Wives' submission to husbands

[Guest]

"The Meaning of Kephale" in the book "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," edited by Wayne Grudem and John Piper. In this appendix, Wayne Grudem interacts with the feminist authors on this point, and presents the results of his extensive research on the usage of "kephale" in the Greek language over a period beginning four-hundred years before the time of the New Testament, and ending four-hundred years after

Steve without getting into a debate about understanding of Greek meanings I will encourage you and others interested in the subject to read Gordon D. Fee a well renown Greek professor at Regent College
to quote " "head " in 1 cor.3 is English word "source" man was the original source of the woman, thus Paul's concern is not hierarchical (who has the authority over whom) , but relatational. He says nothing about man's authority; his concern is with the woman's being man's glory, the one without whom he is not complete" end quote
Wayne Grudem never heard of him sorry I will stay with the professor on this at the moment.
Every Blessing
John

[_Steve]

Hi John,
Avoiding a debate is a good idea for you, and I will honor your wishes. I just would like to mention that I have read Gordon Fee's commentaries on this subject long ago, as has Wayne Grudem. Grudem and Fee interact with each other. That would be valuable for you to read. You might not have heard of Wayne Grudem, but he is a respected scholar (as is Fee), though I think Grudem is the better known of the two.

But that is immaterial. No progress can be made toward finding truth by stacking scholars' names on both sides of the balances and then seeing which side is heavier. I have had ample occasion to make such comparisons, but doing so is not really the way to conduct responsible inquiry. It's the facts that determine what is true.

Grudem's research is conclusive, and takes into consideration everything Fee wrote, and, indeed, everything relevant to the question under consideration. The weight is not in the names of the scholars, but in the evidence itself. This is hardly something to divide over, but lovers of truth must be critical even of their favorite scholars. "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa.8:20). Remember the warning implicit in Jesus' word to the Pharisees: "Full well you reject the word of God to keep your traditions...teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7, 9).

Blessings!

[Guest]

Hi Steve
The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology defines marriage as a co-partnership of equality where "neither may lord it over the other." This represents an egalitarian view of marriage. (Egalitarian marriages are described as mutual partnerships without forced roles, and characterized by a high degree of intimacy)
In contrast, a traditional hierarchical view of marriage has distinct roles with the husband on top in authority over the wife.
Traditionalists claim their view "should find an echo in every human heart." The root problem in marriage, they say, "is the unwillingness of each to accept the role for which he or she was designed." If these traditionalists’ statement were true, then marriages based on hierarchical relationships should be the happiest and most intimate of all marriages and have the lowest divorce rate. Yet born-again evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate.
A tongue-in-cheek summary of this understanding comes from egalitarian scholar Gordon D. Fee. At a CBE conference in Dallas last year, the Regent College professor said, "The only way for a man and a woman to be equal is for the woman to submit."
Both views of marriage have been argued by scholars from a biblical prospective for years and this debate will probably continue into the future. However, the relevant and immediate issue for the church and the parties involved is recognizing which relationship results in a happier, healthier, more intimate, meaningful long term, and permanent marriage. Isn't this what God really desires for our lives?
Dr. Howard Clinebell, Professor Emeritus of Pastoral Psychology and Counseling, Claremont School of Theology and author of Basic Types of Pastoral Care & Counseling, characterizes a healthy marriage as one evidenced by mutual care and support that allows for the growth and fulfillment of each person's God-given potentialities
Drs. Alan Booth and Paul Amato, sociologists and demographers agree that egalitarian marriages are happier. They interviewed and followed the lives of two thousand men and women and some of their children over a 20 year period between 1980 and 2000. The subject individuals were personally contacted six times each year during the twenty year study. In the year 2000, at the conclusion of their twenty year study, the research team interviewed an entirely new random sample of 2,100 married couples. Dr. Amato makes this conclusion: Equality is good for a marriage. It's good for both husbands and wives. If the wife goes from a patriarchal marriage to an egalitarian one, she'll be much happier, much less likely to look for a way out. And in the long run, the husbands are happier too. While some traditionalists may argue that working wives cause divorce, Dr. Booth refutes this notion. Based on the results of this long study he says emphatically that "women working does not cause divorce."
A significant discovery was made in relation to marital satisfaction and role relationships. It discovered that (81%) of equalitarian (egalitarian) couples were happily married, while (82%) of couples where both spouses perceived their relationship as traditional (hierarchical) were mainly unhappy.
Wives, in traditional marriages, suffered significantly more depression and other mental disorders than men, working married women and unmarried women (Bernard 1982).
This is not loving our wives as Christ loves the Church
Every Blessing
John

[Guest]

As a female and a christian married to a man that is christian, living in
a relationship that is not easy, I believe the bible clearly states and lays the foundation for marriage GODS way.......GOD is the head of man
man head of woman..........IF and I say IF a man lives with a woman in an understanding way as the weaker vessel (she is) and loves his wife as CHRIST the church and his own body, what woman would not want to submit and trust her husband. I see the trouble as a man not understanding her need for communication, love, intimacy and tenderness. As well she does not see his need for respect, honor, trust
and I feel that as head of the house and NOT the weaker vessel he should
be more understanding and caring....IF not, then she submit as unto the LORD.............Why read a bunch of books when the bible says it so clearly? IF anyone reading this has been through a divorce I am not pointing a finger at you because someone cannot make a spouse stay in a marriage that clearly the other person doesnt want...How sad for our children, grandchildren and society....... The underline cause of divorce is
selfishness and not honoring above all the truth, the bible. Lets prefer one another.
thank you

[Guest]

Friend as quoted before

Traditionalists claim their view "should find an echo in every human heart." The root problem in marriage, they say, "is the unwillingness of each to accept the role for which he or she was designed." If these traditionalists’ statement were true, then marriages based on hierarchical relationships should be the happiest and most intimate of all marriages and have the lowest divorce rate. Yet born-again evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate.
A tongue-in-cheek summary of this understanding comes from egalitarian scholar Gordon D. Fee. At a CBE conference in Dallas last year, the Regent College professor said, "The only way for a man and a woman to be equal is for the woman to submit."

It seem to me, some misunderstand of the bible has been to some degree part of the problem.
Yes we are to love and honor each other, but from our source "Christ in us" not from our self effort "Christ is our Life"
Every Blessing
John

[Guest]

Hi Aussie,

What do you mean by hierachical relationships in marriage?
I know what the word means but IF a man and a woman is taking rightful roles IN CHRIST is that hierachial? It is because of the selfishness of man/woman and a me myself and I attitude that christians are having divorces. GOD hates divorce!

[Guest]

What do you mean by hierachical relationships in marriage?

These beliefs relate directly to the biblical concepts of submission and authority in general and in marriages in particular. Misconceptions about these subjects are harmful to the body of Christ and to marital relationships.
Extensive studies and research have been performed by marriage and family professionals, sociologists, and demographers. Over the last 50 years these studies reveal that significant numbers of egalitarian marriages are happy in comparison to traditional hierarchical marriages
These research studies accomplish the following: First, they effectively discredit any traditionalists’ notion that dismantling hierarchy destabilizes marriage and that the root problem in marriage is the unwillingness of each spouse to accept the role for which he or she was designed. Second, they prove that hierarchy actually destabilizes and harms marriages. Third, they provide objective data that egalitarian marriages produce the healthiest, happiest, most intimate, and stable of all marriage relationships with the least amount of spousal abuse.
hope this helps
Every blessing
John

[_Steve]

Hi John,
I don't know that we can make any progress toward the truth in this thread of the forum until we are both prepared to the let the scriptures (not dictionaries, psychologists, marriage counselors and theologians) inform us of what God's norms for marriage are to be.

At the outset, it should be clarified that the belief that women are men's equals is not the invention nor the exclusive property of the egalitarians. Traditionalist (biblical) teachers have always recognized the equality of women and men, and of children and adults, servants and masters, and, indeed, of all humans made in God's image. It is no new discovery. The only thing new is the far-from-obvious assertion of the egalitarians that "equal" must (for some unexplained reason) mean "interchangable."

If a man pays the same amount of money for his two-seater sport car, which he bought for commuting to work, and his mini-van, which he bought to transport his family of six, the two vehicles may be of equal worth, but this tells us nothing about their utility or the functions intended by their respective designers. They are designed for different purposes. They are of equal value, but not interchagable.

That God made man to function in some tasks, and women to function in others could have been deduced from anatomy alone, so that we could have known this even if God had not clearly spelled it out in the Bible. However, He has spoken even more clearly in His Word than He has in nature. I am not sure where the quote came from that the hierarchical form of marriage should "find an echo in the human heart" (or whatever the line was), but I never suggested such a thing, and I certainly would not wish to rest any of my convictions on what the majority of people hear echoing around in the caverns of their hearts. Who can say where the voice originated that the echo is reverberating? These hearts may well be deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, for all we know.

Your whole argument in this post seems to be, the form of marriage that makes people happiest must be best. I think that we can find some women who think they could have happier marriages with other women's husbands than with their own, and the most ecstatic married couples, for all I know, could very well be those who opt for "open" marriages. I even know Mormon men in Idaho who are more "happy" having three wives than they would be with only one, but I would not judge the designs and purposes of God for marriage by the carnal preferences of fallen humanity, as you seem to recommend that we do.

I have nowhere found any biblical support for the idea that the true designs and purposes of God can be discerned by surveying the "druthers" of sinful men and women. Once again, we would gain much more in this discussion if we were to place the biblical testimony in the supreme place of arbitration...whether we particularly like what it tells us, or not.

I have no doubt that many people in hierarchical marriage structures are unhappy. They have been conditioned from their youth to believe that they should be fiercely independent, self-assertive, and resentful of any other person imposing their will upon them. We have imbibed such influence, practically, with our mother's milk, and it was exactly what our selfish, fallen nature was only too eager to hear and embrace.

The Bible (Jesus in particular) teaches us just the opposite. We are to find our satisfaction in the will of Him who made us, to deny ourselves and to be servants of all. People who have these biblical attitudes do not find hierarchical relationships (husband/wife; parent/child; master/servant; etc.) objectionable...because the Bible clearly affirms them, and true Christians are happily subject to the Word of their Father and of their Lord.

I have quoted her elsewhere, but no one, to my knowledge, has stated this truth more clearly than has Elizabeth Elliott, who wrote: "Wouldn't the utterly boring 'women's issue' dissolve into nothingness if all of us, men and women alike, would forsake the power struggle and follow Him who did not count equality a thing to be grasped at, but stripped Himself of all privilege and humbled Himself even to the point of dying?"


****************************

To say that the phenomenon of most women working outside the home does not contribute to the increase of divorce is disingenuous. I had mentioned nothing about this point, above, but, since you brought it up, I would dispute the assertion. Studies can be cited, and "authorities" found, to support whatever conclusions the researcher hopes to establish. What everyone can see, and none deny, however, are the following:

1. Women in the workplace and easy divorce were both planks of the radical feminists' agenda, and both, not coincidentally, arrived together in the culture;

2. The majority of divorces in America (something like two-thirds) are initiated by the wife, and the vast majority of wives who divorce their husbands have jobs outside the home (source: Dr. Diane Medved, author of "The Case Against Divorce");

3. The overwhelming majority of adulterous affairs (which are legion, and a common cause of divorce) are the result of women meeting and mingling with the men who become their lovers (guess where?)--in the workplace.

These facts, I think, point to a connection between women in the workplace and divorce statistics, but that is actually not relevant to this discussion, since the matter of a wife's role (or a husband's) is not determined by the resultant "success" or "happiness" of the marriages, but by the Word of the One who created those husbands and wives, and who defined their tasks.

You did bring up a verse or two of scripture (Eph.5:21 & Gal.3:28), a few posts back, which I have earlier addressed. The scriptures you mentioned do not support feminism, since they are very easily interpreted otherwise, in full harmony with the whole of scripture, from beginning to end.

I presented the actual evidence about the meaning of kephale ("head"), and instead of refuting it or submitting to the evidence, you responded with a declaration that you will choose to believe the scholars whom you will choose to believe. It would be more fruitful, however, for you to interact with the actual scriptures, and the evidence relevant to the matter under consideration.

When you tell me that there are many scholars who embrace and advocate feminist interpretations of the Bible, you are not telling me anything that I have not discovered myself, decades ago. Nor would it do any good to tell how many top-flight scholars believe that the Bible stands contrary to feminism. What is the point of multiplying human opinions, when the scriptures themselves stand ready to testify?

I would like to hear your responses to the following:

1. Does the Bible, or does it not, repeatedly exhort wives to submit to their husbands as unto Christ?

2. Does the Bible teach that for one person to be subordinate to another in any relationship must normally result in unhappiness?

3. Does the Bible restrict women from certain church activities that men can do (e.g., pastoral ministry over men), and encourage women in activities that men cannot do (e.g., childbearing)? If so, can we think that the Bible interprets the woman's equality with the man as "interchangability"?

4. Does the Bible teach that all people should be pleased to serve others, and that those who do so are the greatest in the kingdom? If so, then what can be found objectionable about being assigned a subordinate role in some relationships?

I have always been interested to hear how egalitarians would answer these questions.

God bless.

[Guest]

Hi Steve and All

I have no doubt that many people in hierarchical marriage structures are unhappy.

That’s true

“They have been conditioned from their youth to believe that they should be fiercely independent, self-assertive, and resentful of any other person imposing their will upon them. We have imbibed such influence, practically, with our mother's milk, and it was exactly what our selfish, fallen nature was only to eager to hear and embrace.”

It is always amazed me how we divert way from ourselves a blame others. This problem goes back to the Garden. Blame

The Bible (Jesus in particular) teaches us just the opposite. We are to find our satisfaction in the will of Him who made us, to deny ourselves and to be servants of all. People who have these biblical attitudes do not find hierarchical relationships (husband/wife; parent/child; master/servant; etc.) objectionable...because the Bible clearly affirms them, and true Christians are happily subject to the Word of their Father and of their Lord.

God is not look for people who “ought” and “should” and “must”. Christianity is not a belief system, but a life lived in and from Christ our Life. I Will address this subject in another thread.
Steve my beliefs relate directly to the biblical concepts of submission and authority in general and in marriages in particular. Misconceptions about these subjects are harmful to the body of Christ and to marital relationships.
Submitting yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:21)
represents a horizontal interaction that takes place between believers. It is difficult to comprehend and live out. Why? Because I believe "submission" is often misunderstood and misapplied. First of all submitting is not a command. Submission is passive in nature and results only within the context of being continually filled (saturated) with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18). Second, submission is mutual and applicable to all believers in Christ (Eph. 5:21). This means that submission applies to both husbands and wives equally (Eph. 5:22). Third, submission is not something you do but is something you receive. It is not an action to be attained but an attitude of the heart to be maintained. A receptive response from Christ .
I said we should not debate Greek words, but if you are not willing to look at what the dictionaries, psychologists, marriage counselors and theologians say which is not going to happen as we have both quoted others several times already.
The Greek word, hupotasso, is often translated as "submitting to" or "being subject" in Ephesians 5:22. However this Greek word has more than one use and a range of meaning that is quite different from what people today generally think. "Hupotasso" actually has two uses: military and non-military. The military has a connotation of being "subject to" or "to obey" as if you are under someone’s command. Most people would probably think of this meaning. However the non-military use means "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden" (Thayers Greek Lexicon #5293). In ancient papyri the word hupotasso commonly meant to "support," "append," or "uphold."
Some Bible translations recognize that hupotasso has more than one use. For example: The Message Bible translates Eph. 5:21 as be courteously reverent. The New Century Version translates hupotasso as "cooperate" rather than "submission" in 1 Tim. 2:11 and 3:4). Andrew and Judith Lester, authors of It Takes Two: The Joy of Intimate Marriage suggest a better translation is "be supportive of," "tend to the needs of," or "respect the needs and desires of." “Stand under and serve in love” ( men to sevre and love his wife as Christ
In the context of Ephesians 5:18-23, Christians are cooperating, supporting, upholding, and respecting one another as one result of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Doesn't that make sense? And here are some compelling reasons. First, verse 21 states the reason: because of our reverence for Christ. Christ is our example. Did Jesus Christ come as a military commander to rule and give orders over his Church? No! In fact Christ warns us not to exercise authority over anyone (Matt. 20:25-27; Luke 22:25-27). Jesus came as a servant to give his life for us. Second, maintaining a mutual attitude of cooperation and support reduces disunity and promotes harmony in the Church. This is how the body of Christ is suppose to relate to one another. And that fulfills God’s desire for us to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3) and in our marriages as well. Also the church is referred to as the body of Christ. Picture the physical body. How do the various members, the hand, brain, heart, lungs, feet work? They cooperate and work together to support the entire system. In the same way, we as members of the body of Christ, both need and must support one another. Third, why would Scripture need to command Christians to be filled with the Spirit in order to be subject to, follow orders, or be under someone’s authority. A person does not need to be filled with Spirit to follow orders for even nonbelievers demonstrate this fact when they "submit," or obey their superiors.
The phrase: Wives, to you own husband, as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22) expands this relationship of mutual support to include the marriage relationship. Unfortunately bible translators elect to present verse 22 as a new sentence with an added verbal command such as: Wives, be subject (NRSV, NASB, REB); submit (NIV, NKJV); submit yourselves (DNT, KJV, ISV); yeild (NCV); will submit (NLT); must submit (TLB) to your own husbands, as to theLord. This is regrettable because there is no verb in the Greek text. No command is given that wives are to submit to their husbands. Only a few translations use italics or brackets as a way to indicate that the words be subject etc. are not found in the Greek manuscripts. In addition, verse 22 is not even a separate sentence. It is a phrase, a continuation of verse 21, that must be understood in light of the context of verses 18-23 which is really one long sentence in the Greek.
Wives or husbands are not commanded to submit, be ruled or dominated by their spouses. Both are meant to cooperate and support one another in the spirit of love and unity. Marriages based on egalitarian concepts of equality, shared power and leadership are happiest of all marriages. The research independently affirms these marriages and supports the egalitarian view of Scripture.
We should also remember the culture and law of that day gave men supreme control of their entire household. Women had no rights and were under the authority of either their father or their husband. The apostle Paul is not advocating nor is he repeating this cultural reality. What Paul is presenting is the results of being filled with the Spirit and this result produces a counter cultural transformation in the lives of believers. Christians are now to cooperate and support one another regardless of the class, race or gender prejudices that permeated the culture in which they lived.
Some people abuse or misconstrue the concept of authority. Some traditionalists claim that because the man or husband is referred to as the "head" of a woman or his wife means that he is "in charge" over her (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). They miss the whole point that husbands are commanded to love their wives sacrificially (Eph. 5.25). Husbands are not commanded to be in authority over their wives. Even the early Greek Church exegetes and theologians tell us that the "head" (kephale) metaphor means "source of life, origin," not authority. Here are some examples:

Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 376-444) commenting on 1 Cor. 11:3 defines the head metaphor as source: Thus we say that the kephaleo of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephaleo of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise the kephaleo of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature.

Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia (A.D. 350-428) interprets the metaphor as "source or origin of life" He "held that just as Christ was considered head of all who had been born anew in Him, so the woman has man as her head ‘since she had taken her being from him.’"

John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (A.D. 347-407) commenting on 1 Cor.11:3 said the head metaphor does not mean that one has authority over another or one is under subjection to another. Dr. Joe E. Trull, editor of Christian Ethics Today, quotes Chrysostom: "If you think 'head' means 'chief' or 'boss,' you skew the godhead!"

Dr. Catherine Clark Kroeger, adjunct Professor of Classical and Ministry Studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, confirms that Chrysostom interprets the metaphor to mean "source" or "point of origin" and declared as a heretic anyone who proclaimed that "head" in this context denoted superior power or authority!

In critiquing Dr. Kroeger’s article on "Head", Dr. Wayne Grudem. Who you have already quoted. (have been reading some of his other studies on the www net some excellent work) says: "Concerns will also be raised about the level of care and accuracy with which evidence has been quoted" and that "the article is troubling at its core, not only for what is claims, but for the model of scholarly work that it puts forth. Grudem says: "But Chrysostom does not say this all. Rather he assumes that kephale does mean ‘authority over.’" Grudem further claims that Chrysostom agrees with the heretics that kephale means "authority over" because "the Son is obedient to the Father" and "is also subject to the Father." Grudem totally misrepresents what Chrysostom actually said and meant! He bases his argument on pure assumptions. If anyone is guilty of exhibiting a lack of scholastic integrity it is Grudem alone, not Dr. Kroeger. Grudem fails to include specific comments that prove Chrysostom does not agree with the heretics’ claims that Christ is "under subjection." For example:

Chrysostom, in his homily on 1 Cor. 11:2ff, quotes the heretics as saying: "Nay," say they, "it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection."[While Grudem quotes this verse he fails to disclose how Chrysostom ridicules the heretics with these words: "Tell me, how thou intendest to prove this from the passage [v.3]?" Chrysostom goes on at length refuting the heretic’s notion that Christ is under subjection to the Father by saying: "And who could ever admit this?" .... "many absurdities will follow" ... And who will endure this?"

Chrysostom also clearly states that the term "head" must be understood "according to the occasion." Grudem fails to mention this fact nor does he disclose that Chrysostom made the following statement demonstrating that "head" does not mean authority over another. Chrysostom said: For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as thou sayest, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master.
In the same homily, Chrysostom also refutes the heretics’ claim, just as the traditionalists (complementarians) claim today, that "Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin. Chrysostom contradicts their claim by saying: She was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor when He brought her to the man, did either she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her; he said indeed that she was ‘bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh:’ (Gen. 2:23) but of rule or subjection he no where mention unto her.
After the Fall, Chrysostom said of her future: "thy turning shall be to thy husband" (Gen. 3.16). Notice that Chrysostom did not translate this Greek phrase as your desire will be for your husband, as most modern Bibles do. The emphasis and significance of turning means that "Eve is turning away from God to her husband, and, as a consequence of that deflection, Adam will rule over her." Chrysostom clearly states that the subordination of women occurred as a result of the Fall. However, this condition no longer exists for it was lifted as a result of the atoning work of Jesus Christ who has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Gal 3:13).
Chrysostom’s homily is delivered as an interpretation of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians in the context of the first century. He is not making a statement or defining "head" only in the context of the fourth century as Wayne Grudem asserts but is clarifying that Christ is not subordinate to the Father. Nor is Jesus Christ eternally subordinate to the Father as Grudem claims. Furthermore, Chrysostom’s comments regarding "head," "subjection," and the effects of the Fall are remarkable especially when one considers that he was no egalitarian, and from the very earliest times the attitude of the "church fathers" toward women could hardly be described favorable.
Jesus Christ is our example. Scripture helps us to define the word "head" in a well known passage about Christ. New Testament passages speak of the stone which the builders rejected. Christ has become the kephale gonia (Matt. 21:42, Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; 1 Peter 2:7). This Greek expression is translated in various Bibles as the "head of the corner, "the cornerstone" or "chief cornerstone." A cornerstone was the most important stone and was placed at the foundation of a building. It was the stone upon which all others stones were placed. In this sense, Jesus Christ is the beginning of all things, the first, the origin, our source of life.
Jesus also voluntarily laid down his life that we might obtain eternal life. And in doing so, Christ became the kephale "source of life" of the Church, (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18). Being obedient unto death does not, as some traditionalists claim, mean that Jesus Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father. Speaking about His death, Christ said: I lay it down of My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again (John 10:18). Remember, Jesus was fully God and fully man. He came for the express purpose of redeeming humanity. His act of surrender and dying on the cross in no way implies that He is somehow subordinate to God, the Father. Scripture and the early church fathers make this abundantly clear.
Scripture tells us that both husband and wife have "exousiazo," meaning "authority" over each other. In fact, the only place Scripture uses the common Greek word meaning authority "exousia" in relation to a husband and wife is found in 1 Corinthians 7:4. This deals with the couple's sexual responsibility to each other.
Furthermore, one could argue that the wife is the real "master" of the home since she is to "oikodespotein." Wives are the ones who are to actively "manage their homes" or "the household" (1 Timothy 5:14 ISV, NCV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV). She is to "rule the house" (AVS, DBY). The Greek verb "oikodespoteo" is one of the strongest terms used to express exercising authority in relation to the home. It literally means "to be master (or head) of the house; to rule a household, manage family affairs" (Thayers Greek Lexicon #3616-17). The noun oikodespotes is variously translated either as "master", "owner," "head of the house," or "head of the household" (Matt. 21:33, 24:43; Luke 12:39, 13:25, 14:21). Thus Scripture is really affirming that wives "rule" the home. They are the house-despots!
Christians should remember that the real spiritual "head" of the home is Jesus Christ alone, in whom all authority rests (Matt. 28:18). The point is that marriage was never meant to be a struggle over power or who is "in charge." Rather, the male and female are meant to exist in a covenant commitment in which the "two become one" through mutual love and support (hupotasso).
Dr. Clinebell notes that in our educational process children need to be raised free of sexism. This should be a goal for all churches as well. Churches need to realize that healthy marriages do not happen in a vacuum. Developing healthy relationships is dependent on having a proper attitude and respect for members of the opposite sex. This process begins at an early age. Churches can implement educational and participatory opportunities where members are able to develop free from class, gender, or racial prejudices. These principles benefit everyone: those who marry and those who remain single.
What a great injustice and tragedy that so many Christian marriages end in divorce and many who remain together live in unhappy marriages. Numerous reasons are offered: some blame "no fault" divorce, economics, and stress from living and coping in a materialistic society. People point fingers at something or someone else. Yet the root cause is always sin and deception.
Churches can become a motivating force for change. They have a responsibility to promote healthy marital relationships. Strong and healthy marriages are built on loving and equal relationships. Marriage relationships grow best and flourish within the context of egalitarian ideals. Extensive empirical data has demonstrated this reality. Theologians may continue to debate this reality, but the people have already spoken. Christians should hear what the Holy Spirit is saying and live in the full redemptive life of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord.
Every Blessing
John

[_Steve]

Hi John,
I realize that the points I raised above are difficult (possibly impossible) to answer, so I can't fault you for not answering them, and you did at least interact a little with one of them. However, as the points I made are the very ones upon which the disputed matter rests, if they cannot be answered, and they are, instead, ignored, I think it a better use of time for me to respond to other inquiries elsewhere.

In case it is a blind-spot on your part, however, and you wonder why I think you have entirely skirted my challenges, I will one more time repeat the areas where I think you need to shore-up your case, if you hope for biblical Christians to take it seriously.

First, you approach the matter as a pragmatist, and I approach it as a follower of scripture. A pragmatist says, "Whatever works best, is best." Your argument against the biblical view of marriage is about 95% dependant upon your claims that egalitarian marriages are happier, more stable and more permanent (all of which is very open to dispute). But, as I have said, this tells us nothing about God's design. Aboriginal tribal chiefs with sixteen wives might be found to enjoy divorce-free, marital bliss, but this would not be admissible as evidence in any attempt to discover biblical norms.

I asked four questions at the end of my previous post. It seems that you intended to deal somewhat with the first, but the other three were left untouched. I repeat them here:

1. Does the Bible, or does it not, repeatedly exhort wives to submit to their husbands as unto Christ?

2. Does the Bible teach that for one person to be subordinate to another in any relationship must normally result in unhappiness?

3. Does the Bible restrict women from certain church activities that men can do (e.g., pastoral ministry over men), and encourage women in activities that men cannot do (e.g., childbearing)? If so, can we think that the Bible interprets the woman's equality with the man as "interchangability"?

4. Does the Bible teach that all people should be pleased to serve others, and that those who do so are the greatest in the kingdom? If so, then what can be found objectionable about being assigned a subordinate role in some relationships?

Your treatment of the word "submission," was not up to the standards of scholarly inquiry that a discussion of this sort requires, for the following reasons:

1. You cite, almost exclusively, feminist scholars in the context of their arguing a case for egalitarianism, rather than lexicons that simply give the regular usage of Greek words, without a theological ax to grind. This applies not only to the meaning of the Greek words in general, but also to their interpretation of Chrysostom and patristic authorities in general. Since you almost certainly pulled the quotes of Cyril, Theodore and Chrysostom from feminist literature, which gave the scholars' spin on their meaning, you failed to notice that the first two quotes do not provide any evidence that Cyril or Theodore were using "kephale" to mean "source." Since the egalitarian scholars, who cite them, are telling you that they meant "source," it makes sense to you. Let me suggest a mental experiment: Read the same quotes with the assumption that "head" means "leader" instead of "source." It makes just as much sense in the passage, and it agrees with the universal usage in the times of the New Testament (all of the fathers quoted lived in the fourth and fifth centuries, so, even if they did use kephale as source, it would not reflect New Testament usage).

I would like for you to see the quote from Chrysostom in its own context, rather than the context of a feminist argument. Ms. Kroeger is a dishonest feminist idealogue, as anyone can discover by reading her work. Wayne Grudem answers her very thoroughly concerning this Chrysostom quote and presents the actual quote in its context. It is very clear that Chrysostom, like the other fathers, understood kephale to mean leader or ruler. Grudem demonstrates (though anyone could tell from reading Chrysostom's words without Grudem's comments) that Kroeger is deliberately misquoting and engaging in the scholarly equivalent of "yellow journalism." You can find Grudem's answer at the following site: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kephale.pdf

You yourself admit that Cyril, Theodore and Chrysostom were not egalitarians, so it seems disingenuous to interpret their remarks in an egalitarian way that does not agree with their known convictions.

2. You say that "hupotasso" ("submit") has two uses: military and non-military. The lexical sources (not authors arguing a position) available to me indicate that the military use is the primary use, and that the word means "to rank under." Any suggestion that a particular instance of the word (e.g. Eph.5:22) does not stem from the original military usage, and carry the idea of subordination, is 100% speculative. I would like to see one instance in the New Testament where the word hupotasso, in context, can be convincingly argued to be lacking in this hierarchical association.

You have naively followed the heretical feminists in saying that Christ is not subject to His Father. This wild expedient is the only way for egalitarians to salvage the view that the wife is not subject to her husband, given the unmistakable biblical parallels between these two paradigms (e.g. 1 Cor.11:3/Eph.5:22-23). However, the eternal subjection of the Son to the Father is one of the most strongly declared (and historically affirmed) features of a biblical christology (e.g., 1 Cor.15:27-28/John 5:19-20, etc.).

What is interesting about your argument is that it ignores the very relationship of Christ to the Father as being a Father/Son relationship! If we now wish to suggest that sons are not subordinate to their fathers, we are fully set-up to destroy the last vestige of biblical family structure from our culture. The feminists' resistance to the idea that Jesus is subject (in submission) to His Father arises from recognizing the equality of the Father and the Son, and failing to understand (as feminists invariably fail to understand) that persons of equal value can be in a hierarchical relationship with one another.

3. You cite paraphristic versions of the Bible (e.g. "The Message" [gag!]) to show that some (feministic) translators are willing to substitute for the word "submit" other words, which are less offensive to the feministic mood of the Bible-purchasing public. The one lexicon you cite (Thayers) does not suggest that hupotasso exists in the absence of hierarchical relationships. Thayers gives, as one meaning among others, "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden." All of these words work well within or without a hierarchical structure, but we know of no case where the word is definitely used in a context that does not include hierarchical structure.

Also, the qualifier "voluntary" does not exclude the element of duty. All of our obedience to God is, in fact, voluntary. But it is also mandatory. We voluntarily decide to obey God's mandates, or to disobey them. But the two options are not equally acceptable. The word hupotasso definitely does not include a voluntary element in Luke 10:17 and 20, where the demons' submission to the name of Jesus is spoken of. In a great number of cases in the Bible, hupotasso carries the idea of involuntary, forced subjection (see, especially, Rom.8:20), though I would agree with you that the submission of the wife to the husband is expected to be voluntary and not forced, as is true of all Christian obedience.

4. You say that the word hupotasso is not found in Ephesians 5:22 (it is in my Greek New Testament. Perhaps some manuscripts omit it), but that this verse has no verb and is merely a continuation of the sentence in the previous verse, so that the two verses would be read together as "Submitting to one another in the fear of God; wives, unto your own husbands as unto the Lord..." You apparently have not noticed that, where there is no verb in v.22, it must be implying the only verb found earlier in the sentence (in v.21), which is "submitting." So what is gained by omitting the verb in v.22? With or without it, the statement still unambiguously requires the wife to submit to her husband.

You make the following assertions about Eph.5:21. I suggest that none of them is demonstrably true, and some are quite demonstrably untrue. You wrote:

a) submission represents a horizontal interaction (this is not obvious, and seems to ignore the regular meaning of the word in the New Testament and the lexicons. Why should we believe this?)

b) submitting is not a command (I guess this raises the question of why so many people, including wives, are commanded by scripture to do it?)

c) submission is impossible without the filling of the Holy Spirit (this is not stated in scripture, and many non-christians, who lack the Spirit of God have been known to submit to authorities)

d) "This means that submission applies to both husbands and wives equally (Eph. 5:22);" (if this is true, as it is nowhere stated, then you certainly cite the wrong reference to prove the point!)

e) "submission is not something you do but is something you receive;" (again, we must then wonder why the Bible so often tells people to do it)

f) "It is not an action to be attained but an attitude of the heart to be maintained" (I seriously doubt that it is merely one or the other. Ideally, it is both; functionally it is indeed the former).

5. You wrote: "We should also remember the culture and law of that day gave men supreme control of their entire household. Women had no rights and were under the authority of either their father or their husband."

In a less extreme version, this statement may be held to be true (1 Cor.14:34), but who gave the Jews this law? Was it not God?

Before we decide that this "cultural reality" is inferior to our modern, feminist "cultural reality", we might ask ourselves who was the author of ours? That the "woman's movement" arose from very anti-Christian origins, and has always been intimately aligned with lesbianism, with goddess-worship, and with the advocacy of no-fault divorce and abortion on demand, can be discovered by reading any accurate history of the movement. It is interesting that no Christian "scholars" ever found this in the Bible until they had imbibed its spirit from the modern culture. Once you have done this, you can prove anything you wish from misapplied and mistranslated biblical texts.


You wrote: "Dr. Clinebell notes that in our educational process children need to be raised free of sexism. This should be a goal for all churches as well."

I agree completely. But I would add that children should also be raised free from other ungodly philosophies and attitudes, like feminism. I doubt that you would agree with me on this.

You also wrote: "Developing healthy relationships is dependent on having a proper attitude and respect for members of the opposite sex."

How true! And where, better than scripture, can we discover what the most proper attitudes and respect toward the sexes are to be? Traditionalists are not required, nor even permitted, to disrespect women. No doubt some do, just as some non-traditionalists do--but this is not advocated as a part of the biblical view of marriage. The wife is to be "honored" as "the weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7), as well as "nourished" and "cherished" (Eph.5:28-29)

It is the feminists who continually show disrespect in their characterization of one of the genders--namely, the straw "man," who is a power-hungry, control freak and abuses his wife. Some men (and some women) fit this description. But such a man is not the Christian that the Bible describes as normative, nor have I known many Christian men who could, by any stretch of the imagination, be accurately described thus.

The observation that the Greek word for the wife's management of the home makes her to be the "house-despot" does not in any sense suggest that she carries out this responsibility in defiance of the authorities that God has placed in her life. No "despot" is entirely lacking in having authorities over him or her, in that he/she is at the very least subject to the authority of God and anyone else that God places in authority over him/her. It is interesting that, in making this point about the woman being "house-despot," no feminist seems to think that giving the woman unrestrained authority would result in abuse of power, but they all assume that giving the husband any authority over the wife must necessarily result in abuse!

Whenever a man (like yourself) assumes that a man given charge of his family will surely abuse, I can't help wondering if I am listening to a man who is exposing what he sees in his own character, and who (like Sigmund Freud) believes that every man is as corrupt as he knows himself to be. Why else would he entertain such libelous thoughts about Christian men?

You also wrote: "Churches can implement educational and participatory opportunities where members are able to develop free from class, gender, or racial prejudices."

I agree again. But I believe that everything you have advocated here has arisen from your gender prejudices. That is, you come to the table with a set of (feminist) assumptions that obviously "prejudice" your judgment and render you incapable of assessing the actual evidence objectively. I may be wrong, but it is certainly the impression that your argument conveys.

As you can see, I am committed to interacting with your actual statements, not merely with an imaginary straw man that I could use to represent feminists generally. I would request the same respect to be shown to me. I would urge you to respond to what you know me to believe (which can be found in my actual statements), rather than with some caricature of the chauvenistic "traditionalist." I also would request that you use the scriptures as your primary authority. You don't have to accommodate this request, of course, but it is the only way that I can justify my continuing participation in this discussion.

Your motto is "Christianity is not a belief system, but a living dynamic of Christ." I could agree with you, if you had said, "Christianity is not ONLY a belief system, but..." However, you appear to take this quite absolutely, and you argue as if Christianity does not require us to believe anything in particular (except for a belief in egalitarianism, apparently). You may freely decline to believe what the Bible says, if this is your preference. However, do not fault other Christians, who actually think that the Bible was written to be believed and obeyed by God's people.

Blessings!