We cannot untangle the role of women in the church without also delving into the relationship of husbands and wives. After all, the Genesis accounts that we’ve already studied deal foremost with marriage, not church governance.
Paul’s most thorough discussion of the relationship of husbands and wives is found in Ephesians 5:21-6:9. Because Paul deals very particularly with the subject, we must begin our New Testament study here.
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
This familiar passage is often studied and taught in our Sunday School classes, most often when marriage is being studied. In fact, I have observed that those teaching this scripture in the context of how to have a good, Christian marriage often interpret it differently from those who are teaching regarding the role of women in the church. Certainly, we must understand it the same way in both contexts.
Headship
Before interpreting the passage, we must first come to an understanding of the meaning of “head” in 5:23: “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” In First Century Greek, what might “head” — kephale in the Greek — mean when used figuratively of a person?
Now, in the literature on the role of women, the scholars love to debate whether kephale means “ruler” or “leader” or “source.” Some argue the “head” just obviously means ruler. Others says the kephale never means ruler in First Century Greek.
After some years of consideration, I’ve concluded that neither meaning is sufficiently well established that either side can insist on that meaning just from the choice of the word. Moreover, there are other possibilities in the lexicons. Nor is it even essential that the meaning of a metaphor be found in a dictionary, as Paul is quite capable of creating a new metaphor to suit his purposes.
The Septuagint argument
The Septuagint is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek issued in parts from the mid-third century BC to the mid-first century BC or so. Paul typically quotes the Old Testament from the Septuagint, so he was clearly very familiar with its wording.
The Hebrew word ro’sh means both the head of a person and a ruler or leader — as is true of “head” in English. If kephale had the same double meaning in Greek, you’d think the translators of the Septuagint would have chosen kephale as the customary translation of ro’sh.
There are 16 places where the Hebrew ro’sh is translated kephale and means something like “ruler” or “leader.”
(Deu 28:13) The LORD will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the LORD your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom.
(Deu 28:44) He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.
(Jdg 10:18) The leaders of the people of Gilead said to each other, “Whoever will launch the attack against the Ammonites will be the head of all those living in Gilead.”
(Jdg 11:8-11) The elders of Gilead said to him, “Nevertheless, we are turning to you now; come with us to fight the Ammonites, and you will be our head over all who live in Gilead.” 9 Jephthah answered, “Suppose you take me back to fight the Ammonites and the LORD gives them to me–will I really be your head?” 10 The elders of Gilead replied, “The LORD is our witness; we will certainly do as you say.” 11 So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them. And he repeated all his words before the LORD in Mizpah.
(2Sa 22:44) “You have delivered me from the attacks of my people; you have preserved me as the head of nations. People I did not know are subject to me,
(Psa 18:43) You have delivered me from the attacks of the people; you have made me the head of nations; people I did not know are subject to me.
(Psa 110:6) He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
(Isa 7:8) for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. 9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’ ”(Isa 9:14) So the LORD will cut off from Israel both head and tail, both palm branch and reed in a single day; 15 the elders and prominent men are the head, the prophets who teach lies are the tail.
(Lam 1:5) Her foes have become her masters;
her enemies are at ease.
The LORD has brought her grief
because of her many sins.
Her children have gone into exile,
captive before the foe.
However, there are a total of about 180 places in the Septuagint where ro’sh means something like ruler or leader. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelson, “What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?” Women, Authority & the Bible, 97-117, cited by Osburn, Women in the Church, at 164 ff.
Of these 180 uses, only 16 actually use kephale. The rest are generally translated with archon or the like, words that mean “ruler” or “leader” but not a person’s head.
The four uses of kephale in Deut and Isaiah therefore don’t really count, because the translators could hardly have used archon and preserved the contrasting metaphors of “head” and “tail.” Hence, 164 out of 176 uses (about 93%) fail to use kephale to mean ruler or leader. Plainly, at the time the Septuagint was translated the translators did not consider kephale to obviously and naturally mean boss or ruler. The meaning was certainly possible but not idiomatic — that is, the reader would only take “head” to mean “ruler” if the context made the metaphor clear. The meaning could not presumed.
On the other hand, it was certainly possible for kephale to mean ruler or leader, and Paul would have surely been aware of that usage.
The use of kephale as “ruler” or “leader” in other sources
It has now been shown beyond reasonable argument that kephale is used to mean “ruler” or “leader” in many non-Biblical Greek sources, particularly the Patristics. It is further convincingly argued that kephale often means “beginning” but virtually never means source. The arguments and evidence have been gathered by Wayne Grudem in two articles published here and here.
But then, Paul was free to coin any metaphor that suits his purposes. But for “head” to mean “source,” the context would have to make that meaning clear.
Of course, “beginning” and “source” can be virtual synonyms in some contexts, and Grudem concedes that the meaning “source” is possible in a context where “beginning” can mean “source.” But if “beginning” doesn’t fit, “source” is not possible.
Hence, while we can’t treat “ruler” or “leader” as foreign to kephale, we must also consider the possible meaning of “beginning.”
Another common meaning of “head” in the Greek, per Grudem, is “life” (432), citing the Liddell-Scott Dictionary‘s definition of kephale (quoted in full here).
Hence, we seem to see a shifting of the usage of kephale, where it was not routinely used to mean ruler or leader before the New Testament, but that metaphor became much more common afterwards, with the New Testament being written during a transitional period. Indeed, Grudem shows that pre-First Century lexicons do not include “ruler” or “leader” as possible meaning of kephale, whereas lexicons based on the Patristics do.
Application to the New Testament
Manifestly, context matters. Kephale did not have one unique meaning in the First Century. One cannot presume the meaning of “ruler” but neither can the meaning be excluded as impossible. Moreover, we don’t simply plug in meanings out of a dictionary and pick the one that fits best. That method makes sense in non-figurative language, but it’s entirely insufficient in interpreting a metaphor.
Consider the line from the psalm: “He maketh me to lie down in green pastures.” Go to a dictionary and try to fit the various meanings of “pasture” into the poem to see what “pasture” means in that sentence. Strong’s Dictionary says,
a home; fig. a pasture:–habitation, house, pasture, pleasant place
But that hardly tells you the psalmist is saying. That’s not the ultimate thought. Manifestly, you won’t fully retrieve the author’s intent by this means. Figurative language just isn’t that mechanical. Context rules.
Headship in the context of Ephesians
Ephesians 1-2
The solution is to find Paul’s meaning from the context.
(Eph. 1:21-23) In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And God placed all things under [Christ’s] feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
Paul refers to Christ as “head” over everything. But clearly Christ’s relationship with the church, His body, differs from His relationship with “everything.” Christ is head — not over the church — but for the church. His headship is for a purpose, and that purpose is for the benefit of the church. Moreover, we see the church referred to as Christ’s “body.” Paul then says that the church is the “fullness” of Christ “who fills everything in every way.”
The conclusion that Christians are not viewed in this passage as being under Christ as a “head” is confirmed by Ephesians 2:6-7:
And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
First, we are shown a picture of Christ sitting on His throne in heaven at the right hand of God. Paul says that God “seated him … in the heavenly realms.” We now read that all Christians are seated with Christ in the heavenly realms.
In this highly symbolic language, the thought is not that Christians (the body) are ruled by Christ (the head). Rather, the thought is that we Christians rule with Christ! This is not to say that Christ has no authority over Christians — only that Christ’s authority over the church is not the thought contained within the metaphor “head” as used in Ephesians.
Thus, the church is pictured as not so much in subjection to Christ as an extension of Christ. And being a part of Christ, there is no question of being “under his feet.” After all, the church cannot be both under Christ’s feet and His body!
In this light, this otherwise-obscure passage starts to make better sense —
(1 Cor 6:2-3) Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
We customarily think of Jesus judging us at the end of time. Paul here says that we’ll be the judges — which only makes sense if Paul’s metaphor of the church sitting on Christ’s throne with him is much more than a metaphor!
However, we shouldn’t deny the fact that Jesus, as head, is said “to be head over everything for the church.” “Over” translates huper (over) whereas “for” translates te (to). Hence, “head” in this verse has a double meaning.
Jesus (head) and church (body) sit on the throne (symbolic of authority) and, together, rule “everything,” but the rule of Jesus, as head, is for the benefit of the church, which is also above “everything.” The head has two relationships. As to the church, the head is acting for the church. As to all else, it is ruling.
Ephesians 4
The next occurrence of “head” in Ephesians is in chapter 4 —
15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
Once again, Paul refers to Christ as “head” and the church as His body. But we also see the image of the body growing “from him” with the “head” being seen as the source of growth and building up.
We modern folks know that thought and control come from the brain, that is, a part of the head. First Century Greeks thought of thought as coming from the midriff. “Bedale reminds us that the functions of the nervous system were not known to the ancients, who, accordingly, did not view the head as we do (they held that man thinks with the midriff, the phren)” (Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, ibid, pages 151-152). Thus, “head” does not refer to the man as the thinking member of the household.
While the ancient Greeks did not have the understanding of anatomy that is familiar to 21st Century readers, it would have been easy enough for a First Century reader to see the “head” as the source of nourishment for the body, and this certainly seems to be Paul’s image. And once again we see the image of the body as the extension of the personality of Christ, with each part doing its own work as part of a single living organism.
In short, just as is stated in 1:21-23, the image is Jesus, as head, acting for the church, not over the church. Indeed, if we recall the common usage of “head” as life, we see Paul picturing Jesus as nourishing and providing growth to the church, its body. Indeed, a very likely sense of “head” as between Jesus and the church is “sustainer.” He gives and provides all that is necessary for life.
Ephesians 5
(Eph 5:23) For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Which meaning of “head” does Paul have in mind? That the husband has rule over the wife as Christ has rule over the cosmos? Or the husband is to be the source of support, nourishment, and growth? Is the husband head “over” the wife or head “for” the wife?
The answer is obvious enough from the fact that Paul specifically says that it’s the relationship of Christ to the church that he is comparing. Moreover, the prepositions are not huper but te, which proves the parallel.
The point is further affirmed by verse 29 —
(Eph 5:29) After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church–
Therefore, the notion that kephale means ruler or such like in Eph 5 misses the context entirely. Rather, Paul is specifically contrasting Christ’s two roles — as ruler of the universe and sustainer of the church. Therefore, husbands are to be “heads” of their wives in the sense of being sustainers — the sources of sustenance and of strength.
After all, Paul’s use of head is obviously a reference back to —
15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, [wives] will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, [their husbands]. 16 From [the husbands] the whole body [of husband and wife], joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
Isn’t that the image Paul is painting for us?
The mystery of Christ and church
(Eph 5:31-32) “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery — but I am talking about Christ and the church.
To this point, therefore, we see that Christ has the entire universe under His feet, and that He sits on His heavenly throne as a king, and yet we see the church made a part of the person of Christ Himself — not so much ruled as a part of the ruler! The church can hardly be in rebellion to Christ, because it is a part of Him. Indeed, the church, as part of Christ, will judge the universe and angels!
Paul declares in 5:31-32 that the language of Genesis 2 applies to Christ and the church — they are “united” and “one flesh.” Of course, Paul often speaks of the church as the bride of Christ, as well as the body of Christ. To our way of thinking, these are two different metaphors, but Eph 5 indicates that Paul sees them as one — as the bride is “one flesh” with her husband, she is his body. This is the ontological unity of Christ and the church that he pictures in Ephesians and Colossians.
And, of course, this tells us much of the relationship Paul wants for husbands and wives.
“Head” as ruler/sustainer
And so, for purposes of Ephesians, I suggest that “head” is a double metaphor. As to the universe (other than the church), the head is ruler (not spiritual leader). As to the church, the head is sustainer, the source of growth and nourishment.
It’s not a dictionary definition, but it’s not far from “life” or “beginning,” and Paul offers plenty of explanation in context to make his meaning clear. He is free to coin his own metaphors and doesn’t have to consult the dictionary makers to make his point clear if he explains himself.
The critical point — often overlooked — is that the church sits on Jesus’ throne with him, judging the universe along with him. His rule is with and for the church, not over the church. And this is the sense of his teaching of husbands in Eph 5.
Jay,
I appreciate your willingness to rethink your position on kephale in Ephesians 5. I would suggest that your rethinking not stop with what you have written here.
I wholeheartedly agree. Furthermore, I would suggest that the essence of the differences between your view of the woman's role and mine are summed up in our different interpretations of this passage. So this is the right place for you and I to spend some serious time in discussion.
Paul wrote:
In verse 23, Paul tells us the reason why wives must submit to their husbands as to the Lord. Because the husband is the head of the wife, therefore the wife must submit to the husband. For emphasis, he repeats in verse 24 that, *therefore*, wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
So, according to the inspired apostle, the fact that the husband is head of the wife leads to the conclusion that the wife must submit to the husband. That is very strong evidence, directly from the context, that "head" connotes authority.
Earlier in the letter, Paul did say Christ is head over everything "for the church". That means that Christ uses his universal authority on behalf of the church. Even in that case, "head" speaks of Christ's position of authority. That obviously does not suggest that Christ is not head of the church (see Col 1:18). As every Christian said in the good confession, Jesus is Lord. One cannot be a Christian without recognizing the preeminent authority of Jesus over every Christian, and over the church.
That is actually irrelevant to determining the correct interpretation of kephale in Eph 5:23. Use of "head" to mean ruler is a metaphor, in both Greek and English. Of course we would expect the literal word for "ruler" to be used more frequently than the metaphor. What is significant is that when kephale is used as a metaphor for ruler, it would have been readily understood by first century Christians. Certainly any Jew knowledgeable of the Septuagint would be familiar with that usage. And as you pointed out, that same usage is also irrefutably established in texts outside the Bible, so non-Jews would have understood equally well. Given that familiarity, combined with the clear signals in the immediate context, a first century Christian would have understood Eph 5:23 to teach that the husband is in authority over the wife.
On the other hand, I don't think any first century Jew would have come up with your alternate explanation for "head" as "sustainer." Are you aware of any examples in the Septuagint, or in nonbiblical ancient Greek, where it is used as you have described? A week ago you were willing to reject "head" as "ruler" based on the supposed lack of examples in ancient Greek — even rejecting one example in the Septuagint as an apparent copyist error. If you are now willing to accept an alternate meaning for which you cannot offer even one "copyist's error" in support, you are not being consistent.
Eph 5 is indeed the right place to start to understand the Christian teaching on the relationship between husbands and wives. Because of what Paul says in that passage, you must show that "head" does not imply authority, or else concede that wives are to be under the authority of their husbands. Your original attempt was to contend that kephale meant source. That is now an impossible position to sustain. Unless and until you can prove that kephale does not imply authority, I think you must at least acknowledge the possibility that the hierarchical view may be correct.
I have repeatedly said wives are to submit to their husbands. The question is whether the submission is mutual — is there a hierarchy?
Some of the arguments against a hierarchy are —
* 5:21 calls for mutual submission
* Hierarchy is foreign in Genesis 2
* Although Christians call Jesus Lord, Jesus died for and was a servant of the church.
Paul is quite explicit as to the kind of "head" the husband is to be —
Consider the meaning of "gave himself up" (padadidomi). Zodhiates has "to deliver over or up to the power of someone."
What does this command mean to a modern husband? It's a little trite to say "be willing to die for his wife," when that is rarely actually required. Clearly, Paul had more in mind. Rather, he's speaking of the intensity of the husband's love for his wife — but what does he give up? What does he surrender?
Jesus gave up equality with God to become a "servant." I think the answer has to be in Phil 2 —
As I will say in a post I've written but not yet posted, if the hierarchicalists were to teach this attitude for husbands, there'd be very little to argue about. After all, we should expect spouses to be more like-minded, more loving, more one in spirit and purpose with each other than Christians in general.
However, I keep seeing articles that insist on expressing the husband-wife relationship in terms of who is boss — who gets to break a tie (that is to say, always win). But such relationships are quite foreign to the gospel.
I mean, Jesus is Lord, but his only command is that we have faith in him and love one another.
And as I've pointed out before, this is a command that cannot be obeyed as a command. Therefore,
Consequently, a husband can no more rule his wife by law than Jesus rules his church by law. And this is the place where, with Paul, I say, "This is a profound mystery."
Let me try this one more time.
You cannot translate "head" by merely substituting another word for it. It's a double metaphor, that is, Paul has painted a picture for us that teaches multiple lessons about how Jesus relates to others. The interpretation comes entirely from context. It's not an idiom — and even if it were, the context would clearly modify the idiom.
Jesus is presented both as head of his body, the church, and head over everything. He relates to them differently. As to everything else, he is in authority. The "over" makes that quite clear. As to the church, Paul couldn't be more clear that his role is as a source of nourishment, growth, and security. He makes that point at 4:15 and 5:29.
Would a First Century read see sustenance by Jesus as the point of these verses?
How could he not? After all, these are pictures — extended metaphors — that show a body's head caring for the body to which it is attached. It's what the head is doing as to the church. The head is sustaining the church.
Eph 5 is indeed the right place to start to understand the Christian teaching on the relationship between husbands and wives. Because of what Paul says in that passage, you must show that “head” does not imply authority, or else concede that wives are to be under the authority of their husbands. Your original attempt was to contend that kephale meant source. That is now an impossible position to sustain. Unless and until you can prove that kephale does not imply authority, I think you must at least acknowledge the possibility that the hierarchical view may be correct.
I don't have to demonstrate that "head" does not imply authority. I only have to demonstrate that Paul teaches mutual submission. After all, as 1 Cor 7 plainly teaches, it's quite possible for authority and submission to run in two directions simultaneously.
On the other hand, the critical point of this entire discussion of husbands and wives is to refute the paternalistic teaching. There are views not quite as egalitarian as mine but far removed from paternalism that are quite respectable — and do not contradict my teachings re the role of women in the church. You see, as to husband and wives, I think a hierarchicalist interpretation built on a sound Christology could be entirely consistent with the rest of my understanding.
But to even be considered as possibly right, it would have to see the Curse from Gen 3 as Christ's enemy and not read Gen 3:16 back into Gen 2.
That may be true. If so then we are arguing about semantics rather than meaning.
When Paul addressed the wives specifically, he told them to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, in everything. That is what we should teach wives also. When he addressed the husbands specifically, he told them to love their wives as Christ loved the church, giving themselves up for their wives. That is what we should teach the men also. He didn't tell husbands to make sure the wife submits. And he didn't tell wives to make sure the husband gives himself up. If we teach the correct part to the correct party, and if both parties live up to the teaching, the results will be a great relationship.
If I understand you correctly, you think the teaching to men in Eph 5:25ff is a form of submission to the wife, based on Eph 5:21. I disagree, because I don't think that is consistent with the definition of the word "submit," and I don't think that is what Paul meant in verse 21. That may or may not be a purely semantic difference.
I don't think what Paul told husbands, and fathers, and masters to do in chapters 5 and 6 amounts to submission. Instead I think those instructions are placing limits on how they are to carry out their leadership. It is an application of what Jesus said in Matt 20:24-28:
That certainly does not mean that leaders in the church have no authority. On the contrary, the scriptures plainly state that church leaders do have authority (Heb 13:17 for example) But they are to carry out that authority in a manner much different from how the non-Christian world carries authority. Similarly, husbands do have authority over their wives. But they are required to carry that authority in a certain way.
Alan,
Actually, Paul does say in Eph. 5.21 a mutual statement of submission. It is even prior to pointing out the womans. In fact, It is this submission that is further described in the verses you have already mentioned vs 22-33. Furthermore, you are mistaken in your reading of this text. For the Greek verb huppotasso (to submit) is not even in Verse 22 of the earliest manuscripts and it is only stated in reference the church in verse 24 in comparison to the wife. It is assumed in the English versions because both 22 ff as well as in 25ff are continuing the thought that was begun in 21. So to suggest that Christ is not speaking of an equal submission is to base ones interpretation on the English not the Greek and demands a bit of breaking out of each thought to stand on its own. Even beyond this, is the reference at the end of this section which reveals that Paul's words are a profound mystery and that what he is really referring to is Christ and the church. As an almost afterthought, he suggests that his correlation is still valid. This is not exactly the that we find ourselves in discussion over.
Lastly, I think the term authority is being Americanized and Pharisized (??) rather than seen in light of how Christ reveals his authority. It is not in his otherness as a deity rather it is in his oneness with the Father and likeness to us in his humanness. He is not talking about something that we as the body or the church cannot attain rather he is speaking of an authority that allows us the church to become one flesh with Christ as husband and wife become one flesh (vs. 31). In oneness, we do not exert power, ever. We submit to one another on the basis of an acknowledgment of our giftedness. The argument of submission of wife to husband is more than simply an argument of hierarchy, it is one that lacks humility and presumes the greater role is the one who is head. Yet, one must then carry this argument further and ask which of the three persons of God is most important. Is it Jesus, the Word, who breathed life into existence or the Father, who commanded the Word breathe. Or perhaps it is the Spirit, that maintained the chaos of the deep in anticipation of Creation. As I see it, to claim that one of the three is greater is to demean the significance of any one of them. Even more, it removes the essence of our God who exists in continual relationship. Hence, God is God on the basis that he exists in mutual submission among all three persons, otherwise, he is not the Father without a Son and without the Son who needs the Spirit, which communicates between the two and his church. God has chosen a path where he himself submitted himself, subjected himself to the very thing he created in obedience to death.
In short, to suggest submission is not equal suggests that one does not need the other. Each must submit to the other in the areas that the other is inadequate. Christ's authority is authority that wins not in exertion but in submission. It is not in oppression but in regression. It is not in lording but it is in serving. Thus, the argument may be semantics but semantics are the essence of holiness. It is how we stand out in the world as different.
Pingback: MDR: Conclusions « One In Jesus.info
I think “head is best defined by paul Himslef:
Where there is a head, there is submission to the head. This is so obvious and simply I hardly see the point of that lenghty essay. Especially when taking a different verse into consideration:
Sarah is put forth as an example for all Christian women because she called her husband “Lord” and submitted to him. I doubt that you can find any ancient sources that would explain “Lord” contrary to having authority.
Alexander
I think I have heard four “submission” sermons for every one “giving yourself up for her” sermon I have heard. There seems to be a message to women of “submit to him until he gets a clue” but no concomitant message of “give yourself up for her until SHE gets a clue”. Funny, that.
Jay wrote: “Nor is it even essential that the meaning of a metaphor be found in a dictionary, as Paul is quite capable of creating a new metaphor to suit his purposes.”
Jay, you are correct in this and at the same time undermining much of the common hermeneutic . Common biblical dissection in search of meaning, complete with congugation of Koine verbs, is considered the height of scholarship and the basis for grasping the meaning of scripture. I commonly hear lengthy debates on Greek syntax and vocabularywhich are apparently the keys to ferreting out what God is hiding from us in our sadly-insufficient mother tongue. You, sir, appear to verge upon questioning Vine and Thayer as our modern prophets!
What if we were to acknowledge that drilling down for definitive linguistic conclusions in symbolic and metaphoric language is inappropriately limiting? Upon what basis would we then argue and prove ourselves more right than our errant brothers? We might well be reduced to dependence on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to reveal the meanings underlying the language.
Oh, for the day!
Well, I haven’t. I think it’s been the other way round. There is some insistance on submission, however, but not very often a sermon dedicated to it. But I have heard it over and over again that we shall love our wives as Christ loved the church – and I think we can’t hear that often enough.
Yet, being from a generation where the order in society, family and church rapidly changed, I have heard more egalitarian proposals than sound teaching of submission.
And if I take the ratio of “loving your wives” one one side and “wives submit” onthe other, I think 4:1 is about the balance:
Eph 5 on one side and Eph 5, Col 3, 1Pe 3 and 1Co 11 on the other side. So if you just preach the Bible book by book, you’ll have to teach about the submission of women four times as often as on the Christ-like love of husbands.
I suspect this might eventually be a hint to a reason behind it …
Alexander
Paul could not have used archon in Eph 5 either, because he is using the metaphor of the Body. The head is not the source ofthe body, but the ruler. All decisions come from “above”. kephale is most fitting to describe leadership in the body, but also the interdependence within the body.
As the church submits Christ in all, which means he is leading the church while also nourishing it, so the wives their husbands who shall reflect Christ’s leadership and care.
Yes we are so advanced compared to the Neanderthal-Greeks! People knew how to make brain surgeries even in prehistoric-times; and from the excavated skulls we know that they even survived. Alexandria was a center for meical studies under Galenos of Pergamos.
Of course science made progress; but a lot of this progress is also a rediscovery of hat had been lost in the middle ages, or at least built on ieas and theories of Greek philosophers.
That’s simply not true, Jay! The Gospels are full of various commands of our Lord, that need to be observed: Not swearing, no divorce, loving your enemies, be holy, share your possesions, … and the letters are full of commands of the Lord as well, since that was the calling of the apostles to convey the goispel and the comands ofthe gospel (2Pe 3:2).
I agree that love is the underlying theme of all of these, but I object to the “reduction” of all commands to “love”. After all Mat 28:20 says: “all that I have commanded you”, which clearly points to more than one command. This “love-reduction” is simplistic and – as I see it – a way to get around the commands we don’t associate with “love” as we understand it. Part of this is the submission of women in family and church, which is explicitly called a command of the Lord (1Co 14:38).
So the statement I quoted (the only command …) flatly denies that 1Co 14:38 is a command. And this is necessary in order to “reinterpret” biblical termonilogy in order to make it fit a theology that fits to our modern times. But is this really sound teaching, Jay?
And this is a fruit af bad eschatology. But the churches of Christ traditionally have a weak position concerning eschatology because of their Presbyterian background. The idea of “ruling with Christ” tofay became popular with the development of the state church under Constantine. It is state-church eschatology.
But we will rule in the future, after Christ returned and ushered in His Kingdom in glory and power. That we are sitting with Him (or in Him) spiritually today does not mean that we already rule. Because today the church is suffering, not ruling. It is called to become a servant as Christ became a servant before He was exalted.
And the promise to rule with Christ is only for those who overcome this word and remain faithful unto death. This is a huge theme in the NT.
And so the church SUBMITS to CHris as her HEAD/RULER. Why do we call Him Lord? We because He is Lord! And why i Sara an example for Christian women? Becaue she called her husband lord! And why is this commendable? Because the relationship of husband and wife reflects the realtionship of Christ and the church – again a type, a shadow that came to its fullness in Christ.
Please, Jay, you seem to bring up discussions on egalitarianism on a regular basis, but your assumptions neither scripturally nor historically correct; yet they cause a lot of harm to the churches of Christ. And to your soul as well. It would be better to step back from this idea/ideology.
Alexander
Just one more on this phrase: We are abrely at the beginning of the 21st century! imagine 10, 20 years ftrom now people might laugh at us! How can we claim the 21st century for us?
Times are changing, people are changing, cultures are changing … a nd usually NOT for the better!
But the word of the Lord remains unchanged! As soon as we make the “insights” of our day and age the standard, we DENY God’s word. Such an approach is worldly, “enlightened” and ALL but Christian. It is the root of all the contemporary divisions among us.
Alexander
Re-opening a topic after 3 1/2 yrs… Is someone missing their daily Jay Guin fix? 🙂
Sort of … but I haven’t been in this topic back then, and it is coming up every once in a whole anyway – so why not continuing something older rather than tarting something new? After all, his basic reasononiung seems to have remained the same in this area.
Alexander