Pearls are formed when a piece of sand irritates an oyster. Over time, one layer after another is deposited upon the sand until it is transformed into something precious and beautiful. I just finished a new paper which draws upon many posts from this blog and is a pearl to me.
Genesis 3:16 and Ephesians 5:24:
A Woman’s Desire, A Man’s Rule, and A Wife’s Submission (pdf)
Posted in authority/power, Ephesians 5, Gen 3:16, hupotasso, submission, Word Study (Greek/Hebrew) | Comments Off
Are you “subject to your husband in EVERYTHING”?
I am!
But I do not SUBMIT to him in EVERYTHING.
Newsflash: You too are “subject to your husband in EVERYTHING”!
Being “subject to” your husband is like being “subject to” gravity. It’s not something you “choose” but a state of being.!!
The word “submit” implies choice/volition on the part of the “submitter”.
“Subject to” better conveys the grammatical nuance of the Greek PASSIVE voice (of the hupotasso verb used in Ephesians 5:24).
“but even as the assembly is subject to Christ,
so also [are] the wives to their own husbands in everything.” Eph 5:24 (YLT)
For over two decades I twisted myself into a pretzel attempting to practice “SUBMIT to him in EVERYTHING”. Once the newlywed shine wore off (by 5 years) I felt progressively more and more disrespected and by the time we were married 22 years, I was completely miserable in the marriage, I felt trapped like a prisoner in a concentration camp.
Once I realized this passage is not teaching a wifely BEHAVIOR, but describing “the state of being a wife”, what its like in a wife’s skin, THEN I was free to move toward making life in my skin more tolerable by standing up for myself and protecting myself and the children.
Here are two pictures to illustrate the difference. Perhaps this will help.
“SUBMIT in everything” looks like this:
This is WORKS. It’s like living on a hamster wheel in a cage, always trying to please him never getting anywhere- trapped, imprisoned. Sometimes he lays the demands on so thick and turns up the speed so fast that you fall down. This is how I knew that the interpretation “wife, submit in EVERYTHING” cannot possibly be what God meant! I attempted it and it is physically impossible and emotionally deadening.
Here is what I think God (via Paul) means in Ephesians 5:24 “wives ARE SUBJECT TO their husbands” –>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS is “SUBJECT TO”:
Depending upon whether the Flower is nourished and cherished,
it will BLOOM
or it will WILT.
And if I am SUBJECT TO a man who is constantly WILTING me by his behavior and refuses to change his WILTING ways, then in this day and age (unlike the peasants of yesteryear), I have the power to choose not to be SUBJECT TO him anymore.
I am thankful that my husband has chosen to change his WILTING ways. Our marriage continues (since Oct 9, 1982) which means I continue to be “SUBJECT to” him. He has learned to be more sensitive and instead of defending himself and blaming us, he is now open to receiving correction when his harshness has wilted me or one of our Quiver Full (our eight children plus 2 sons-in-law and a daughter-in-law- so far).
If anyone reading this is still on that hamster wheel
striving and straining to “be submissive”, weary and heavy laden,
my heart goes out to you.
I’ve been there.
I understand.
GOD understands! What you are doing is NOT what He meant!
This blog is a gift to you in hope that reading about the things which God has shown me as I made this journey will give you
a helping hand off the hamster wheel.
Love, Charis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This final post is dedicated to my blogging sisters who can be found in the comments here.
Posted in Ephesians 5, hupotasso, submission | Comments Off
To subscribers, visitors, followers, and friends over these past 4 years blogging here,
I love you all and thank you for listening, caring, and sharing. I’m moving to a new chapter in my life and I am ready to put this focus behind me. Some of the writings which were key revelations to me as I wrestled with the topic of “A Wife’s Submission” are collected for reference at titus2keeper.wordpress.com as my rendition of an “online book” and I will continue administrating the relatively quiet blog at godswordtowomen.wordpress.com.
But I’m going to stop blogging here and close discussion of old posts, forget what lies behind, and reach forth to what lies ahead.
God grant me
serenity to accept the things I cannot change
courage to change the things I can
and wisdom to know the difference
Thank you for enCOURAGEing me in this journey!
My situation and understanding has moved from oppression and darkness under the traditions and doctrines of men to freedom in the bright refreshing and wonderful light of the Lord.
I am moving forward to embrace the day.
All the Best,
Charis
Posted in personal testimony | 14 Comments »
Note: This is an old post originally published July 2008 which I am re-publishing as it fits well with the recent series on Genesis 3:16.
Nothing men experience
in the normal course of their everyday lives
resembles this conspicuous form of subjugation.
- Evan Stark (emphasis added)
If one translates the technical jargon in this description of abuse into biblical language, it sounds very much like a real life description of “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you”.
As a fundamentalist Christian woman in recovery from a fatal marriage killing MIS-understanding of biblical submission, I identify very much with the lifestyle described here:
The entrapment of women in personal life is also hard to discern because many of the rights it violates are so basic—so much a part of the taken-for-granted fabric of the everyday lives we lead as adults, and so embedded in female behaviors that are constrained by their normative consignment to women—that their abridgement passes largely without notice. Among my clients are women who had to answer the phone by the third ring, record every penny they spent, vacuum “till you can see the lines,” and dress, walk, cook, talk, and make love in specific ways and not in others, always with the “or else” proviso hanging over their heads. What status should we accord to a woman’s right to have toilet paper in the downstairs bathroom or to the right of a woman I will call Laura who had to beep in periodically so her boyfriend would know her whereabouts or who could not go to the gym without being beeped home? Given the prominence of physical bruising, how can we take these little indignities seriously or appreciate that they comprise the heart of a hostage-like syndrome against which the slap, punch, or kick pale in significance? Most people take it for granted that normal, healthy adults determine their own sleep patterns or how they drive or laugh or make love. The first women who used our home as her safe house described her partner a tyrant. We thought she was speaking metaphorically.
Violence is easy to understand. But the deprivations that come packaged in coercive control are no more a part of my personal life than they are of most men’s. This is true both literally, because many of the regulations involved in coercive control target behaviors that are identified with the female role, and figuratively, because it is hard for me to conceive of a situation outside of prison, a mental hospital, or a POW camp where another adult would control or even care to control my everyday routines.
What is taken from the women whose stories I hear almost daily—and what some victims use violence to restore—is the capacity for independent decision making in the areas by which we distinguish adults from children and free citizens from indentured servants. Coercive control entails a malevolent course of conduct that subordinates women to an alien will by violating their physical integrity (domestic violence), denying them respect and autonomy (intimidation), depriving them of social connectedness (isolation), and appropriating or denying them access to the resources required for personhood and citizenship (control). Nothing men experience in the normal course of their everyday lives resembles this conspicuous form of subjugation. (Stark “Coercive Control” 15)
In my marriage, there was no habitual “domestic violence”. And there wasn’t the pattern of honeymoon, and build up, and rage like they speak of with abusers. But there was the constant demeaning, disrepectful, insulting lifestyle of not being trusted, not being considered competent to make adult decisions about matters which affected every area of my life and the lives of our children daily and intimately. I STOPPED making such decisions because it was just not worth it to me to pay the price I paid for doing so. I preferred to run every decision through him than to endure the verbal abuse for NOT doing so. Even then, it broke down. One DV episode was with my 17 yod because he DENIED that the matter was run through him when it had been and she got lippy with him.
Besides not being able to make basic decisions about which phone plan is best for the household, which vacuum cleaner I prefer, whether a child can have permission to go over to a friend’s house…. there was empathic failure- if it wasn’t important to him then we should live without it, to complain was “contentious” “rebellious” “unsubmissive”, and he’s “the head of the household, absolutely NOT, you will NOT call someone to fix it!” – so I was deprived of what I consider basic necessities like adequate heat and hot water (I have 8 children to care for, and at the time of the heat deprivation, my youngest was 18 months and was very sickly- he had to have 6 rounds of antibiotics and had “failure to thrive”) It FELT like I was living in a concentration camp. What finally initiated the necessary destruction of that paradigm and my gradual discovery of my personal liberty and spiritual authority in Christ was when I told God that I felt ever so weary and heavy laden and my faith is NOT working the way the Bible promises. I begged for Him to remove every yoke which is not from Him because HE PROMISED HIS yoke is easy and His burden is light, and mine was not. 
Its been a VERY difficult transition for my “control freak” husband. The transition brought on a couple of domestic violence incidents. A man who is used to having absolute, unquestioned, authority over everyone in the household has a BIG adjustment to make when his wife finally recovers her voice and her spiritual authority and power in Christ.
Posted in abuse, authority/power, Bible Passages, control, Gen 3:16, submission | 2 Comments »
In light of Mara’s recent blog on Jezebel and Waneta’s response, I thought my readers would enjoy this, from heavensroar.org:
False teaching: Wives must submit to their husbands.
Murder attempt as a result of this false dogma: I knew a conservative middle-aged lovely couple and was friends with the husband first. Both husband and wife were involved in church leadership and business. Then they housed a traveling US speaker who taught that the wife must totally submit to the husband. This so affected the lovely husband that he became a monster and eventually tried to stab her. She’d moved to her own bedroom, had locks on the door, the kids were begging her to leave, and she eventually did. I was in the UK by this time and knew nothing of this but God gave me the intercessory burden for her. I knew she was in serious danger and prayed and fasted hard! Finally I managed to get through on the phone and found that the night before he’d been trying to batter down her locked door to get at her with a dagger because she wasn’t willing to ‘submit’ to his ‘authority’. He had become fully possessed by this demon of illegal control. The biblical definition of submission is “to willingly come underneath in a safe place” (and it must be mutual). Her husband was hardly safe after succumbing to the dogma of ‘authority over’ his wife. The dogma wrecked the marriage, the kids’ security, the business, and the man himself.
As prophet Jill Austin said, the Jezebel demon that submission devotees love to accuse women of having, always goes for illegal control and is therefore behind the men that promote female and/or laity submission. This case classically proves that Jezebel is at least one of the spirits behind these men.
Posted in abuse, control, submission | Tagged Spirit of Jezebel | 4 Comments »
This is insightful:
Since then, on occasion, I have been accused of bitterness when I wasn’t. I was angry. There’s a difference between anger and bitterness. I made great progress in my own healing and health when I was able to give myself permission to be angry. Unlike bitterness, anger is neutral. Even Jesus was angry. Appropriately handled, anger can be a God given force toward freedom from bondage.
Posted in anger | Tagged anger, bitterness | 3 Comments »
If you will go to these links at BLB: Luke 10:17-20 and Eph 5:24 and scroll down, you will see that the form of hupotasso is exactly the same in Luke 17, 20, and Ephesians 5:24. ὑποτάσσεται=hupotassetai.
If you scroll down further, you will see the parsing of the verb under “Tense” and all three cases are identified as the PASSIVE voice. I also checked the interlinear at: www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
and interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm They all identify these instances of “subjection” as passive voice where the subject receives the action without volition/will on the part of the subject. (Contrast with Romans 13:1,5 “ Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.1 … 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.” – for example- where the hupotasso is middle imperative. “Voluntary self-instigated yielding” would be an appropriate understanding here.)
Though on the surface it’s a shocking parallel, I think the submission of the devils to the apostles actually provides a great deal of insight as to the nature of the submission of wife to husband. Contra many egalitarians who frame the wifely subjection of Eph. 5:24 as “voluntary, self-instigated yielding”, think about this. Do these devils have any will in their submission? Do they choose their submission? Can they decide not to submit? No, they are in subjection without any volition/will on their part. Their subjection is not a “command” that they must “obey”; their subjection their state of being, which they cannot resist even if they wanted to.
Likewise, the submission/subjection of the wife in Ephesians 5 as well as in 1 Peter 3 is stated with verbs using the passive voice. This suggests that a wife’s submission/subjection is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Its not a COMMAND, its her state of being which she cannot resist even if she wanted to.
I suggest that the passive voice of hupotasso is evidence that biblical teaching about wifely subjection is not a command to women. Commands are in the imperative. (eg. verse 25 directed to HUSBANDS is in the imperative love-agapete) . Rather this submission is a state of being and a response. Much like a garden passively receives watering, nourishing, cherishing,. The garden is SUBJECT TO the gardener. If tending, nourishing, cherishing, is neglected, the garden wilts and dies.
I suggest that the statement in Ephesians 5:24 should not make wives sweat at all. Rather, husbands should be sweating. She has no power nor control to resist. When she marries, her husband holds her heart in his hands. Will he be harsh and trample her under his feet? crushing her spirit? or will he be like Christ and minister LIFE?
And a husband has a particular power and influence upon a wife that may not go “vice versa” because she is uniquely “subject to” (being harmed by?) him moreso than he to her. John Gottman observed this in his marriage laboratory (see “Addendum: The Scientific support for “wives are subject“). This view also makes sense of the instruction to wives that they need to PHOBEO their husbands (Eph 5:33).
Posted in Ephesians 5, hupotasso, submission | 8 Comments »
Ephesians 5:22-33 commands wives to obey their husbands and husbands to love their wives. Conservative Christians may try to explain away the offense of this passage, but there’s no escaping its ugly reality. Ephesians calls wives to submit to their husbands just as children must obey their parents and slaves must obey their masters. See the larger context, Ephesians 5:21-6:9. Greg Carey, Huffington Post
Oh yes, there is!
A wife “is subject” to her husband just like we “are subject” to gravity. Would we say something so ridiculous as “God is calling me to submit to gravity and obey gravity like a slave obeys a master”. NO, we would not! We know that being subject to gravity is not a call to a certain behavior. It is a condition which we deal with as long as we are on this planet. So is a wife’s subjection to her husband.
See Genesis 3:16 and Ephesians 5:24: A Woman’s Desire, A Man’s Rule, and A Wife’s Submission for the biblical case. This is an addendum with the scientific case. An early draft of aforementioned research paper included what the world of psychological research already knows about the differences between man and woman. I took the Gottman references OUT of the paper because my husband thought I should argue exclusively from the Biblical texts and not include any secular evidence supporting my thesis.
Observe the difference in “accepting influence”:
This observation led me to formulate the hypothesis that marriages work to the extent that men accept influence from, share power with women. Next I applied this to a longitudinal study of 130 nonviolent newlywed couples and found that, amazingly, those in which the men who did not accept influence from their wives wound up divorced. The prediction rate was very good, 80% accuracy, and it did not work the other way around: Most wives accepted influence from their husbands, and the acceptance predicted nothing.
(Gottman, John “The Marriage Clinic” page 52 )
Gottman’s research is the centerpiece of a Newsweek report on “The Science of a Good Marriage”:
An unequal balance of power is also deadly to a marriage. Gottman found that a husband who doesn’t share power with his wife has a much higher risk of damaging the relationship. Why are men singled out? Gottman says his data show that most wives, even those in unstable marriages, are likely to accept their husband’s influence. It’s the men who need to shape up, he says. The changes can be simple, like turning off the football game when she needs to talk. Gottman says the gesture proves he values “us” over “me.” (Wingert)
The inclination observed by Gottman of “most wives. . . to accept their husband’s influence” sounds a lot like what Christians would think of as “wifely submission”!
Wives ARE SUBJECT, and have been ever since Genesis 3:16! This is what Paul states in Ephesians 5:24. He is not “calling wives to submit”. He is describing the wifely tendency, the wifely vulnerablity, the wifely habit of having accepting and receiving a husband’s influence, of being deeply impacted by a husband even if she would rather not be. A wife “is subject” to her husband just like we “are subject” to gravity.
May he use his gravitational pull well!
Posted in Ephesians 5 | Comments Off
Sweat and thorns remain with us, right? (see Gen 3:18-19)
and so does “your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” (see Gen 3:16)
Actually had a good discussion with my husband about this yesterday. Walking with Jesus mitigates the Genesis 3 consequences (but does not eliminate them). With Him “my yoke is easy and my burden light”. I can face marriage difficulties, husband rule, pain in childbirth, unemployment, sweat, thorns, moth, rust, thieves, trials…
…and gaze into His face, put my hand into His, and trust that He will see me through. He has never failed. Though circumstances may look utterly hopeless, He gives me His “peace which passes all understanding” Phil 4. The circumstances may not improve, but I “set my mind on things above, not on things of the earth” Col 3:2
What does it mean to “count it all joy when you have various trials” James 1:2?
I like how Eugene Peterson expresses 2 Cor 12:8-9:
[God says:] My grace is enough; it’s all you need. My strength comes into its own in your weakness.
Once I heard that, I was glad to let it happen. I quit focusing on the handicap and began appreciating the gift. It was a case of Christ’s strength moving in on my weakness. Now I take limitations in stride, and with good cheer, these limitations that cut me down to size—abuse, accidents, opposition, bad breaks. I just let Christ take over! And so the weaker I get, the stronger I become.
Thus, the consequences of Genesis 3, upon man, upon woman, become redemptive.
Posted in Bible Passages, Gen 3:16 | 6 Comments »
Here is a segment of a paper I am in the midst of writing. My thesis is that Paul’s statement in Ephesians 5:24 is a repetition of “the facts of life” first reported in Genesis 3:16:
“your [the wife's] desire will be for your husband
and he will rule over you” Genesis 3:16
(God describing to the first woman what marriage will be like for her)
“wives are subject to their own husbands
in everything” Ephesians 5:24
(Paul describing marriage to the Ephesians)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING!!!!
“wives are subject to their own husbands
in everything” Ephesians 5:24
(Paul describing marriage to the Ephesians)
Paul reiterates the Genesis 3:16 description in Ephesians 5:24. Paul is not giving the Ephesians a prescription but a description.
We are used to hearing prescription/command in Ephesians 5:24. Wives “must be submissive”, “let them be subject”, “must submit”, “should be entirely submissive”, “ought to submit” IN EVERYTHING.
Both complementarians and egalitarians have come up with ways to tap dance around the harsh implications of hearing prescription in Ephesians 5:24 rather than description. Some complementarians attempt to soften the impact of Ephesians 5:24 by isolating the exercise of wifely submission to occasions of conflict where the husband is said to have “final decision making power”. Some egalitarians attempt to soften the impact by describing a wife’s submission as a “voluntary, self-instigated yielding”. However, being “subject in everything” has no limit, no exceptions, nor is it voluntary. Everything means everything!
So where have I gotten this idea that Ephesians 5:24 is not a prescription/command? It comes from the grammar of the Greek. In my study of Ephesians 5:24, I discovered that many translations, add extra words which change the grammar.
In various English Bible versions, the words of Ephesians 5:24 are rendered (source):
The latter rendition of the Bible in Basic English is noteworthy for how visibly we can see the parallel of Ephesians 5:24 with Genesis 3:16. However, BiBE and all of the above translations add words and grammar which are not there in the Greek. The KJV at least brackets the added words so we realize they are additions. If we take out the “let” and “be” from the 6 translations above where they have been added, then they are more accurate. The grammar of the Greek verb hupotasso, translated “to submit” or “to be subject” is not imperative[i]: it is not a command! The grammar of the Greek verb is passive indicative.[ii] The following two translations reflect this accurately:
Young’s Literal Translation
“but even as the assembly is subject to Christ, so also are the wives to their own husbands in everything.”
Darby Bible Translation
“But even as the assembly is subjected to the Christ, so also wives to their own husbands in everything.”
WIVES ARE SUBJECT [not "must be submissive", not "let them be subject", not "must submit", not "should be entirely submissive", not "ought to submit" ] IN EVERYTHING.
So, what does this mean?
You ARE SUBJECT to your husband IN EVERYTHING like you are subject to gravity. Though you made a choice to marry him, you have neither control nor volition regarding your state of subjection; it’s a state of being.
The context of Ephesians 5 speaks of a HEAD and a BODY which metaphor is a remarkable fit with a passive voice understanding of “is subject” in Ephesians 5:24. The body “is subject” to the head, but there is neither volition nor even consciousness involved on the part of the body, nor is there agency involved on the part of the head. It is a description of a state of being, not a command for a certain behavior. Thus the head/body metaphor is a perfect illustration and object lesson of connectedness and “being subject” in the passive voice. Contextually, Ephesians 5:24 is a continuation of the thought started in Ephesians 5:21 and clarifies the nature and extent of the hupotasso Paul has in mind. Furthermore, Paul’s two uses of hupotasso in this context (21 and 24) are a sandwich around his introduction of the head/body metaphor (23). This head/body metaphor is key to understanding Paul’s intent. In the immediate context of Ephesians 5, Paul maps the husband to the head and the wife to the body and refers to the couple thus organically connected as “one flesh” which harks back to the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:24).
For a Christian wife, being “subject to her husband in everything” may or may not resemble her experience being “subject to Christ in everything” depending on how much her husband reflects Christlikeness in the manner in which he treats her (which is the thrust of Paul’s teaching directed to husbands in Ephesians 5).
You might argue that in this sense the husband is subject to the wife too and I would agree with you and point to Ephesians 5:21. However, Ephesians 5:24 clarifies that a wife has a unique and greater vulnerability to her husband which extends to EVERYTHING with no “vice versa” claim in scripture regarding the husband.
Once a wife says “I do” (any wife in any culture of any religion, past, present, and future), she becomes vulnerable to her husband in a way which she is to no other person on earth. The anatomy is a picture of this. The wife opens herself up to receive from her husband, and she will tend to internalize harsh things that he says! (See “Men and Women are Different” #3) That is why Paul repeats 5 times in Ephesians 5 employing imperative grammar (“command” verbs) that a husband needs to AGAPE/LOVE his wife.
ENDNOTES
[i] Imperative is a Greek verb “mood” which is identified by its distinctive form. “The imperative mood is a command or instruction given to the hearer, charging the hearer to carry out or perform a certain action.” The hupotasso (submit) verb of Ephesians 5:24 is NOT in the imperative, although many English translations (mistakenly) add imperative language. Greek verbs change form based upon the subject of the verb and the kind of action indicated. There are five basic parts (or aspects) that are clearly defined or indicated by every Greek verb form: Person, Number, Tense, Voice, and Mood. (ntgreek.org). The aspects relevant to my thesis are voice and mood.
[ii] You can verify the passive indicative parsing for yourself by looking above the hupotasso verb in Ephesians 5:24 at http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm. Guidelines for understanding the implications of voice and mood can be found at http://ntgreek.org/ and Wallace and Mounce. Greek Grammar. “Passive Voice”. Web. 5 July 2011.
Posted in Ephesians 5, hupotasso, Word Study (Greek/Hebrew) | 6 Comments »
IS GENESIS 3:16 ABOUT A WIFE’S DESIRE TO CONTROL HER HUSBAND?
“you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you” Gen. 3:16 NLT
“your desire shall be against your husband, and he shall rule over you” Gen. 3:16 ESV footnote
The above translations have embraced the mapping of a wife’s desire (Genesis 3:16) to sin’s desire (Genesis 4:7) to the extent that they add words to the text which appear to color wives as control freaks (NLT), and enemies of their husbands (ESV, “against” him). Much as I want to dismiss these translations as twisting the passage to say the opposite of its “plain meaning” and “putting the pants on” wives via bold-faced projection of a male inclination, the teaching is commonplace and needs to be addressed.
As far as I have been able to determine, this popular interpretation of “desire” as a wife’s enmity (“against” him) and desire to rule/control her husband originated with Susan Foh in 1974. Preached from pulpits and repeated in marriage books, it has been embraced by complementarians (Ware, CBMW) and egalitarians alike (Hess, CBE ).
For the sake of presenting a thorough analysis, I will address the translations quoted above at face value, but in a way which is respectful to women rather than the demeaning, marriage killing teaching which perceives the wife as her husband’s enemy- the equivalent of “sin”- to be resisted, subdued, and mastered.
The ESV’s “against”, is compatible with the following view of ezer from the Torah Study for Reform Jews:
The Torah Study for Reform Jews says, “From the time of creation, relationships between spouses have at times been adversarial. In Genesis 2:18, God calls woman an ezer kenegdo, a “helper against him.” The great commentator Rashi takes the term literally to make a wonderful point: “If he [Adam] is worthy, [she will be] a help [ezer]. If he is not worthy [she will be] against him [kenegdo] for strife.” This Jewish study also described man and woman facing each other with arms raised holding an arch between them, giving a beautiful picture of equal responsibility (source)
As for the NLT and a wife desiring to control her husband, is a wife’s desire to control her husband a negative? Should she have influence and authority within marriage? You don’t have to look far to find the male propensity to control, rule, exercise authority baptized as good Christian husbandry. I got nearly 8 million hits when I google searched “Bible husband ‘head of the household‘” (even though its a myth that the Bible ever designates the husband as the exclusive head of the household! The husband is head of the WIFE but that is an intimacy metaphor, not an authority metaphor.) But a wife desiring authority/control in the relationship? Can you find any encouragement and support for that anywhere among evangelicals?
What are the results of a wife being denied any control/influence over her husband? In developing countries, the results are a big problem, with men spending money on alcohol and other vices while neglecting their families’ welfare. In my own background as a practitioner of Quiver Full teachings, I surrendered to my husband complete control over where we lived, how many children I had, whether I worked outside the home or not, whether I homeschooled the children or not, whether any of us received medical treatment or not, the “permission to participate in activities” of everyone in the family, how money was spent, what kind of vacuum cleaner we owned, etc. And I had no control/influence over how he spent money or time (which turned to vices during several seasons of our marriage). It was an oppressive lifestyle which sucked the life right out of me.
I submit that the high divorce rate among evangelical Christians is rooted in marriage killing doctrines which rob evangelical wives of control/influence within their marriages.
Are the NLT and ESV renderings used to “keep women in their place” (ie firmly under the control of their husbands; baptizing male control, and chastising female control)? That approach will backfire. A wife will eventually break under the oppression of this paradigm and seek relief from her subjection to him. Christian teaching on marriage should make sure that men and women understand that wives should have power/authority/control/influence within the marriage in equal measure with that of husbands; that husbands should be submitting in equal measure to wives.
I used to read CBMW uncritically but I recall the watershed moment when I read Ken Sande’s assumption that my Genesis 3:16 DESIRE was to “control my husband”. This was so far removed from my personal experience in a woman’s skin that I began a journey of asking hard questions about the theology of womanhood which I had uncritically embraced and practiced- to the extreme- in my Quiver Full lifestyle. I can testify from living in a woman’s skin that my desire was to please him. It was a form of idolatry, and because of it my husband CONTROLLED (Ruled Over) me in a way which was extremely unhealthy for both of us.
Posted in control, Gen 3:16 | Tagged Does Gen 3:16 mean a wife desires to control?, Genesis 3:16 | Comments Off
I have a friend, one of the five daughters of missionaries, a very gifted, spiritual Christian, who was deeply wounded by a church which labeled her this way. Mara has some great insight in her latest blog. Here’s a clip:
Revelation 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.
One of the things the spirit of Jezebel teaches is fornication or pornography. I know this because when I looked up “acts of immorality” in the original Greek in a Strong’s Concordance the Greek word used is the word we get both fornication and pornography.
So instead of the spirit of Jezebel being this awful, man-hating, male-castrating feminist spirit, it is actually more along the lines of a Play Boy, Hustler, Pornography Spirit that entices and exploits human sexuality and promotes prostitution and human trafficking.
I have often wondered if those who accuse a strong Christian woman of having “a spirit of Jezebel” are doing some log-splinter deflection and are entertaining a pornography spirit?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged porn, pornography, Spirit of Jezebel | 11 Comments »
The Library is here.
A few titles of interest to readers might be:
Posted in resources | Tagged resources | 2 Comments »
“Wives ARE SUBJECT to husbands in EVERYTHING!” Eph 5:24.
Despite what some try to say about Eph 5 wife submission being voluntary, a relic of a patriarchal era, or applicable only in cases where you are “submitting to love”, the statement by Paul/God says wives are subject IN EVERYTHING.
EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING!!!!
You cannot explain that away. It has no limit, nor is it voluntary. (To read more on this see Consequences of the Fall- upon women, upon men )
I take Paul’s statement in Eph 5:24 as a repetition of “the facts of life” first reported in Genesis 3:16:
“wives are subject to their own husbands in everything” Eph 5:24 (Paul describing marriage to the Ephesians)
“your [the wife's] desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” Gen 3:16 (God describing to the first woman what marriage will be like for her)
I want to post for you Waneta Dawn’s description of a woman’s DESIRE because she boils it down so very simply:
prophesied to Eve in Genesis 3:16 “thy desire to thy husband…” … indicates that Eve would crave the cherishing she at one time got from Adam
Though I would like to quote Beth Moore here, and the quotes are right on my shelf buried somewhere in the 9 of her Bible Studies which I have done over the years, I just can’t recollect the several places where she expresses letting her husband off the hook and turning to Jesus with her longing and desire to be cherished. But Aly who blogs at mommiediaries expresses the concept well here: romance and the ministry of Jesus and romance and the wedding of the Lamb
Katharine Bushnell makes a case that “desire”/teshuquah in Genesis 3:16 means “turning” and Eve brought upon herself a world of pain when she “turned” to her husband (away from God) and followed Adam out of the garden of intimacy and fellowship with God.
Ladies, we can turn back to God. We can renounce husbandolatry, let our husband off the hook for satisfying our intense longing and craving to be nourished and cherished. The consequences of the Fall have been reversed and redeemed by the Cross! Paul states in Ephesians 5 that that he is speaking (in his marriage discourse) of the relationship between Christ and the Church!
Jesus longs to nourish and cherish you. The desire of a woman for her husband is redemptive. Once I realize that Jesus is my bridegroom, my husband, I can bring my longings to Him (Psalm 63). I can go to the Garden and walk with God in the cool of the day and eat freely from the Tree of Life.
Other Posts in this series:
Posted in Bible Passages, Ephesians 5, Gen 3:16, husband, intimacy, marriage | Tagged "desire shall be for her husband", desire, Does Gen 3:16 mean a wife desire to control?, Does Gen 3:16 mean a wife desires to rule?, Eph 5, Ephesians 5, Gen 3:16, Genesis 3:16 | 8 Comments »
Deep thoughts from “Deeper Story” Here is a tiny clip. Visit the link to read the essay in its entirety:
Earthly perspective is this: A heart-scar detracts from our value, and debilitates our potential.
But eternal perspective is this: Battle wounds create a pain that drives us to a healer we would not otherwise know & give a God-assigned purpose we never could have found.
The absence of your father creates room for your Father.
The pain caused by your father allows for comfort from your Father.
The more you miss your father, the more you’ll find your Father.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
The question of the Apostle Paul’s chauvinism came up on another thread and I wanted to post Dr. Michael Bird’s article from a recent from a recent CBE e-mail. Excellent evidence as to how Paul’s view of women has been veiled and distorted via chauvinistic translation and interpretation lenses (eg. diakonos is translated “servant” in the case of Phoebe and “minister” or “deacon” in the cases of Timothy, Jesus, Paul…).
Fretting Over Phoebe
Dr. Michael Bird (PhD, University of Queensland) is Lecturer in Theology at Crossway College in Queensland, Australia. His research interests include the Gospel of Mark, Pauline theology, New Testament theology, and evangelical ecclesiology.
* * * * * *
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me” (Rom 16:1-2 TNIV).
I love messing with my students. Yes, I know it catches them off guard, but exposing their assumptions and ignorance is both enjoyable and actually educational too. When I get to my Romans class, I ask the students four questions:
So who actually wrote Romans?
“Paul,” they immediately reply in chorus.
“No,” I retort, “Who physically sat down and penned the letter to Paul’s dictation?”
Blank faces, deep thoughts, then some bright spark will blurt out, “Oh, oh, that guy, what’s his name, um, Tertius.”
“Correct-a-mundo” comes the teacher’s approving reply who points students to Romans 16:22 which says, “I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Rom 16:22 TNIV).
Moving on…
So who delivered the letter to the Romans then? Who was Paul’s envoy?
Confused faces, odd looks: how can they be expected to know that?
“Turn with me to Romans 16 then” and together we read the text.
Then we have a cool discussion about the meaning of “deacon,” “benefactor,” and the role of letter carriers in antiquity. It gives a good starting point to talk about Christian ministry and patron-client relationships in the context of the Greco-Roman world.
“So then, if Phoebe is a deacon, Paul’s benefactor, and he trusted her to take this very important letter to the Romans, then Phoebe must have been a woman of great abilities and good character in Paul’s mind. Do you agree?”
Heads nod in agreement.
And if the Romans had any questions about the letter like ‘what is the righteousness of God?’ or ‘who is this wretched man about half-way through?’ who do you think would be the first person that they would ask?
Eyes wide opened, some mouths gaping, others looking a bit irritated.
Then I provocatively add: “Could it be that the first person to publicly read and teach about or from Romans was a woman? If so, what does that tell you about women and teaching roles in the early church?”
The end result is an “Aha” moment for some students, confusion and frustration for others.
Then comes the big question…
Think about it people. This is Romans—Paul’s letter to unify the Roman churches and to prevent a potentially fractious cluster of ethnically mixed house churches from ending up like Galatia where there were painful divisions over Law and Halakhah—the oral interpretation on how exactly to obey the Law. This is Paul’s effort to return to Jerusalem with all of the Gentile churches behind him. This is Paul’s one chance to raise support from the Roman churches for a mission to Spain. This is Paul’s gambit to answer rumors about his ministry that he’s either anti-Law or anti-Israel. This is Romans, his greatest letter-essay, the most influential letter in the history of Western thought, and the singularly greatest piece of Christian theology. Now if Paul was so opposed to women teaching men anytime and anywhere, why on earth would he send a woman like Phoebe to deliver this vitally important letter and to be his personal representative in Rome? Why not Timothy, Titus, or any other dude? Why Phoebe?
Some students nod in agreement, others flick through to 1 Timothy 2:12, others sit back and just think.
I’m careful to make the point that this is not the be all and end all of debates about women in ministry. There are other texts, contexts, and interpretations that we have to deal with. This text won’t answer questions for us about who to ordain either, they have to be answered elsewhere. But I point out that taken at face value, Paul evidently had no problem with women having some kind of speaking and teaching role in the churches. I think Paul’s commendation of Phoebe and her role as letter-carrier to the Romans shows that much. What is more, we should also commend women like Phoebe today!
Posted in Biblical Characters, Phoebe, Women in Ministry | 2 Comments »
Food for thought from Mary Kassian with her theory that Paul is using the Adam as Christ/Eve as church typology in 1 Tim 2:15. In the comment section of the post Kassian makes the following bullet points:
1. The typological link between Eve/woman/church is clearly established throughout Scripture, and especially in Pauline writings
2. As soon as Paul refers back to Genesis as rationale for his directives, one can infer that he may be thinking typologically, as this is an established pattern.
3. Multiple layers of meaning may exist. If Paul is thinking typologically, then “she” may refer to Eve/woman and church.
4. If so, verse 15 may mean that she (the church, as typologized by woman and represented by Eve) will be saved through childbearing (a womanly function which typologizes the church bearing spiritual children in union with Christ– the child that was promised to Eve) if they (the church – man and woman) continue in faith, love and holiness.
5. This typological approach harmonizes this verse with the rest of Scripture, while an approach that fails to take typology into account is hard pressed to do so. A non-typological approach needs to tap dance around the idea that Paul is saying women should not exercise ecclesiastical authority because of some defect in woman (her gullibility) and that she is saved by popping out babies. (Both of these thoughts have absolutely NO support elsewhere in Scripture) … or that “saved” doesn’t refer to salvation, but to something else.When you approach the verse typologically, it’s easy to harmonize it and it makes perfect sense with the whole counsel of God. When you don’t, it becomes incredibly difficult to explain or understand.
Eve as a “type” of church was the topic of discourse by church fathers:
The NT’s depiction of the Church as the bride of Christ, together with Paul’s parallel between “the first man Adam” and Christ “the last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), led to an explicit association in the writings of the Church Fathers between Eve, mother of the living, and “mother” church, mater ecclesia. Zeno of Verona declared that just as Eve was created from the side of Adam, so the Church was created from the side of Christ, from which flowed blood and water, figuring the martyrdom and baptism wherein the Church actually took its beginning. In this way, says Zeno, “Adam is restored through Christ, and Eve through the church”. The same idea is expressed by St. Augustine “Eve from the side of the sleeping one, the Church from the side of the suffering one.” This parallel became commonplace in the Middle Ages and was endorsed, e.g. by Thomas Aquinas and by St. Bonaventure. (source)
Though I don’t recall seeing 1 Tim 2:15 in the context of “Eve as church” discourse, I think Kassian’s idea has merit! I would not, however, make the leap toward gender based restriction of ministry within the church and/or women’s “roles” (as she does). The same Paul who is responsible for writing 1 Timothy also referred to himself as pregnant in Galatians 4:19. So, if Eve is a “type” of the church who is being saved through the Childbirth, Paul counts himself “Eve”.
In doing research for my upcoming final installment on Genesis 3:16 “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” where I consider a spiritual/typological take, I came across this passage in “Interpretation of the Book of Genesis” by Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty (a Coptic/Orthodox priest).
To my hearing, Mary Kassian takes 1 Tim 2:15 and adds support to what Father Malaty says here:
This chastisement, under which Eve fell because of the sin, was transformed, by God’s mercy into a blessing, when the Church- the new Eve- accepted to bring for the spiritual children for God, through her pains. St. Augustine says “The Church- the bride of Christ- conceives and labors with children; so that she, like Eve, is called ‘the mother of all living’ (Gen. 3:20). A member of this Church that labors says ‘My children for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you…’(Gal. 4:19). But the Church does not labor in vain, and does not deliver in vain.” …
And as bringing forth children in pain, has been transformed into a blessing, through the new Eve, accepting pain to bring forth children in the Lord; so the other chastisement: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”, has been likewise transformed into a blessing, when the incarnated Word of God came to the new Eve as her man; ruling over her by love, and she desires Him, to enjoy Him and His features, as the secret of her live, and to enter with Him into His eternal glories.
Posted in 1Tim 2, Bible Passages | 5 Comments »
Is That Really ‘The Biblical Model’?
The narrator, and supposed friend of Nan, believes that Nan has been verbally abused by her boss. She’s seen Jerry in action. However, she does NOT accept Nan’s testimony of feeling unprotected by her husband. Instead, she says to herself, “I know Blaine. He’s kind, thoughtful, generous and attentive.”
So she goes with her impression of the saintly Blaine, and dismisses her friend as a weak, theologically deceived woman.
HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT THAN HOW A TYPICAL HARD COMP PASTOR WOULD TREAT THIS WIFE?
Yesterday, I heard a story about the same church where me being angry was “the problem”. A former elder of this church has a history of raping a 12 year old and molesting an 8 year old. This man is prominent in the community. He’s “kind thoughtful generous and attentive”. The rapes happened a long time ago, but he has not apologized, and these girls, now grown women keep their children away from him.
He’s one of the good ole boys of the church system. Let a woman come in and say she’s feeling unprotected by her husband, and she will be rebuked for being “critical” and chastised for the sinfulness of her anger. After all, he appears to be “a good Christian man”. The wife who has lived with him and observed him up close and personal… stupid, deceived, weak woman, WHAT DOES SHE KNOW?
And he will stay safely on his pedestal.
Posted in abuse, accountability, anger | Comments Off
First a little background on my spiritual heritage: I’m “interdenominational”. I was raised Catholic and converted to Evangelicalism at age 19. At that time, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship fed me spiritually. I had cousins who attended Bob Jones University and through their influence, my brother went there for two years (until he told my Catholic father he was hellbound).
Since marrying in 1982, we have moved 25 times, lived in 6 states and two foreign countries, and been members of: Park Street Church (in Boston-a Congregational Church, where we were married); Assembly of God (in Italy); PCA Presbyterian (in PA); Baptist (SC); Dutch Reformed (Indonesia); Episcopal (NY); Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (OH); Church of Christ (OH); Nazarene (OH); Wesleyan (NY); plus a couple of independent charismatic churches (MA, NY).
My friend and mentor of 7 years- Chris- said she learned some things from the ministry of Benny Hinn and used to support him financially. A very mature Christian, I trust Chris’ judgment. (However, she is also a believer in the “don’t touch the Lord’s anointed” teaching so she loathes to criticize any pastor, no matter what.)
Accompanying my husband on a business trip to Las Vegas last week, we went to see Benny Hinn live at the Las Vegas Hilton.
I am sorry to say that I came away with no positive impression whatsoever of his spiritual condition. Based on Chris’s judgment, I should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has fallen from a formerly better place spiritually speaking. But the cynic in me wonders if the whole thing is “showmanship” designed to “bilk the marks” (along the lines of Elmer Gantry)?
He had a very nice intro with his daughter Tashi and her new husband, like sitting around the dinner table sharing funny family memories (nothing “spiritual” there, the kind of memories every family shares…)
But the preaching I heard misused scripture for his own gain. If you are going to one of his crusades, leave your wallet home lest you fall sway to the appeal to covetousness (giving to GET!), and the manipulation and guilt tactics (give to me or you are disobeying God and you will be punished!). Benny’s “minimum” to get into line for your “miracle” is $1000.
My suggestion for you if you want to sow some money into kingdom building, see the “Donor Alert” on the right hand side of this page at MinistryWatch.com, and avoid those ministries. Personally, I like sowing donations into World Relief where you can buy a goat for a poor family, or a well for a village. Benny Hinn does not need another Versace suit!
I have defended Suzanne Hinn on these pages (Suzanne Hinn preaches: “Holy Ghost Enema!”). The post still gets a lot of hits. She’s right; her husband needs a “Holy Ghost Enema”. I see this on Suzanne’s website:
The mandate most on my heart is to go to the uttermost parts of the earth not just with the gospel, but also with food, medical supplies and helping hands to reach the hungry and hurting.
Sounds positive, but I can’t endorse it without actually hearing her in person. I’m not sure if they were two peas of the same pod, ministry-wise? Is Suzanne afflicted with the same strongholds as her ex? Or perhaps, she divorced him because she saw unvarnished reality and could bear it no longer?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Benny Hinn, Suzanne Hinn | 9 Comments »
Note that the one which is in a position of humble submission is the only one which is lit.
