Gender Roles and Responsibility: Part 1

This question was recently asked in a comment on my blog:

Q:  I had a discussion with my pastor and his wife today about some of the issues I’ve been thinking on. They are strongly complementarian and are adamant that ‘at the end of the day’ – judgment – the males will be held accountable for decisions effecting both home and church.

Is it wishful thinking on the part of the woman to think that she isn’t accountable to God, for the direction a family takes? I can’t hear a specific answer from them, re what particular thing a husband will be responsible to for, that a wife won’t. What would you say to this– what decisions does/will God hold each Christian responsible for?

I always like to start with definitions of terms:

Responsibility:  A duty or obligation to satisfactorily perform or complete a task (assigned by someone, or created by one’s own promise or circumstances) that one must fulfill, and which has a consequent penalty for failure.

Responsible: Able to make moral or rational decisions on one’s own and therefore answerable for one’s behavior.

Accountable:  subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; answerable.

Accountability is related to responsibility in that we are accountable to get done what we are responsible to do.   To have responsibility, one must be “responsible.”  This means we must be competent adults.  Children and persons who are mentally disabled are not considered legally responsible.  Their parents or guardians are held responsible for them.

The Spiderman comics and movies are famous for this quote: “With great power comes great responsibility.” There can be no responsibility where there is no power.  A child is considered to have no power to sign a legal document, and therefore incurs no responsibility if she does sign.  We have no duty or obligation to perform any task which is beyond our power.

When God created humankind and gave them “dominion” over the creation in Genesis 1:26, God was giving humans power, and therefore responsibility, over their environment and over themselves.  Everyone has some measure of power.  Children can’t be held responsible under the law, but their parents and teachers hold them responsible to do the duties they are capable of doing.  When we have power over others’ actions, we are also held responsible for the things they do.  This is why bosses have the ultimate responsibility over their businesses—because they are the ones with the power to do (or cause to be done) what they are responsible to do.

James 3:1 says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”  In Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30), the one who was given five talents was responsible for all five, while the one who had three talents was responsible only for those three.  We are responsible according to the amount of power we have and the use and influence of our power over others.

So the position taken by the pastor and wife described in the question above, is a logical outgrowth of the position called “complementarianism” —  that husbands have God-given authority over wives, and that church leaders have God-given authority over congregations and therefore must be male.  If husbands can tell wives what to do, then husbands have power over their wives, and consequently they are accountable for what they tell their wives to do and how they use their power.   I prefer to call this “male-hierarchalism,” since I think it describes the position better than the somewhat misleading term “complementarianism.” (Christian egalitarians also believe that men and women complement one another, but without hierarchy.)

Because male-hierarchalists believe husbands are the ones with final authority to make decisions affecting the home, and male church leaders are the ones with final authority to make decisions affecting the church, they believe God will hold males more accountable than females for these decisions.  However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that women, because they are women, are less responsible before God than men— it is, as I said, only a logical outgrowth of the position that God denies women decision-making powers in the church and home.  At the creation God gave the man and the woman both “dominion,’ and with it responsibility—and God never said He was giving the man more dominion (or more responsibility) than the woman.   If the proof-texts that are used to support male hierarchy in the church and home are being misread (which many of my posts on this blog attempt to prove), then there is no reason to conclude that God, purely on the basis of gender, holds males more accountable than females in this life or in the next.

Furthermore, even when Christian male-hierarchalists take responsibility away from women, our modern Western societies continue to consider them full adults and to hold them accountable as such.  If a woman goes along with her coercive church and husband in denying a child medical care, for example, both parents are still held responsible if that child is harmed.  The courts will not respond, “Oh, that’s ok, then,” when a woman explains that she believed she had to submit to her husband.    Courts might find a mitigating circumstance if a woman could prove she was being forced into child neglect by her husband, but if she claims she was submitting of her own free will, they will not understand!  Women have power in our world over their children, and therefore they are responsible for the well-being of those children.

I think women are also fully accountable to God as responsible adults.  But when they are coerced or shamed or otherwise convinced to give up adult power and abdicate adult responsibility, I think God is able to consider the woman’s heart in ways that courts of law cannot.  Therefore our merciful Father will hold more accountable, the ones who convinced her it was His will that she give up her self-determination.

Ultimately, we are all responsible at least for ourselves and our own actions.  We also have responsibility for the way we use any additional power we may have.  But in male-hierarchical Christianity I have seen some worrying things happen regarding personal responsibility and who is held accountable for what.  The potential for crazy-making responsibility issues in Christian male-hierarchalism, will be the subject of my next post.

Submission and Respect from Husbands – 1 Peter 3:7-8

By Margaret Mowczko 

Husbands, in the same way [be considerate as you] live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.  1 Peter 3:7-8 (NIV 2011)

Many Christians believe that submission in marriage is the duty only of wives.  These Christians often make a point of saying that the Scriptures never state that husbands are to be submissive to their wives.[1]  In his instructions to Christian men, however, the apostle Peter comes very close.

In the same way . . .

In his first letter, Peter uses the Greek word homoiōs - which means “likewise” or “in the same way” – three times (1 Pet 3:1, 7; 5:5).  Each occurrence of this word is in the context of submission or, at the very least, respect.

Keeping in mind Peter’s use of homoiōs, let’s look at 1 Peter 2:13–3:8 which is the main passage where Peter gives instructions to certain groups of Christians to be submissive:

• Firstly, Peter tells all his readers to submit to every secular authority (2:13).
• Then he addresses slaves and tells them to be submissive to their masters (2:18).
• Then he says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your own husbands” (3:1).
• Then he says, “Husbands, in the same way live together with your wives . . .” (3:7).
• In 1 Peter 5:5, Peter brings up the subject of submission again and says, “In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders.” (My use of underlining.)

The NIV has added the words “be considerate” in 1 Peter 3:7a: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives”.  However in the Greek, the words “be considerate” are not there; it simply says “in the same way live together with your wives”.  Peter had not been talking about being considerate in the preceding verses; his theme was submission.  The Greek does not use the word for submit in verse 7, but it is implied by Peter’s use of the adjective homoiōs (“in the same way”) which links verse 7 with the other verses about submission.

Ephesians 5:21-22 is similar, in that the Greek word for submit is mentioned in verse 21 when addressing all the believers – “Submitting to one another” – but the word does not reappear in the better, older Greek texts of verse 22 when speaking just to wives, it is merely implied, just like in 1 Peter 3:7.[2]

The context of 1 Peter 3:1-8 is of submission and respect, not merely consideration.  Having said that, submission in marriage is very much like being considerate; although it is more akin to loyalty and cooperation.[3]  Despite the NIV choosing to include a “softer” and potentially less controversial word than “submit”, it does seem as though Peter was really saying that Christian husbands should be submissive to their wives in verse 7.

Living Together with Understanding

Peter’s instruction: “Husbands, in the same way [be submissive] as you live together with your wives . . .” is a radical statement considering the typical Greco-Roman view of women and wives.  Apollodorus[4], in his oration Against Neaera (c340BC), revealed the common sexual roles of women in the Greek world:

“We have hetaerae (mistresses/courtesans) for pleasure, pallakae (concubines/prostitutes) for the daily [sexual] service of our bodies and gynaekes (wives) to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.” Against Neaira 59.122

There are numerous references in Greco-Roman literature about the sexual freedom of men, often with no hint of censure. In his Advice to the Bride and Groom, Plutarch (b46 AD) condones husbands having sexual liaisons with other women (except married women); but then he advises husbands to not provoke (or upset) their wives with the knowledge of these affairs. Plutarch also advices women that they must accept their husband’s extra-marital affairs.

Christian morality, on the other hand, encouraged monogamy and marital fidelity.  Peter’s instruction that  Christian husbands “dwell together” (or “cohabitate”) with their wives would have been a significant statement to some of the newly-converted Greco-Roman Christian men who may not have viewed their wives as true companions and partners in life.  Peter wanted husbands and wives to truly share their lives together.  He wanted the husbands to view their legal wives as more than just the mothers of their legitimate children.

In 1 Peter 3:7, Peter also makes the point that women are weaker than men.  Women were greatly disadvantaged in Greco-Roman society.  They had considerably less privileges and rights than men.  Women are also, usually, physically weaker than men.  Peter wanted husbands to acknowledge the more vulnerable situation of their wives – their vessels – so that they would take care not to exploit them. (Cf 1 Thess 4:3-6.)[5]   Many times, people in positions of privilege are not fully aware of the disadvantages of those in weaker positions. Instead of exploitation, Peter wanted husbands to treat their wives with respect and even honour.

Respect or Honour?

Peter instructs the Christian husbands to give their Christian wives respect, or, more accurately, honour (timē).   For some in the church of Asia Minor this may have seemed an extraordinary request of Peter.  The teaching of the New Testament, however, unlike some other religious writings, show that women are to be treated with honour and respect.  Peter tells the husbands to assign honour to their wives because, in Christ, men and women are coheirs of the life of grace.  The Greek of 1 Peter 3:7 uses language which unmistakably highlights the mutuality and equality of Christian husbands and wives.[6]

The NLT captures this meaning in their translation:

. . . you husbands  must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live  together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. 1 Peter 3:7

Peter also gives a warning to husbands.  He suggests that if husbands do not give their wives honour as coheirs, or equal partners, their attitude and behaviour will hinder their prayers.

Harmony and Humility

The insistence of many Christians, that submission in marriage is the sole responsibility and duty of wives, is not biblical.  Peter strongly implies that husbands are to be submissive to their Christian wives (1 Pet 3:7).  In Ephesians 5:21, Paul urged all Christians to be mutually submissive to one another.[7]  Submission in Christian relationships is not to be understood in the military sense of subordination, but more in the sense of loyalty, deferrence, humility, support, cooperation and consideration.[3]

Peter sums up his passage on submission by saying, “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.” (1 Peter 3:8)  This is what submission between husbands and wives looks like.  Moreover, this is what Christian submission between all of God’s people, regardless of gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status – or church status – looks like.

---

Endnotes

[1]  As pointed out in the previous article, God told Abraham (literally): “. . . in everything, whatever Sarah says to you, listen to her voice.” (Genesis 21:12b, translated from the Septuagint LXX).  And in Genesis 16:2 (LXX) it says that Abraham (literally) obeyed Sarah’s voice.

[2] Ephesians 5:24 is another example where “being submissive” is mentioned in the first clause in the Greek, and not repeated, but implied, in the second.

[3] Also from the previous article: The Greek word for “submit” (hupotassō) has a military usage and meaning of “subordinate”, and a non-military usage and meaning of “cooperate”.  Thayers Bible Dictionary makes the distinction between the military and non-military usage of hupotassō.

Hupotassō: A Greek military term meaning ‘to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader’. In non-military use, it was ‘a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden’.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hupotasso.html

[4]  This quote from Against Neaira has been traditionally attributed to Demosthenes.  While this quote dates from 340BC, the view of women described in this speech was also prevalent in the 1st-century Greco-Roman world.

For more on marriage in New Testament times read G.W. Peterman’s paper, Marriage and Sexual Fidelity in the Papyri, Plutarch and Paul, Tyndale Bulletin 50.2 (1999) 163-172 here.

[5]  In 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 Paul used similar language, including the words: vessel (skeuos)  and honour (timē).

The exact metaphorical meaning of vessel (skeuos) is disputed.  In Greek usage, it is a common term for the body as the container of the soul.  A Hebrew equivalent of this term was used in rabbinic teaching for “wife” or “sexual partner”.  This uncertainty of interpretation applies to 1 Thessalonians 4:4 as well as to 1 Peter 3:7. (Edwin A. Blum, ”1 Peter”, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12, Ed: Frank E. Gaebelein, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981, 238.)

Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 4:4 that Christians should abstain from sexual immorality (cf 1 Pet 2:11) and instead each person should “procure their own vessel”; as in, their own marital partner. (cf 1 Cor 7:2)  Christians are to treat their “vessels” with “holiness and honour”.  They are not to behave like the gentile pagans; neither are they to take advantage of their brothers and sisters sexually.   [An alternate interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:4 is that each person is to “control his own vessel”; as in, his/her own body.]

[6]  My translation/paraphrase of 1 Peter 3:7: “Husbands, in the same way [be submissive]; live together with [your] wives with the understanding that they are weaker beings [and] assign honour to them as co-heirs of the gracious gift of life so that your prayers will not be hindered.”

[7] In Ephesian 5:25-31, the apostle Paul gave advice to Christian husbands.  He told them to give themselves up for their wives.  He told them to care for their wives as they care for themselves.  “To love your wife as you ‘love your own body’ is to love her as your equal”. (MaryAnn Nguyen-Kwok)  Nowhere does this passage in Ephesian 5 mention or imply male leadership or authority.  This passage is about sacrificial love and care. [My article on Kephalē and “Male Headship” in Paul’s Letters is here.]

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 their own body, but they feed and care for their body, 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.”  Ephesians 5:25-31 (NIV 2011)

© 11th of September, 2011; Margaret Mowczko

This article first appeared at newlife.id.au here.

Previous article, Submission and respect from Wives – 1 Peter 3:1-6 is here.

Coming out of “Complementarianism” and Becoming Equal

In my marriage, I believed that my husband held “final decision making authority” and that I was obligated to “submit to him in everything” Eph 5:24.  Mark Driscoll provides a good picture of what my marriage looked like (minute 13:03):

My husband ruled. My life involved supporting his dreams and taking care of our 8 children.  We moved around the world following his dreams, living in 25 places in 6 states and two foreign countries by the time we had been married for 20 years.  In many ways, I disappeared, lost my individuality and my voice.  I “laid down my life” and “died to myself” in a rather unhealthy manner thinking this was God’s will for a married Christian woman.

Oddly enough, a common thread between my marriage and the Driscoll marriage was the control over my hairstyle:

… my pregnant wife came home from a hair appointment with her previously long hair (that I loved) chopped off and replaced with a short mommish haircut. She asked what I thought, and could tell from the look on my face. She had put a mom’s need for convenience before being a wife. She wept. -Mark Driscoll (“Real Marriage”, page 11) source

One day around 2004, I talked to God telling Him “I am so weary and heavy laden!  This is not working for me.  WHY?  YOU promised that your yoke is easy and your burden is light and you will give me rest for my soul…”  This was the beginning of my journey out of complementarianism.

My husband hated me reading anything which he thought would undermine his “headship” (control).  To avoid altercations, I used to hide books and read them on the sly.  For anyone attempting to make this transition, I highly recommend Lundy Bancroft’s “Why Does he DO That?:  Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men” .

May seem trivial if you haven’t lived under the cloud of husband rule, but think about hairstyle choice as you read this excerpt (SOURCE):

Mark Driscoll criticizes egalitarian marriage using this illustration (minute 11:36):

But what if Mark Driscoll is wrong?  What if the above is really a much healthier marriage?  Tim Keller (another complementarian author) has a marriage book in which the marriage is pictured as an a-frame building- see Scot McKnight “Marriage as Covenant”.  At least in the “A-Frame” metaphor, the sides are equal.

Submission and Respect from Wives – 1 Peter 3:1-6

By Margaret Mowczko

For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. 1 Peter 3:5-6

I’ve read this scripture countless times and have never questioned what Peter wrote.  I just accepted that there must be numerous “holy women of the past” who were examples of the kind of wifely submission that is promoted in many churches today.  I had also simply accepted that Sarah must have been a particularly good example of wifely submission.

Just recently though, I’ve been taking a closer look at 1 Peter, and I’ve started asking some questions about the text.  For example: Who were these “holy women of the past”?  And: In what way was Sarah  submissive to Abraham?  Here are some of my findings and thoughts.

The Holy Women of the Past

In 1 Peter 3:1ff, Peter addressed the Christian women of Asia Minor and he urged them to be submissive to their (mostly unsaved) husbands.  He also wanted them to focus on their inner beauty rather than on their outer beauty and live their lives in purity.[1]  The purpose of Peter’s instruction was evangelistic.  Peter hoped that the virtuous behaviour and lifestyle of the Christian wives might be persuasive and ”win” (a missionary term) the husbands.  These men had been unpersuaded by the Word (logos); however  Peter suggests that they may be won to the Christian faith without a word (logos) from their godly Christian wives.

Peter used the examples of the “holy women of the past” to illustrate how the women should behave.  But who exactly were these women who Peter had in mind?

As I go through the list of Bible women in my mind, apart from Sarah, I cannot find one single clear example of a  woman who submitted to her husband.  On the contrary the Bible gives us numerous examples of holy women who did not behave in (what much of the Church would consider) a submissive manner towards their husbands.[2]

Several holy women took the initiative in significant situations, without apparent permission, protection or cooperation from men.  These women include Moses’ mother (Exodus 2:1-3);  Rahab (Joshua 2:1-6); Deborah (Judges 4-5); Ruth  (Ruth 2:2-3; 3:1-6); Hannah (1 Samuel chs 1-2); and a well-to-do Shunamite woman (2 Kings 4:8-37); etc. [3]

Several holy women were the primary or first recipients of divine, angelic or prophetic visitations without the intervention or presence of a husband or male guardian. The following are just a few examples where God, an angel, or a prophet spoke directly to a woman: Rebekah (Genesis 25:22-23); Samson’s mother (Judges 13); the “Wailing Women” (Jeremiah 9:17);  Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38); Mary Magdalene (Mat 28:9-10; Mark 16:9-11; John 20:17-18), etc.  Moreover Huldah, Miriam, Deborah and Anna are themselves acknowledged as respected prophetesses in the Bible.  Philip’s daughters also seem to have been recognised as prophetesses.

Several holy women went against authority figures, disobeyed laws and disregarded the wishes of their own husbands.  Shiphrah and Puah disobeyed Pharoah’s command, and God blessed them for their disobedience (Exodus 1:15-21).  Rebekah and Abigail went against their husband’s wishes.  There is no hint of censure against Rebekah in the Bible (Genesis 27:1-28:2); and Abigail was commended for her wise and brave actions (1 Samuel 25).  Queen Esther, in order to save the Jewish people, disobeyed a law and risked her life by coming into her husband’s presence without being summoned (Esther 4:11; 5:1).

It seems that Peter may not have had any specific woman in mind (apart from Sarah) when he mentioned “the holy women of the past who submitted themselves to their husbands”.  It seems he may have been writing about godly women in general.

I am actually amazed that there are so many women mentioned in the Bible who took the initiative and acted  bravely and independently in what was a very patriarchal society.  I am equally amazed that there are almost no  women mentioned in the Bible who are obvious examples of wifely submission.   I guess women who lead nations (Judges chs 4-5) and ward off aggressive armies (1 Sam ch 25), etc, are more interesting than women who lead quiet lives in the home; and so the more interesting women and their stories have made it into the Bible.

Sarah’s Submission

Sarah is the only Bible woman who clearly submitted to her husband’s wishes (Gen 20:13b).  On two occasions Sarah complied with her husband’s request to deceive a foreign king.  (See Genesis 12:10-20 and 20:1-18.)  Abraham was worried that the kings would kill him in order to clear the way to his beautiful wife.  Sarah must have been a stunner.  Abraham asked Sarah to go along with the ruse that he was her brother and not her husband (Gen 12:11-13; 20:13b).  This was a half-truth as Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister (Gen 20:12).

Abraham’s motives appear to have been completely selfish.  His only concern was for his own safety.  He does not seem to have been concerned about his wife who was taken by foreign kings, twice (Gen 12:15; 20:2-3).  The Bible is clear that on the second occasion Sarah was spared from being sexually violated by the king, but it is seems that she actually became the first king’s wife for a short time (Gen 12:19 cf 20:4-6).[4]

Sarah did not submit because Abraham was her master; she submitted because she wanted to protect her husband.  Sarah, however, did not always go along with what Abraham wanted.  For instance, Sarah wanted to dismiss Hagar and Ishmael, but this idea distressed Abraham.  On this occasion, God said to Abraham (literally): “. . . in everything, whatever Sarah says to you, listen to her voice.” (Genesis 21:12b, translated from the Septuagint).  In Genesis 16:2 it says that Abraham (literally) obeyed Sarah’s voice.  The Greek word hupakouō used in this verse is a common word in the Septuagint (The Greek Old Testament) and the Greek New Testament and is usually translated as “obey”.  Conversely, nowhere in the Genesis narratives of Abraham and Sarah does it actually state that Sarah “obeyed” her husband. “Nevertheless, the submission of Sarah to Abraham was a long-standing element of Jewish traditions.” (Jobes 2005:205)[5]

Sarah’s Respect

Peter also mentions that Sarah called Abraham her “lord”.  The Greek word for “lord”, kurios, is common in the Septuagint and New Testament.  Kurios is usually translated into English as “lord”, “master” or “sir”.[6]

Sarah refers to Abraham as her kurios in Genesis 18:12 in the Septuagint, “. . . though she does not address him directly by that term.  This noun [kurios] is the only lexical connection between the story of Sarah and Peter’s claim.” (Jobes 2005:205) (Interestingly, Rebekah calls Abraham’s servant ”sir” [kurios] in Genesis 24:18.)

In our culture it would be very odd for a wife to call her husband “lord” or “sir”.  Sarah (and Rebekah), however, was simply using a polite term of respect that was appropriate for the culture of that time.  The New Testament has clear instructions for husbands and for wives to treat their marriage partners with honour and respect.  (See 1 Peter 3:7 and Ephesians 5:33).

Sarah’s Courage

I suspect that Peter’s use of “the holy women of the past” as examples was to highlight their faithfulness and trust in God, more so than their submission to their husband.  Many Old Testament women showed great faithfulness to God and displayed considerable courage in difficult circumstances.[7]  An important part of Peter’s advice is for wives to do what is good, or what is right, and not to be afraid.

You are [Sarah’s] daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear (1 Peter 3:6b, NIV 2011.)[8]

Sarah was fearless because she trusted in God.  When she heeded Abraham’s request, she wasn’t trusting in her husband but trusting in God to take care of the situation.  Sarah was courageous and willing to mislead the kings, putting her wellbeing in jeopardy, in order to save her husband’s life.

Sarah did not always comply with her husband’s wishes.  Sarah used her own wisdom and discernment when deciding whether or not she would do what Abraham wanted.  While husbands, as well as wives, should always be seeking to support, help and accommodate their spouse, they also need to be sensible and wise, and do the right thing.  Sometimes doing the good and right thing may mean not complying with the request of your spouse.

Real Submission

The purpose of this article is not to say that women do not need to be submissive to their own husbands.  In fact, the New Testament is clear that humility and submission are Christian virtues for men and for  women (Eph 5:21).[9]  The purpose of this article is to show that women can have a humble and submissive attitude and still use their intelligence, influence, initiative and individual abilities without artificial limitations.  This becomes evident when you use real Bible women as examples of submission, rather than the idealised, romanticised or overly domesticated versions of womanhood promoted by some churches.

I actually think that the church’s view of wifely submission has been distorted by a patriarchal mindset, combined with a  misunderstanding of the Greek.  The Greek word for “submit” (hupotassō) has a military usage and meaning of “subordinate”, and a non-military usage and meaning of “cooperate”.[10]   It is tragic that the church has taken the more severe military meaning of hupotassō and applied it to the precious and intimate relationship of marriage.

The church has largely expected women to be subordinate and servile to men[11], rather than seeing men and women as true equals who are to mutually love and care for each other.  Moreover, contrary to the examples of godly women in the Bible, the church has tried to limit the parameters and opportunities for women to use their influence and abilities.  We must be very careful not to let a narrow, graceless and faulty concept of submission bind women and limit the use of their talents and skills – talents and skills that God may want use for his purposes.

---

Endnotes

[1] Interestingly, Sarah, who is the main example in this passage in 1 Peter, was very beautiful outwardly.

[2] Many Christians (who call themselves “Complementarians”) go further than what the Bible says, and they teach that all women should be submissive to all men.  (See chapter one of Piper, John, and Grudem, Wayne (editors), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Westchester, Il: Crossway Books, 2006. Available online here.

[3] “Many Bible women displayed considerable courage as they helped others and were used by God to achieve his purposes.  Brave Bible women include: Jael (Judges 4:21; 5:24-27); the woman who killed Abimelech (Judges 9:53); Rahab (Joshua 2:1-6); Abigail (1 Samuel ch 25); the servant girl who was given a dangerous task (2 Samuel 17:17-18); the woman of Bashurin (2 Samuel 17:19-20); Esther (Esther, esp 4:11 &16); and Priscilla, who risked her life for Paul’s sake, as did her husband Aquila (Romans 16:3-4). . . . Other women also showed commendable initiative, shrewdness and courage; women such as: Tamar (Genesis 38, esp v26), Naaman’s wife’s servant (2 Kings 5:3); Ruth (Ruth, esp 1:15-18; 2:2); The Wise Woman of Abel Beth Maacah (2 Samuel 20:15-22), etc.”  From The Women who Protected Moses.

[4] Abraham’s deception had disastrous consequences for the unsuspecting kings (Gen 12:17; 20:17).  Abraham, on the other hand, did not experience any negative consequences from his deception; instead, he profited from the experiences (Gen 12:16; 20:14-16).

[5] Jobes, Karen H., 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

[6] The New Living Translation (NLT) has chosen what I think is the most severe of the three options and translates kurios as “master” in 1 Peter 3:6.  The NLT is known for the way it emphasises male authority.

[7] Life was difficult for the recipients of Peter’s letter.  The Christians in Asia Minor were being slandered and persecuted and they were fearful.  It would have been especially difficult for Christian wives with unsaved husbands. These women may have had no real alternative but to fully submit to their husbands, even when it jeopardised their safety.  Peter gives them the hope that their virtuous living may win their husbands for Jesus Christ.  (This seems to have been Peter’s main objective in his instruction.) In contemporary, Western society, women have more freedoms and  options.  Secular society does not expect wives to put up with foolishness or abuse from their husbands, and neither should the church.  Jesus came to bring freedom to those who are captive.  This is should be the church’s mission too.

[8] Literal translation: “whose children you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror” (1 Pet 3:6b).

[9] The ideal Christian marriage relationship is one of  mutual and reciprocal submission (i.e. loyalty, cooperation, deference and respect) between husband and wife (Eph 5:21; 1Pet 3:8).

[10] Thayers Bible Dictionary makes the distinction between the military and non-military usage of hupotassō. 

Hupotassō: A Greek military term meaning ‘to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader’. In non-military use, it was ‘a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden’.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hupotasso.html

[11] Many churches associate wifely submission with wives being servile to their husbands,  yet both men and women are called to follow Jesus’ example of sacrificial and loving service.

© 1st of September, 2011, Margaret Mowczko

This artcle was first published at newlife.id.au here.

Part Two: Submission and Respect from Husbands – 1 Peter 3:7-8

Pearls of Wisdom: Links

Here are some recent blog posts related to marriage which might be of interest to egalitarian readers.  Color me grateful to have this topic receiving some high profile attention in the blogosphere

Rachel Held Evans

Internet Monk- In skimming, I found many  comments are pushback from men who believe in “male leadership” and “male headship”.   And the closing comment is from a pastor who thinks the discussion is a waste of time and energy detracting from “gospel” activities.

The discussion is  important because those men pushing back are real men, with real wives and real children at the mercy of their beliefs! (I happen to be married to one of them!) If you weren’t a slave nor a slave-owner in the 19th century, you might judge that discussion a “detraction from gospel activities”.

Scot McKnight- several pushback comments from self professed patriarchs here as well

Marriage as Covenant Scot McKnight

Not so new, but timeless in wisdom, don’t let the “old fashioned” look and sound stop you from listening to Don Fransisco on wearing the pants:

Leading Together in the Home

By Margaret Mowczko

I was reading Leviticus recently and I came across this verse: “Every one of you shall reverence his mother and father. . .” Leviticus 19:3a (NASB.)

I was intrigued that “mother” was mentioned before “father” so I decided to search for other verses in the Bible that might also mention “mother” first.  I couldn’t find any.  But what I did find surprised me.

I found over a dozen verses which command honouring, respecting and obeying your father and mother, with both the father and mother always mentioned together.[1]

I had anticipated that in Bible times, when the culture was predominantly patriarchal, that the Old Testament authors (in particular), might have written verses that just mentioned honouring and obeying the father – leaving out the mother.  However it seems that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were careful to always include honouring and obeying the mother as well.

The only exceptions that I could find (please let me know if you find others) is in Malachi 1:6 and Hebrews 12:5-10. Here “mother” is not mentioned at all because God is using the example of honouring and respecting fathers as an analogy of honouring God as “Father”.

I then decided to look at the book of Proverbs because I knew that there were verses there about heeding a father’s teaching.  Again I was surprised.  While I did find two passages about paying attention to the father’s instruction with no mention of the mother,[2] I found two others which included the mother’s teaching also:

Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching. Proverbs 1:8-9

My son, keep your father’s commands and do not forsake your mother’s teaching. Proverbs 6:20

So what is the purpose of pointing out these scriptures?  To try to address the imbalance that over-emphasises the husband’s leadership in the home and family while under-estimating the wife’s leadership.

Clearly these verses show that, even in patriarchal times, God’s view was that the husband and wife were equally worthy of honour and obedience; and that mothers as well as fathers were to teach their children.

There is no scriptural reason to suppose that a mother’s teaching is necessarily less important than a father’s teaching.  A mother’s teaching can, and should, include important and valuable life lessons, including spiritual instruction.  Moreover, the Bible shows that a woman can teach her adult sons valuable lessons, even if they are the king!  (See Proverbs 31:1-9 cf Song of Solomon 8:2a.)

I firmly believe that God’s ideal is that families and households are to be led by the husband and wife; where the family responsibilities and resources are shared, not according to rigid gender roles and cultural expectations,[3] but according to each person’s skills, abilities and temperaments; where neither the husband nor the wife is “the boss” because the real leader is the Lord Jesus Christ, leading and guiding through the Holy Spirit.

The overemphasis on subordinating wives (and women in general) is still too prevalent in many Christian circles, and I believe goes beyond what the Apostles Paul and Peter envisioned when they were writing about family relationships.

---

Endnotes

[1] Genesis 28:7: . . . and that Jacob had obeyed his father and mother and had gone to Paddan Aram.

Exodus 21:17: Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

Leviticus 19:3a: Every one of you shall reverence his mother and father. . .

Deuteronomy 5:16; Exodus 20:12; Matthew 19:19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20: “Honour your father and your mother . . .

Deuteronomy 21:18-19:If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will “not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.

Deuteronomy 27:16:Cursed is he who dishonours his father or mother.’

Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10 “For God said, ‘Honour your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’

Ephesians 6:1-2a: Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honour your father and mother” . . .

[2] In Proverbs chapter 4 the author seems to be the father, which may be why he did not mention the mother.  The other verse is Proverbs 13:1

[3] Many traditional gender roles are not actually prescribed in the Bible, but are the result of cultural and societal conditioning.

© 27th of January, 2010; Margaret Mowczko

This article was first published at newlife.id.au here.

The Elephant in the Egalitarian Room “wives submit in everything” Ephesians 5:24

Egalitarians often promote “mutual submission” in marriage and use Ephesians 5:21 for support.  Marg Mowczko makes a compelling argument from Scripture in support of mutual submission here.  While equal, mutual, “vice-versa” submission sounds like a great way to run a marriage,  is it really what Paul/God are saying in Ephesians 5? Personally, I am not sure the text supports this interpretation?  Ephesians 5:21 has a context; Ephesians 5:24 is the elephant in the room.

²¹Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. ²²Wives,  unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ²³For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. ²⁴Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Eph 5:21-24 (KJV)

Contextually, Ephesians 5:24 is a continuation of the thought started in Ephesians 5:21 and clarifies the nature and extent of the hupotasso (submission) 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).

Ephesians 5:24 as rendered in various English Bible versions (source):

• “wives should submit” (NIV, NLT, ESV)
• “wives ought to be [subject to]” (NASB
• “wives must be submissive” (ISV)
• “wives are under their husbands’ authority in everything.” (GW)
• “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. (KJV)
  “so let the wives be” (AKJV, WBT)
  “so let the wives also be” (ERV, ASV, WEB)
• “married women should be entirely submissive to their husbands.” (WNT)
• “And as the church is under Christ’s authority, so let wives be under the rule of their husbands in all things.” (Bible in Basic English)

Doesn’t that sound like God commands a wife to “submit to her husband in everything”?
Doesn’t that sound like a wife is obligated to submit to him in order to be obedient and pleasing to God?
What Christian wife does not want to be obedient and pleasing to GOD???
If she has to suck it up and suffer, well, God must have His reasons, right???

That is how I heard and practiced the teaching for some 20+ years of marriage. Attractive as “mutual submission” sounds, the fact is that there is no  verse anywhere directed  to husbands commanding them to submit to their wives in everything.

How do egalitarians address Ephesians 5:24?

How do egalitarians address Ephesians 5:24?  Sometimes it is just overlooked with all the emphasis placed on 5:21 and “mutual submission”.  Sometimes the author, Paul, is dismissed as “chauvinistic”.  Sometimes the apparent obligation of wives to “submit in everything” is considered a historical anachronism which we can discard like slavery, head coverings, and holy kisses.

When I was a quiver full complementarian, I rejected all of those egalitarian explanations as wanting. I reasoned that the authority and timelessness of Scripture as “alive and active” and relevant to me, today would be undermined if Paul is referring only to the particular state of marriage in his first-century world.  For an egalitarian understanding of  Ephesians 5 through such a historical lens, see Kristen Rosser’s series “Is Marriage Really a Picture of Christ and the Church?”  Her grammatical analysis unveiling Paul’s chiasm  is most enlightening!

Co-blogger Kristen Rosser and I both accept that “wives ARE subject to their husbands in everything” .  Kristen understands this as a particular feature of marriage in the first century world contemporary to Paul.  My analysis takes it as a timeless statement because of the nature of the organic one-flesh unity of marriage, combined with the unique nature and circumstances of women.   We both see that it becomes incumbent on Christian husbands not to take advantage of the existence of this situation (whether historical or timeless)– which is why Paul emphasizes “LOVE your wives” so strongly.  In short, women being “subject” points to feminine vulnerability (historic? or timeless?)  that men are warned against exploiting.

So there I was, some 20+ years into my nearly 30 year marriage, attempting to live “submit to him in everything“.  My “submissive wife” lifestyle was killing me by degrees so I began to dig deeply using online Bible Study tools.

All of the  translations of Ephesians 5:24 quoted above 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.  Removing “let” and “be”  from the 6 translations  where they have been added renders them more faithful to the Greek text.

The grammar of the Greek verb hupotasso, translated “to submit” or “to be subject” is not imperative: it is not a command! The grammar of the Greek verb is passive/middle indicative^{[1 ]} . 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.”

What is the significance of passive/middle indicative grammar? ^{[1 ]}  The context introduces the head/body metaphor.  I believe that the passive sense of the hupotasso verb accurately reflects the message Paul/God are conveying here.  The nature and extent of the connection and independence is likened unto the organic connection between a head and body.   The body “is subject” to the head “in everything”.   To grasp the passive nature and pervasive extent of “subject in everything” think about the feedback between your head and your heart.  There is no volition nor even consciousness involved on the part of the heart, nor is there agency involved on the part of the head.   See 1 Corinthians 12:12-27  for a similar “one to another” passive interpersonal vulnerability in Paul’s description of body life.

“Wives are subject to their husband in everything” Ephesians 5:24 is a description of a wife’s state of vulnerability to her husband (echoing the description in Genesis 3:16), not a prescription for wifely behavior. I am subject to my husband in everything like I am subject to gravity, without choice or volition on my part.  This intimate vulnerability comes with marriage and I think Ephesians 5:24 acknowledges that the extent of vulnerability is greater for wives who “are subject in everything“.

I am a submissive woman; submitting daily to my husband, children, and others.  But I do not submit to my husband in everything!   I attempted to do so for over 20 years of my nearly 30 year marriage and it is physically impossible and emotionally deadening.

In my experience, the burden laid on the backs of Evangelical Christian wives that they must “submit in everything” is too heavy to bear, nearly destroyed our marriage, and robbed my husband of his ezer (meet/equal help).

~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1]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. 30 April 2012.