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,[a](D) not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;[b](E) not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not(F) domineering over those in your charge, but(G) being examples to the flock.
Peter tells the elders not to “DOMINEER” over those they serve. What are the leaders to be? Shepherds. And as shepherds, they are to lead LIKE THE CHIEF SHEPHERD. And what does the Chief Shepherd do?
11(H) I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd(I) lays down his life for the sheep. 12He who is(J) a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and(K) leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and(L) scatters them. 13He flees because(M) he is a hired hand and(N) cares nothing for the sheep. 14(O) I am the good shepherd.(P) I know my own and(Q) my own know me, 15(R) just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and(S) I lay down my life for the sheep.
The undershepherds and other leaders of God’s church are to care for the church.
Nowhere in the passages above do we read of leaders RULING the church. If complementarians want to “connect the dots” and show why men are the leaders of the church, they will have to invent interpretations and perform “Olympic exegesis” to do it.
Does God Tell Man To "Rule"? (Continued)
I stated in my last post that I would explain the issue of "rule" in 1 Timothy 3 in my next post. So, continuing our discussion of the man "ruling," I am now gonna tackle the problems of 1 Timothy 3.
Let's read the passage there:
1The saying is(A) trustworthy: If anyone aspires to(B) the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore(C) an overseer[a] must be above reproach,(D) the husband of one wife,[b](E) sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable,(F) hospitable,(G) able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but(H) gentle, not quarrelsome,(I) not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity(J) keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for(K) God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:1-5, ESV)
1 Timothy 3:1-5 concerns the office of overseer, or the pastorate. While there are a lot of issues regarding this passage, I will only cover those necessary for the current discussion regarding "ruling."
In verses 4 and 5, the ESV translators use the word "manage" to refer to the Greek verb "proistemi," meaning "to be over," or "to stand over." Now many people have said, see, this refers to the man, because the man is to "manage his household." However, to say this is to overlook many other issues with this text, one being the idea of managing itself.
To see this problem, look at 1 Timothy 5:14(ESV)--
"14So I would have(U) younger widows marry, bear children,(V) manage their households, and(W) give the adversary no occasion for slander."
Paul writes that the younger widows should "MANAGE THEIR HOUSEHOLDS." We have a problem here. Didn't Paul tell the pastoral candidates (and diaconate candidates) that they too, should "manage their households?" It's funny that this passage, 1 Timothy 3, has been used as a proof text for only males leading in the church. But if this were so, why doesn't Paul distinguish between the rule of the man in the home and the rule of the woman in the home?
In case you think I'm joking, let's look at the word in the Greek for the young widows to "manage their households." The word for "manage" in the Greek is "oikodespotein." The word itself is an infinitive, which means it is to be translated with the preposition "to" and then the verb itself (such as "to manage"). The Greek word "oikodespotein" is a compound word, consisting of "oikos" (house) and "despotein" (to be ruler). The word "despotein" in Greek is the ancestor of our English word "despot," which refers to an dictator, one who rules with an iron fist. Why would Paul be telling the women to be rulers of their households, and yet, only make males the leaders of the church in 1 Timothy 3? The fact that he uses the same language tells us that Paul saw women fit for the leadership of the church as well. Parallel this with the fact that a diaconate is also created for women (notice that the first diaconate in Acts 6 did not include women).
As I've stated much before, there is no Scriptural evidence showing that men received a Scriptural mandate to "rule" the home. And do you know why? because, as Udo Middleman said it in his book "The Innocence of God," the rule in marriage was a distortion of God's original intention for mankind. God gave man and woman rule over the earth together-- and partnership in the home. But today, we're still oppressing women and placing them on a domestic "leash."
Let's read the passage there:
1The saying is(A) trustworthy: If anyone aspires to(B) the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore(C) an overseer[a] must be above reproach,(D) the husband of one wife,[b](E) sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable,(F) hospitable,(G) able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but(H) gentle, not quarrelsome,(I) not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity(J) keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for(K) God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:1-5, ESV)
1 Timothy 3:1-5 concerns the office of overseer, or the pastorate. While there are a lot of issues regarding this passage, I will only cover those necessary for the current discussion regarding "ruling."
In verses 4 and 5, the ESV translators use the word "manage" to refer to the Greek verb "proistemi," meaning "to be over," or "to stand over." Now many people have said, see, this refers to the man, because the man is to "manage his household." However, to say this is to overlook many other issues with this text, one being the idea of managing itself.
To see this problem, look at 1 Timothy 5:14(ESV)--
"14So I would have(U) younger widows marry, bear children,(V) manage their households, and(W) give the adversary no occasion for slander."
Paul writes that the younger widows should "MANAGE THEIR HOUSEHOLDS." We have a problem here. Didn't Paul tell the pastoral candidates (and diaconate candidates) that they too, should "manage their households?" It's funny that this passage, 1 Timothy 3, has been used as a proof text for only males leading in the church. But if this were so, why doesn't Paul distinguish between the rule of the man in the home and the rule of the woman in the home?
In case you think I'm joking, let's look at the word in the Greek for the young widows to "manage their households." The word for "manage" in the Greek is "oikodespotein." The word itself is an infinitive, which means it is to be translated with the preposition "to" and then the verb itself (such as "to manage"). The Greek word "oikodespotein" is a compound word, consisting of "oikos" (house) and "despotein" (to be ruler). The word "despotein" in Greek is the ancestor of our English word "despot," which refers to an dictator, one who rules with an iron fist. Why would Paul be telling the women to be rulers of their households, and yet, only make males the leaders of the church in 1 Timothy 3? The fact that he uses the same language tells us that Paul saw women fit for the leadership of the church as well. Parallel this with the fact that a diaconate is also created for women (notice that the first diaconate in Acts 6 did not include women).
As I've stated much before, there is no Scriptural evidence showing that men received a Scriptural mandate to "rule" the home. And do you know why? because, as Udo Middleman said it in his book "The Innocence of God," the rule in marriage was a distortion of God's original intention for mankind. God gave man and woman rule over the earth together-- and partnership in the home. But today, we're still oppressing women and placing them on a domestic "leash."
Does God Tell Man To "Rule"?
A recent comment to the post addressed my last post regarding Grudem’s response from his work on “Biblical Foundations of Manhood and Womanhood.” In this work Grudem gave ten reasons why Adam was head of the marriage BEFORE the fall; but as I’ve stated, Grudem confuses headship of the marriage with headship over creation—and merges creation authority with marriage authority (making Adam head of the marriage from Genesis 1). Still, though, if this is true, you have to explain why it is that God waits until Genesis 3 to tell Adam and Eve—and why He gives it as a punishment to Eve! The last response about this post, titled “Scripture to the Rescue!”, failed to give specific scriptural references to the issue of why Adam was the head of the marriage before the fall. Let this be a lesson to all those who respond to the blog to give references regarding their statements. I would like to see where I am BIBLICALLY wrong regarding this matter—so all posts should contain Scripture references.
Today’s post concerns these supposed “Scripture references” the blog commenter mentions (without giving specifics). Let’s look at passages regarding headship.
The first passage will be Ephesians 5:
22(AR) Wives,(AS) submit to your own husbands,(AT) as to the Lord. 23For(AU) the husband is the head of the wife even as(AV) Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is(AW) himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit(AX) in everything to their husbands.
25(AY) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and(AZ) gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by(BA) the washing of water(BB) with the word, 27so(BC) that he might present the church to himself in splendor,(BD) without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way(BE) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because(BF) we are members of his body. 31(BG) "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and(BH) the two shall become one flesh." 32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33However,(BI) let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she(BJ) respects her husband.
First, in verse 22, the wife is told to SUBMIT to her husband. However, look at the analogy: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” Notice here that the emphasis is on the wife to honor and respect her husband, not on the husband to RULE over his wife. The emphasis is on submission even in Genesis 3:16, where God tells Eve that Adam “would rule over you.” The word for “rule over” in the Septuagint is “kurieuo,” meaning “to be lord.” It is fitting that the husband should be compared to Christ in the analogy—for it is consistent with Genesis 3. But there are NO OTHER REFERENCES to Adam’s headship in Genesis. Other references to Adam’s headship in Genesis are welcome. Feel free to respond to this post if you should find any references in Genesis that I haven’t noted.
Notice, though, that the rest of Scripture does not deal with the husband being “lord,” but with the woman “submitting.” Similarly, along with the Ephesians 5 analogy, the rest of Scripture concerns itself with the church submitting to Christ. This explains why Paul’s epistles, such as Philippians, deal with following Christ’s example among believers. Let’s look at Philippians chapter 2:
“3Do nothing from(F) rivalry or(G) conceit, but in(H) humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4Let each of you(I) look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5(J) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6(K) who, though he was in(L) the form of God, did not count equality with God(M) a thing to be grasped, 7but(N) made himself nothing, taking the form of a(O) servant,[b](P) being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by(Q) becoming obedient to the point of death,(R) even death on a cross. 9(S) Therefore(T) God has(U) highly exalted him and bestowed on him(V) the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus(W) every knee should bow,(X) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and(Y) every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is(Z) Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12Therefore, my beloved,(AA) as you have always(AB) obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for(AC) it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for(AD) his good pleasure.
Notice here that Paul tells them to look upon the interests of each other (rather than themselves). Then, in verse 5, he begins to show them how to do this: look at the example of Christ’s humility. But then, in verses 12 and 13, Paul tells them to “work out” their salvation, because God is at work in them, using them for His glory (“to will and work for his good pleasure”). Following the example of Christ is how the church would submit to Christ. Christ does not FORCE the church to submit; rather, as the Pauline Epistles show us, Christ desires that the church CHOOSE to submit. I’ve always heard it said that “God is a gentleman.” He doesn’t force Himself on you; but for those who choose Him, they get all of God’s goodness and blessings bestowed upon them.
One more point to be made about Ephesians 5: after the wives are told to submit to their husbands, Paul tells husbands to “love your wives.” It is interesting that in the current debate, the emphasis seems to be submission regarding the wife—while no emphasis is placed on the husband loving his wife.
Look at Colossians 3:19 (ESV):
“Husbands love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”
These words mimic the words of Paul to the Ephesians in Eph. 5. When Paul mentions the husbands in Colossians, he tells them not to be harsh with their wives (too aggressive). But when he writes Ephesians, read what he tells the Ephesian men:
“25(AY) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and(AZ) gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by(BA) the washing of water(BB) with the word, 27so(BC) that he might present the church to himself in splendor,(BD) without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way(BE) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because(BF) we are members of his body.”
Paul tells husbands not to be harsh with their wives in Colossians, but goes into greater detail regarding the love of a husband for a wife in Ephesians 5. How could the husbands be gentle towards their wives? By loving them AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER! How else? To love their wives as much as they love their own bodies (if not more).
In verse 29 above, Paul gives an analogy of the wife as the “body” of the husband. If the wife is the husband’s body, he should love her and cherish her because to do so is to honor his own body (which makes sense). No one DELIBERATELY disrespects and violates their own body; therefore, it doesn’t make sense to disrespect and hurt your wife if your wife is your own body. Notice in Colossians 3 as well as in Ephesians 5, that Paul does not say, “HUSBANDS, RULE YOUR WIVES, AS CHRIST ALSO RULED THE CHURCH, AND REQUIRED SERVITUDE FROM HER.” The text focuses on husbands LOVING their wives, showing honor to their wives—not lording authority over them.
But someone is going to argue, “Hey, what about 1 Timothy 3?” I’ll cover that in my next post.
Today’s post concerns these supposed “Scripture references” the blog commenter mentions (without giving specifics). Let’s look at passages regarding headship.
The first passage will be Ephesians 5:
22(AR) Wives,(AS) submit to your own husbands,(AT) as to the Lord. 23For(AU) the husband is the head of the wife even as(AV) Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is(AW) himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit(AX) in everything to their husbands.
25(AY) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and(AZ) gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by(BA) the washing of water(BB) with the word, 27so(BC) that he might present the church to himself in splendor,(BD) without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way(BE) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because(BF) we are members of his body. 31(BG) "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and(BH) the two shall become one flesh." 32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33However,(BI) let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she(BJ) respects her husband.
First, in verse 22, the wife is told to SUBMIT to her husband. However, look at the analogy: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” Notice here that the emphasis is on the wife to honor and respect her husband, not on the husband to RULE over his wife. The emphasis is on submission even in Genesis 3:16, where God tells Eve that Adam “would rule over you.” The word for “rule over” in the Septuagint is “kurieuo,” meaning “to be lord.” It is fitting that the husband should be compared to Christ in the analogy—for it is consistent with Genesis 3. But there are NO OTHER REFERENCES to Adam’s headship in Genesis. Other references to Adam’s headship in Genesis are welcome. Feel free to respond to this post if you should find any references in Genesis that I haven’t noted.
Notice, though, that the rest of Scripture does not deal with the husband being “lord,” but with the woman “submitting.” Similarly, along with the Ephesians 5 analogy, the rest of Scripture concerns itself with the church submitting to Christ. This explains why Paul’s epistles, such as Philippians, deal with following Christ’s example among believers. Let’s look at Philippians chapter 2:
“3Do nothing from(F) rivalry or(G) conceit, but in(H) humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4Let each of you(I) look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5(J) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6(K) who, though he was in(L) the form of God, did not count equality with God(M) a thing to be grasped, 7but(N) made himself nothing, taking the form of a(O) servant,[b](P) being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by(Q) becoming obedient to the point of death,(R) even death on a cross. 9(S) Therefore(T) God has(U) highly exalted him and bestowed on him(V) the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus(W) every knee should bow,(X) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and(Y) every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is(Z) Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12Therefore, my beloved,(AA) as you have always(AB) obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for(AC) it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for(AD) his good pleasure.
Notice here that Paul tells them to look upon the interests of each other (rather than themselves). Then, in verse 5, he begins to show them how to do this: look at the example of Christ’s humility. But then, in verses 12 and 13, Paul tells them to “work out” their salvation, because God is at work in them, using them for His glory (“to will and work for his good pleasure”). Following the example of Christ is how the church would submit to Christ. Christ does not FORCE the church to submit; rather, as the Pauline Epistles show us, Christ desires that the church CHOOSE to submit. I’ve always heard it said that “God is a gentleman.” He doesn’t force Himself on you; but for those who choose Him, they get all of God’s goodness and blessings bestowed upon them.
One more point to be made about Ephesians 5: after the wives are told to submit to their husbands, Paul tells husbands to “love your wives.” It is interesting that in the current debate, the emphasis seems to be submission regarding the wife—while no emphasis is placed on the husband loving his wife.
Look at Colossians 3:19 (ESV):
“Husbands love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”
These words mimic the words of Paul to the Ephesians in Eph. 5. When Paul mentions the husbands in Colossians, he tells them not to be harsh with their wives (too aggressive). But when he writes Ephesians, read what he tells the Ephesian men:
“25(AY) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and(AZ) gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by(BA) the washing of water(BB) with the word, 27so(BC) that he might present the church to himself in splendor,(BD) without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way(BE) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because(BF) we are members of his body.”
Paul tells husbands not to be harsh with their wives in Colossians, but goes into greater detail regarding the love of a husband for a wife in Ephesians 5. How could the husbands be gentle towards their wives? By loving them AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER! How else? To love their wives as much as they love their own bodies (if not more).
In verse 29 above, Paul gives an analogy of the wife as the “body” of the husband. If the wife is the husband’s body, he should love her and cherish her because to do so is to honor his own body (which makes sense). No one DELIBERATELY disrespects and violates their own body; therefore, it doesn’t make sense to disrespect and hurt your wife if your wife is your own body. Notice in Colossians 3 as well as in Ephesians 5, that Paul does not say, “HUSBANDS, RULE YOUR WIVES, AS CHRIST ALSO RULED THE CHURCH, AND REQUIRED SERVITUDE FROM HER.” The text focuses on husbands LOVING their wives, showing honor to their wives—not lording authority over them.
But someone is going to argue, “Hey, what about 1 Timothy 3?” I’ll cover that in my next post.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Saving Adam
I think it’s safe to say that I’ve spent a lot of time defending Eve (and subsequently, her “daughters”) on my blog. But today, I’m trying a new approach. We’re gonna take a look at Adam, the one to whom God entrusted care of the Garden and His instructions for living.
A good comment was made on the blog recently: that Adam neglected his role as the head of the marriage, and this is what led to sin. However, I want us to take a look at this statement and see whether or not this really answers the question, “How did sin come into the world?”.
The above question regarding sin is what you and I should be most concerned about with regards to Adam and Eve as Paul quotes the pair in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14. After looking at those two verses, we should look back to the account in Genesis 3 to see what happened. As I stated in my post yesterday on “Reading With Common Sense,” it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the statements in 1 Tim. 2 and Genesis 3 to know that Paul is simply defending the Fall as it happened, not to prove why women shouldn’t lead in the church.
To answer how sin entered the world, let’s go back to Genesis 2:
15The LORD God took the man(O) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(P) you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you(Q) shall surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17, ESV).
Do you see God’s words? He gave Adam a commandment and a consequence—if Adam ate from the tree, he would die. End of discussion.
Now that we see God’s warning and promise to Adam regarding the situation, let’s go to Genesis 3, where the serpent begins to dialogue with Eve:
“He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,(B) 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4(C) But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,[b] she took of its fruit(D) and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her,(E) and he ate. 7(F) Then the eyes of both were opened,(G) and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” (Genesis 3:1b-7, ESV).
I want us to take a long, hard look at Genesis 3:2. When Eve responds to the serpent’s tricky question, she demonstrates knowledge of the commandment; she understands God’s warning regarding the forbidden fruit. Now, don’t get me wrong—Eve doesn’t get it ENTIRELY right. She does add something to what God said (the part about “touching” the fruit)! The point of verse 2, though, is to show that Eve knows the commandment. She never heard it directly from God, so we have to assume that Adam told her—which means Adam did something right! Adam educated his wife regarding what God had told him.
Isn’t that supposed to happen? Aren’t husbands and wives to educate and inform each other regarding God’s promises and warnings? Yes! So, while most of us bash Adam, he actually did something right—he told Eve what God had said.
Now I want us to look at what happens when God punishes Adam, Eve, and the serpent:
“ 17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(R) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(S) cursed is the ground because of you;” (Genesis 3:17, ESV)
Do you see the words in bold print? When God punishes Adam, He does so because Adam listened to his wife instead of God. God says nothing to Adam about neglecting his leadership role in the marriage; Adam is punished for listening to Eve when Adam himself had directly heard God’s commandment from God!
Adam and Eve were supposed to “partner together” and have dominion over God’s green earth. They were supposed to walk right before God together and live in peace and harmony with their Creator. However, instead of working together to do good, they “partnered together” to commit sin; and because they used their unity, their equality, to commit sin, God would make it so that now, Eve would be subject to her husband; husbands and wives would now struggle against each other in the home.
Adam’s wrong, therefore, did not come through neglecting his role—he faithfully warned Eve regarding God’s command. His wrong, however, came in Adam placing his wife before God. Adam’s sin, therefore, shows us our sin. As humans, there has come a time (or there will come one) when we have placed a human (spouse, sister, brother, child, friend, coworker, Pastor, church member, etc.) before God. But we have to learn from Genesis that no matter how many humans come into our lives, God MUST BE FIRST! For if God isn’t first, we will surely listen to other people; and tragedy will grip at our heels.
A good comment was made on the blog recently: that Adam neglected his role as the head of the marriage, and this is what led to sin. However, I want us to take a look at this statement and see whether or not this really answers the question, “How did sin come into the world?”.
The above question regarding sin is what you and I should be most concerned about with regards to Adam and Eve as Paul quotes the pair in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14. After looking at those two verses, we should look back to the account in Genesis 3 to see what happened. As I stated in my post yesterday on “Reading With Common Sense,” it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the statements in 1 Tim. 2 and Genesis 3 to know that Paul is simply defending the Fall as it happened, not to prove why women shouldn’t lead in the church.
To answer how sin entered the world, let’s go back to Genesis 2:
15The LORD God took the man(O) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(P) you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you(Q) shall surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17, ESV).
Do you see God’s words? He gave Adam a commandment and a consequence—if Adam ate from the tree, he would die. End of discussion.
Now that we see God’s warning and promise to Adam regarding the situation, let’s go to Genesis 3, where the serpent begins to dialogue with Eve:
“He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,(B) 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4(C) But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,[b] she took of its fruit(D) and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her,(E) and he ate. 7(F) Then the eyes of both were opened,(G) and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” (Genesis 3:1b-7, ESV).
I want us to take a long, hard look at Genesis 3:2. When Eve responds to the serpent’s tricky question, she demonstrates knowledge of the commandment; she understands God’s warning regarding the forbidden fruit. Now, don’t get me wrong—Eve doesn’t get it ENTIRELY right. She does add something to what God said (the part about “touching” the fruit)! The point of verse 2, though, is to show that Eve knows the commandment. She never heard it directly from God, so we have to assume that Adam told her—which means Adam did something right! Adam educated his wife regarding what God had told him.
Isn’t that supposed to happen? Aren’t husbands and wives to educate and inform each other regarding God’s promises and warnings? Yes! So, while most of us bash Adam, he actually did something right—he told Eve what God had said.
Now I want us to look at what happens when God punishes Adam, Eve, and the serpent:
“ 17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(R) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(S) cursed is the ground because of you;” (Genesis 3:17, ESV)
Do you see the words in bold print? When God punishes Adam, He does so because Adam listened to his wife instead of God. God says nothing to Adam about neglecting his leadership role in the marriage; Adam is punished for listening to Eve when Adam himself had directly heard God’s commandment from God!
Adam and Eve were supposed to “partner together” and have dominion over God’s green earth. They were supposed to walk right before God together and live in peace and harmony with their Creator. However, instead of working together to do good, they “partnered together” to commit sin; and because they used their unity, their equality, to commit sin, God would make it so that now, Eve would be subject to her husband; husbands and wives would now struggle against each other in the home.
Adam’s wrong, therefore, did not come through neglecting his role—he faithfully warned Eve regarding God’s command. His wrong, however, came in Adam placing his wife before God. Adam’s sin, therefore, shows us our sin. As humans, there has come a time (or there will come one) when we have placed a human (spouse, sister, brother, child, friend, coworker, Pastor, church member, etc.) before God. But we have to learn from Genesis that no matter how many humans come into our lives, God MUST BE FIRST! For if God isn’t first, we will surely listen to other people; and tragedy will grip at our heels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)