| Author | Message | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
I know that this topic ought to spark some lively dialogue (since we don't debate here). It is a passage that has been used and abused extensively through the centuries--especially by the religious right. Unfortunately it also has been used as a tool to subjugate women, and to massage the fragile egos of some men. I'll give you fair warning, it is moderately lengthy. As I was studying Ephesians this morning, I was struck with an interpretation of this passage that I had not seen before, and I thought this might be a "safe" place to try it on for size--especially considering the number of women on this forum. Feel free to give it to me straight. First, I will repeat something I said last week. "A text without context is a pretext for a prooftext." That is exactly what this passage has become--a prooftext. Very rarely do you see it quoted in its proper context. Let's take a minute to get a 50,000 foot view. The entire book of Ephesians is focused on the theme of unity--with God and with each other. This is an important point. Keep that theme in mind as you follow my thoughts. Three different times in the book of Ephesians, Paul makes a clear reference to a "mysterious plan" that God ordained from the beginning of the world. He reveals it in Ephesians 3:2-6, which says:
We see that God's plan was to unite the Jews and Gentiles. Remember that prior to Jesus' death and resurrection, salvation came only through Judiasm. A non-Jew could obtain salvation only by submitting to circumcision and becoming grafted into the olive tree (Romans 10). He was no longer a Gentile. He was now a Jew. Outside of Judiasm, a Gentiles situation was hopeless. When Jesus came, he broke down the middle wall of partition that seperated the two. That's why there is no longer any Jew or Gentile. All are united in Christ. I believe that God set this system up as an object lesson (a type)of what was to come. The Jews were to represent righteousness and the Gentiles were to represent unrighteousness. There is no way for the unrighteous (Gentiles) to become righteous except they forsake (die to) their Gentilness (unrighteousness)and become a Jew (righteous). When Jesus came, he did away with that system. The mystery of Christ is that He united both Jew and Gentile under Him. They were no longer two separate and distinct groups of people. One group was no more privileged than the other. They were one in Christ. Now, hold that thought for a moment, and lets move to example number two. In Ephesians 1:9,10, Paul speaks once again about the "mystery of his will." He says:
Very similar to the object lesson that God taught by ordaining the Jews as His "Chosen People," we have a Holy (righteous) God and an unholy (unrighteous) people. There is no way of salvation for the unholy people, except to become Holy or righteous. This was impossible (in the same way it was impossible for a Gentile to be saved except to become a Jew). By sending His son, God bridged the gap between Holy and unholy, and united all things under Him. The only requirement is to submit to His righteousness. We are adopted into His family with all rights and privileges. God is our daddy (abba) and Jesus is our elder brother. There are no "second-class" Christians. Now, here is where it gets tricky. Follow me closely ladies (and gentlemen--but its not the gentlemen that I am worried about <smile>). Let's look at the third example: In Ephesians 5:22-27, Paul says:
I am going to suggest to you that this is part of that same theme that Paul shared in his first two examples. I believe that God ordained marriage as a "type" of the relationship that is to exist between Jesus (man) and the world (woman) in the same way that the Jews represented Jesus and the Gentiles represented the world. now hold on ladies for just a moment or two more while I finish my point. The reason I say that is because of verses 31-33 of the same chapter, which says:
The New Living Translation renders it as:
Is it possible that women are commanded to "submit" to their husband in the same way that the Gentile "submitted" to Judiasm and we (sinners) "submit" to Christ's righteousness? The real question is how did the Gentile submit? How do we submit to Christ? Do we not submit by giving up our citizenship and taking on a new citizenship? The Gentile gave up his old customs, and embraced a new culture. But notice this: when the Gentile became a Jew, he became indistinguishable from other Jews He had all the rights and privileges. He was an equal. When we submit to Christ's righteousness, we are covered completely in His righteousness, and are deemed co-heirs with him. God does not see us as "second-class" children. Herein lies the problem. The Jews' hearts became hardened with pride because of their exalted status as "God's chosen people." Its kind of like choosing one child in school to illustrate royalty and choosing another to illustrate a pauper--it would be ridiculous for either one to actually take the role to be anything more that what it is--an illustrationRacism developed as the Jews sensed that their lineage made them somehow better than the Gentiles. They did not recognize the fact that they were chosen by soverign election, not because of any inherent goodness within them. The same truth applies to men. Many of us have allowed our "elected" position to go to our head--not realizing that we are no better (I was going to say different) than women. However, women are not without fault either. Many balk at the idea of "submission" in the same way that many Gentiles balked at the idea of become joined with the "hated Jews" and sinners resist the idea of submitting to Christ's righteousness. I am suggesting that in God's illustration, the woman "submits" to her husband by leaving her family (and citizenship in her former life). She joins with her husband into one united (co-equal) flesh--a new family unit. Together, they are united as equals under the headship of Jesus. In God's illustration, the Jew and Gentile are united as equals together (indistinguishable from one another) as the church, under the headship of Jesus. In God's plan, sinful me is united together with everything under heaven and earth as equals under the headship of Jesus. This is the common theme of the book of Ephesians. Unfortunately the enemy of our souls has so cleverly distorted this beautiful illustration by fueling a battle of the sexes," and thus God's purposes are frustrated. What is his pirpose you ask? Its found in Ephesians 3:8-11:
May God continue to direct us as we come to the unity of the faith. I welcome any feedback--particularly if there may be those who believe that I have taken misguided liberties with the Word of God. I have not heard this view expressed before, and realize that I could have compiled texts to support my own "pet theory." In His Grace Doug | ||
| Gatororeo7 (Gatororeo7) |
Doug, I know I should have probably let the women respond first, but I had to say something, lol. I have not heard that passage expressed in that way before either, but after following your thoughts, I certainly see your point. (Women, if you thoroughly disagree with Doug, feel free to jump on me too!) When you look at the passage is the context of the whole book, which is what you did, your points make perfect sense. I would caution you however to not downplay the message about marriage that is in chapter 5, which I don't think you did. In light of what you described, the passage can serve a dual purpose, showing us how we relate to Christ, and how we are to relate in marriage. Thank you for your very thoughtful and well studied exposition. Joel | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Doug, that was the best explication of that passage I've ever heard. You've said exactly what I've come to believe, only you said it much clearer than I had thought about it. Women are asked to submit--not as servants or property or inferior members, but by sovereign appointment they are to submit to their husbands who by sovereign appointment are asked to be heads. The whole thing breaks down, as you explained, when men see themselves as superior or fist-class while women are inferior, second-class beings. The head--the husband--is to unconditionally love and protect and care for and provide for the wife. That part of headship has traditionally been underplayed. The wife, on the other hand, is to respect and submit, meaning not try to take on a role which was sovereignly appointed to another. Interestingly, Paul also says women are to manage their households, and Proverbs 31 underscores this idea. While the husband is the head of the wife and handles the challenges and threats and burdens of life in a way that makes the way smooth for the his family to live securely, the wife manages her household and actually has the authority when it comes to the running of the house. Bruce and Darlene Wilkinson have an excellen six-part video series out on this subject; they are called "Leading and Loving" for the men, and "The Heart that Makes a Home" for the women. They are great studied together. They're provocative, but they really did help me to begin to see that submission and headship are Biblical principles that, when practiced by born-again people surrendered to Jesus, have the capacity to empower and nurture both husband and wife in ways not possible when both feel their roles are interchangeable. The set of both tapes, by the way, are available online through the Walk Through the Bible ministry. I know this subject generates heated reactions, but the concept of headship and submission is definitely in the Bible, and we can't ignore it. Control and menial servitute, however, are NOT parts of the Biblical concept! Colleen | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Colleen and Joel, thank you for your input and kind words. As I read your responses, you both seemed (correct me if I am wrong) to caution me not to depart from the traditional interpretation of "man as the head." I admittedly have struggled with this concept before--partly because I have seen it abused so much. The other difficulty I have with it is that it appears that God has sovereignly placed man in a role for which he has no unique qualifications. It has always seemed to me that there must have been some rationale, other than just to leave someone minding the store. Most women that I know are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and in many cases take pretty good care of men (sometimes by necesity) as well. As I studied yesterday, I began to make the connection between the Jews (and even Jesus). The Jews never ruled over the Gentiles--as in being in charge. In fact, it was quite th opposite, but God caled them to be the "repairers of the breech." It was the same with Jesus, when he came into the world, he came as a lowly servant, and in a sense placed himself under the authority of the very people he came to redeem. He too was a "repaier of the breech." He certainly did come to earth in order to establish himself as "the boss." Instead, he came to establish himself as "the Way"--a big difference. I am suggesting that man's "leadership role is very similar. God has ordained him as the "repairer of the breech" between the two flesh (men and women). He is to facillitate the development of the union, and by submitting to "his authority" the woman is to cooperate. Together, they become one flesh. At that point, I follow the model of the church that Paul also described in Ephesians that says that a body consists of many different parts--each designed to support the whole unit. In a marriage, God has placed two people with unique gifts and talents. They are to use those talents for the betterment of the whole. When that happens, Lordship is not an issue. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with who has the final word in decisions. I think that the reason we see so many divorces (the divorce rate is upwards of 60%--even in the church) is that both men and women strive against this teaching. Each wants to maintain their independence. The man was to exercise his "God given right to rule," and the woman (fueled by the femmenist movement), wants to maintain her independence. In God's plan, both were to submit to the common good of the marriage, with God as the head. This is why Paul counseled not be unequally yoked--and it doesn't mean marry only another SDA (I had to stick that in there so this thread would at least appear to fit in with the mission of this forum). It is possible to become one if you don't share a common vision. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Terryk (Terryk) |
I think when we study these issues we need to see our example in Chrsit how did he use the woman? Well she was a mother of the savior ,she was the first to really know that Jesus was going to die by appying the perfum,the first to go to the tomb the first to tell others of his resserection oh he has used many women and they have told the world of his love. We as women are a part Gods image I think it was said earlier we need to know the context of a verse. Oh well thas my two cents. | ||
| Gatororeo7 (Gatororeo7) |
Doug, You weren't wrong in your assumptions. I was just trying to say that you explained the issue very well, but that the traditional use (not abuse) of the passage I think still serves merit, but more so taken in the light you put it in. Thanks again! Joel | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I agree, Doug. I believe Paul meant what he said. And you have explained it really well. I can speak from experience--as Richard and I have taken this teaching more seriously, our relationship has improved in ways that make me feel more secure and make Richard (at least appear to feel) mor respected. The roles are not because of superior or inferior qualificiatons. They exist by sovereign fiat, and God reveals himself through them when we surrender to him. Colleen | ||
| Gene (Gene) |
Super! I recall hearing a preacher suggest to men that they afix a small cross to the doorway that they entered at home, as a reminder of their responsibility to their wife - that of dying to self. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
By the way, Terry, I agree that Jesus elevated the position of women. I've also pondered that God redeemed women's "reputation" by having the God of the universe born as a human baby to a "mere" woman. The Jews did not value women, and the pagans REALLY did not value women. They were considered a sort-of sub-standard human. (The Pharisees used to pray their thanks that they were not women.) Having a woman give birth to the Messiah was a huge, universal, eternal statement that women did not defile or devalue the things they touched. Jesus also honored women by treating them as equals to men. There were several women who were part of his entourage of disciples, including some wealthy women who helped support him. Mary, Martha, and Lazarus of Bethany were, apparently, some of his very closest friends. I believe that Biblical headship, properly understood, protects and honors women. Improperly understood and practiced, it victimizes them. But the way the Bible explains it, husbands being the heads of their wives is a protective, redemptive, nurturing function that makes life much better for women. And wives' respect and submission to their husbands, properly understood, empowers their husbands to be strong and protective. It's not a manipulative, "I'll-play-damsel-in-distress-and-get-you-to-kill-the-spider-for-me" silliness. It allowing him to be a man and honoring his ideas and decisions without assuming we know better. One of the ways the idea of submission has most impacted me is that I find I don't as often automatically argue with Richard when he evaluates situations that I think he might not understand. I'm learning to listen to what he says and think about it, and I'm finding that he very often has really accurate insight that I have failed to see either because I'm too close to the situation or because I just have a blind spot. I'm learning that if I don't automatically argue with him and defend my viewpoint, I often end up getting a much more realistic and helpful understanding of the issues than I would have had if I had dismissed his ideas. Of course, my listening and taking him seriously also makes him feel that I respect himówhich I do. And I'm also finding that my respect is growing the more I listen to him. It's quite an interesting dynamic situation. Colleen | ||
| Terryk (Terryk) |
Hi just wanted to let you know that I was just going off on the issue of women being quiet in church thing. I feel it is very important that we all have roles and the husband should be the leader and protecter. And there are many times I may need to be quiet and let him lead. Oh yes I agree with that and I also think it should never be miss used to put the woman in underdog position no we have to again read all of what the Bible says about loving you more then yourself and in these situations is the way God intended it not to use it against each ohter. God set it up in his perfect plan he gave me some of his traits and woman his traits so together we can have different parts of God. Well I do tend to ramble its just hard to really get what you mean across by this board. | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Terry, That was something else that I was having some difficulty with. It seemed so harsh to tell women to "sit down and shut up." As I read the book of 1 Timothy in context, I got the distinct feeling that there were some specific problems in the church at Ephesus that needed to be addressed. One of the problems was that of false teachers. That is why Paul was giving such strong counsel to young Timothy. Apparently, there were some people who wanted to be teachers for the sake of the prestige. The problem is, they didn't know what they were talking about, so they ended up majoring in non-essential topics like geneologies and the like. It was in this context that he said women should be quiet. It may be that some of the women were the problem. It was similar to the church at Corinth, where some of the women were mimicing the sounds of the temple prostitutes, and bringing that into the church. I do not believe that was a blanket statement that says that women should not speak (or that they cannot even teach) in church. The principle (and we always have to look for the principle) that he was trying to get across was the need for order and submission to authority. I ramble too, so let me sit down and "learn in quietness." In His Grace | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I agree, Doug and Terry. In 1 Corinthians 11 it suggests quite strongly that women did prophecy and pray in church. I believe Paul was telling them that they had to dress and behave chastely and as respectable women if they expected anyone to take their contributions seriously. I know a woman who grew up in a Pakistani, non-Christian family. She became a Christ-follower in her early 20s. She said that her mother told her that their native (sikh, I believe) churches had the women separated from the men much as the synagogues did. She said that the women would hide their mouths behind their veils or head drapes and carry on loud and completely-off-the-topic conversations with each other during the church services. Sometimes they would even call out to their husbands across the church if they wanted some response from them. The men often had to tell them to be quiet so they could hear. Perhaps some of Paul's admonitions for women to be quiet and learn at home also referred to social situations similar to those of the Pakstani religious meetings. Please don't hear me saying we have to explain away Paul's teaching as culturally biased. But I do believe women, more than men, tend to be talkers, and we need to respect and hear our men. Colleen |
