"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Outraged Over a Question Asked About Jesus

Allow me to join the chorus of people who are outraged over assigning to Jesus cultural biases. Southern Baptists here, and here, and here have expressed appropriate anger over an inappropriate question raised about Jesus. How dare the author credit to Jesus the cultural biases of His day! How dare the author allege that Jesus showed partiality and favoritism to certain people based upon one's genetic composition! How dare the author discredit our Lord by presenting our Savior as someone other than He who considers each soul equal! Frankly, we should all be outraged at the thought that God carries the bias of human cultures.

One of these days I hope to see the end of people asking such silly questions.

:)

I couldn't resist. But before you comment, I would ask you to pause and consider the logic of this post. Are there any similarities between the charge that Jesus was a racist and the modern conservative teaching that Jesus advocated an eternally subordinate position of females to males?.

Seems to me that evangelicals ought to be expressing outrage against both views.


Wade

80 comments:

Wade Burleson said...

By the way, this post is about the ETERNAL SUBORDINATION of women to men - not women pastors.

It's about the women doing the cooking and cleaning the dishes and waiting on men in heaven.

:)

Thy Peace said...

It's about the women doing the cooking and cleaning the dishes and waiting on men in heaven.

In heaven, there are no genders.

On earth, I believe both men and women should share in cooking, cleaning and waiting on each other.

Personally, I find it hard to accept the male headship. I think both men and women are equals in a marriage. Just a personal opinion.

Jeff said...

Wade, You know me too well. :) I was about to go there. :) Now, with that clarification, I can agree with you.

Jeff said...

I do believe the male is the head of the home, but I don't believe this makes him better than the woman.

Jeff said...

Thy Peace, I would be interested on your view of I Corinthians 11

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. 1 Co 11:3

greg.w.h said...

So the Bible deals with the true eternal subordination of women to men when Jesus commented that "don't you know?" there is no marriage in heaven. Only the Mormons continue the marriage past the life in this world. I presume our fundamentalist brethren actually acknowledge that boundary?

But going back to the Miguel De La Torre opinion piece: the consequence of unthoughtful inerrancy is that Mr. De La Torre is correct. Jesus has no excuse for making the statement he made if it is read in the most straightforward reading. And it either would have had to be sin for him to say that, or the woman was teaching him.

The only way that you can read the passage is to permit a non-direct reaching including an intentional use of irony or sarcasm/satire. And you have to wonder if this is an example of how God tests us and whether he is willing to make potentially infuriating statements that SOUND sinful in order to test our faith.

I know, I know. I sound like a liberal when I write that. But I'm not. I'm very conservative and reading that passage for it's complete intent not just the simplest interpretation. Because the simplest interpretation indeed puts Jesus in a bad light. And yet it is inspired Scripture!

Lest you think I'm off of the intended topic, I'll go directly to an application with respect to the eternal subordination of women: Jesus in essence gave the woman the opportunity to defend her request for help. She stood up and defended that request. You might even say she stood up to God much the way Moses did when he entreated God NOT to destroy the Israelites when they made and worshipped the golden calf. Either that or you kind of have to take a cynical, fatalistic view that this was all scripted and the woman was responding the way she was being inspired to response in order to "bring glory to God." I think that's imposing too constricting of a framework on how God interacts with both men AND women. And note, especially, that the father of the child is absent for this story.

I think the story is actually a kind of litmus test for world views regarding God. One world view is that everything God does is righteous merely because he is doing it. You can recognize this viewpoint when people start doing explanatory gymnastics to let Jesus off the hook for what clearly is--lacking other contextual explanation--a racist comment.

The other world view is that God can be challenged to prove his faithfulness by those of great faith and that he is sensitive to the human need for that eventual proof as long as the person proves patient in faithfulness. This woman proved to be a woman of great faith by not relenting when Jesus threw in front of her as objections to her request common Jewish explanations for why God should help people who were not the supposed chosen people of Israel.

Both theological views are supported by the text. But only one is right. Which one do you choose?

Greg Harvey

Bob Cleveland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
msvoboda said...

Please tell me Wade, that you are not really trying to compare a man calling Jesus a racist and people who believe in male headship.

If that is what you are doing, it is as ridiculous as it gets.

Bob Cleveland said...

No.

The Bible says what it says about wives, with reference to their husbands. And also about husbands, with reference to their wives. A submissive wife to a sacrificial husband seems to work out pretty well.

But I wouldn't suggest any other guys get all demanding with Peg. She'd quickly find their place, and put them in it.

There's no way to apply our understanding (finite and earthly) to Heaven (which is neither). To do so even seems egotistical to me; I think I'll always have been married to Peg but I don't have a clue what our relationship will be in Heaven.

And, I don't want one.

Word Verification: "miesses"

Jon L. Estes said...

Personally, I find it hard to accept the male headship. I think both men and women are equals in a marriage. Just a personal opinion.

My problem with the opinion you share is the fact that the Bible teaches about the bride (church) submitting to the bridegroom (Christ). I find it difficult to think Jesus would use the references to His relationship to the church as something different than wife submitting to the husband. If he did, the the illustration breaks He sues down for Him.

NOTE: I do not advocate doormat theology. It is not scriptural.

Bob Cleveland said...

Perhaps it is, with those who wrestle with male headship (in the marriage), the real fear is male responsibility.

Sometimes we get drawn into the "plausible deniability" syndrome, because we don't see how we can be responsible for our marriage if our leadership has to be sacrificial.

To which I personally say: "good". I WANT to have to depend on the Lord.

We toss around terms like "Jesus is the center of our marriage"; in this relationship, that really HAS TO be the case.

Wade Burleson said...

Jon,

How would you interpret this passage:

"Be filled with the Spirit . . . (by) giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:17-21)

Do you believe that this passage is teaching that both men and women have an obligation to mutually submit to one another, or do you believe that this submission is only for females to men?

I, of course, believe that Christians, both male and female, should mutually submit to one another (prefer the other above oneself).

If you wish to argue that the example given by Paul in the next verse ("wives, submit to your husbands") EXCLUDES men from submitting to their wives, then you logically would have to interpret the next verse ("husbands, love your wives") as EXCLUDING wives from loving their husbands.

Both the husband and the wife have the obligation of mutual submission and mutual love.

:)

Wade Burleson said...

msvoboda,

The inability to see the error of the eternal subordination of women to men in the midst of railing against the eternal subordination of one race to another, is a log that some need help pulling out.

:)

That is what I am saying.

Robert said...

Wade,
You have a one track mind! Do you realize that even a pure heretical article is twisted to support your contention about what you believe about women in ministry.

The Southern Baptist Convention has spoken on this issue...are you prepared to start a physical war over this issue?
That is what it will take to change that
policy!

BTW...I hope you noticed Tom Ascols response to this issue on his blog post.


From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Wade Burleson said...

Robert,

My mind is one tracked. My goal is to root out the duplicity and hypocrisy of the Southern Baptist Convention - to say we believe the Word and then live like we don't.

:)

And, Mr. Robert, you must have missed the first comment above. The post is not about women in ministry.

The post is about men - maybe like you - who believe that women should be eternally subordinate to the male.

Jeff said...

Wade, I agree that men and women are to submit to each other and to Christ. But I also believe that how we submit is revealed in Eph 5:22-6:9

-1) Wives submit to husbands.
-2) Husband love wives.
-3) Children obey parents.
-4) Parents love your children
-5) Slaves obey your masters.
-6) Masters treat your slaves good.


I also believe that it is possible to submit to each other and still have headship in the home.

This doesn't mean that the woman is the slave to do all the cooking, cleaning. Submission has nothing to do with household chores.

Robert said...

Wade,
Wow talk about Legalism in action!

My mind is one tracked. My goal is to root out the duplicity and hypocrisy of the Southern Baptist Convention - to say we believe the Word and then live like we don't.

That my friend is not your job. It is the
Holy Spirit's.
One might argue it is the local churches duty: but surely not for the whole convention.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Wade Burleson said...

Jeff,

I agree.

Wade Burleson said...

Robert,

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment as well. I chose my words poorly.

It's my job to simply identify the hypocrisy and duplicity.

You are correct.

The Holy Spirit will root it out.

:)

Robert said...

BTW--You dont consider it a ministry that your wife is a helpmate for you in your ministry?
ummmmm....who is really devaluing women here!

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Christiane said...

Dear GREG HARVEY,

As you have done, I read the article by Mr. De La Torre in a different light: it has layers of meaning for me also.

How is it that Christ holds up a mirror for us to see our own prejudices so clearly?

Can the reader not see that Christ lays out the problem confronting all of us: who are 'we' and who are 'they': the others, the 'dogs', the rejected, the lepers ?

What is the difference, if any?

And what is it that may we have in common that He values far above our differences?

And what is our obligation to help the 'others' ? Must they always be 'sent away' unaided?

Nothing in this incident was 'incidental'.

All was planned by God and set in motion to teach us something, if we will quietly look at it without our 'prejudices' and without our 'self-righteous reactions'.

The Canaanite woman did not come to Christ by chance:
she was directed to that place by a faith that she would recieve healing for her child.

In some part of all of us, we know that every mother would go to hell and beyond to get help for their suffering child.

This woman came to the Lord Christ.

And she came to Him confidently.

Do His Words to her not reflect what many in the crowd thought?

And therein lies the irony.
He is wisely, once again, holding up a mirror, using His Words to reflect the crowd's rejection of this Canaanite woman.

And in doing so, He teaches, in a way that is unmistakably His:

DID he send her away unaided, as they might have done?

No.
He did not.

And therein lies the resolution of the irony.

She, one of the 'others',
had great faith, and so her daughter was given healing by the Lord Christ 'from that very hour'.

Nothing in this story is without meaning.

I disagree with De La Torres' interpretation, as well as the 'indignation' of any who react to De La Torres.

The story is a lesson that ALL the despised and rejected of this world, who are of strong faith , may confidently come to the Lord Christ for healing, not to be turned away by Him.

WE are the ones doing the rejection of the 'others'.

Not Him.
L's

Jon L. Estes said...

Wade,

I would say the passage goes on to describe the issue of submission for both husband and wife.

Husband submit by loving their wives as Christ loved the church and wives submit by placing themselves under the spiritual leadership of their husband.

Joe Blackmon said...

I do not find anything in scripture that indicates that all women are subordinate to all men in all situations. I certainly don't think Jesus taught that. Further, I don't think that a woman submitting to her own husband means that she does all the cooking/cleaning and never offers her opinion or that a husband makes all decisions unilaterally. My wife does pretty well all the cooking because, well, if we waited til I got home from work it would be late before we got to eat. Because she's home all day (her choice--glad I was able to make a way that she could do that) she usually does the cleaning. However, I do help out but I can't claim it's 50/50. If there was a decision that had to be made in my opinion I'd be an idiot not to listen to what she had to say. I can't think of a time where I've said "My way or the highway, woman".

In short, I don't think that being a complimentarian and believing in men and women having different roles means that ALL women are submordinate to ALL men at ALL times.

Jamie Steele said...

Wade,
What do you think of the Miguel De La Torre article.
You do believe it is heresy don't you. Just answer that question.

Wade Burleson said...

Jamie,

Of course it's heresy. Just like the eternal subordination of women.

Jamie Steele said...

Wade,
Who in America holds to the eternal subordination of women.
Give me an instance please

ml said...

Wade, most of the replies have avoided or missed the actual question you pose. You have crafted a communication theorist’s nightmare. Maybe your logical extension was not apparent enough. You obviously disagree with De la Torres and, clearly, you are equally emotive over gender subordination, too. Nonetheless, neither of your insinuations answers the question you yourself posed. This leaves me wondering, "How would you answer your own question?" What are the similarities between the charge that Jesus was a racist and the modern conservative teaching that Jesus advocated an eternally subordinate position of females to males? Are you simply seeking a yes or no answer? I think the subordination issue generally is a Trinitarian subordinationism and not a gender issue, at least initially. So maybe there are some Christological links via a pseudo-Arianism and in this case there may be potential similarities. De la Torres, however, is clearly running a Pelagian understanding of the doctrine of sin and you speak of gender subordination so maybe there are no actual similarities as his speaks to essentials and yours as framed—gender subordination—to what you call tertiary issues? What do you think? Could this be the subject matter of your next post: The similarities between De la Torres Racist claim and Gender Subordination. Your distinctions might help the readers here actually tackle the subject you desire? Just some questions and thoughts.

Jamie Steele said...

Yea what ml said :)

Wade Burleson said...

Jamie,

If you do just the mimimal research, you will find a number of well known conservatives advocating the eternal subordination of women.

Wade Burleson said...

ml,

You write: I think the subordination issue generally is a Trinitarian subordinationism and not a gender issue, at least initially.

Well stated. The defective view of the Trinity leads to an even more warped view of women.


You observe and then ask: De la Torres, however, is clearly running a Pelagian understanding of the doctrine of sin and you speak of gender subordination so maybe there are no actual similarities as his speaks to essentials and yours as framed—gender subordination—to what you call tertiary issues? What do you think?

I wholeheartedly disagree with De la Torres, but I am pointing out that any outrage over De la Torres should be equally present when someone alleges the unorthodox view of the Trinity and the subsequent eternal subordination of women.

You ask: Could this be the subject matter of your next post: The similarities between De la Torres Racist claim and Gender Subordination. Your distinctions might help the readers here actually tackle the subject you desire?

That is precisely the question I asked in this post, using logic. You use straightforward language. Obviously, there are times my communication skills, using logic, irony and humor are lacking when compared to the straight forward approach. So, in affirmation of your questions to me, I write straightforward the following question (I'm uninterested in a new post).

Does anyone besides me see the similarities between De la Torres Racist claim and the Gender Subordination doctrine?

How's that?

:)

Wade Burleson said...

ML,

After spending five minutes typing you a comment I reread my post from this morning.

Did I not ask the very question, in a straightforward manner, in the second to last sentence of the post?

:)

Wade Burleson said...

Off for ministry and preparation for tonight's Bible study!

Unavailable for further comment.

ml said...

Wade, one more question and thanks for the reply. Are you making a divide between complementarianism and egalitarianism as equally plausible positions, over against gender subordinationism which may or may not arises from a faulty subordinist Trinitarian conceptualization?

While you may be right, one might also argue that gender subordination arises from a too rigid complementarian position over against the eternal subordination of Jesus to the Father, speaking more to Trinitarian concepts, as advanced by the likes of Voddie Baucham.

[Jamie here is one example]

ml said...

Wade, Yes you did and that was what I was asking about. I maintained that your insinuations about the two seemingly related topics as presented did not speak directly to your question of actual similarities. Hence others were missing entirely the direction you were intending to go--either reacting to De la Torres deficient hermeneutic or writing diatribe on gender issues.

I was suggesting that your inference did not deal with the exactness of what you perceived to be the actual similarities. Hence my question to deal with the specifics in another post even though I can understand your desire not to write another post on this topic.

Jeff said...

I am not the smartest cookie in the jar. In fact, I am the cookie you find at the bottom that is all broken. However, what I have taken is that we pick and choose our outrage. At least, I do.

Robert said...

Wade,
I actually love this post because everyone can see this HUGE trojan horse that you are building.
While you build that horse people can go to the CBMW website and find out the actual position of complimentarians.

http://www.cbmw.org/


From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

greg.w.h said...

Christiane/L's:

If I were to summarize your presentation, Jesus's comment appears racist precisely because he is reflecting (as in a mirror) the attitudes of those around him. I fundamentally agree that interpretation of his action is well-reasoned and is a better point of view than Mr. De La Torre's which depends on Jesus's human nature as being either fundamentally incomplete if not sinful. In other words, not fully man and fully God at the same time.

But Mr. De La Torre's hermeneutic is very similar to the supposition that Jesus limited his knowledge as a man as part of his act of condescension. This supposition leaves us wondering if the way he knew Scripture was because it was inherent knowledge or because as a human he memorized it.

Tracing that thought further leads to speculation regarding the mind body problem for the normal person (which part of who we are is fully dependent on neural structure and circuitry) and of a God man (was Jesus essentially an alien because he had a different brain structure than normal humans? do the effects of sin impact our neural circuitry? did they impact his?)

If Jesus's human knowledge was intentionally limited, then there were human teachers of Jesus. They taught him how to read, to write, and to memorize. So if that were the case (and it is quite easy to imagine that it was), then that conjecture on De La Torre's part is reasonable.

But the point where the issue arises is whether Jesus needed MORAL tutelage. I think the Bible addresses this indirectly with the jumping of John in Elizabeth's womb, with the recognition and prophecy regarding Jesus at his presentation at the Temple on the eight day, and in the story of Jesus being left behind at the temple and teaching the teachers.

But I think De La Torre deserves credit for one insight that he gets very close to being right: for God to become man and live among us was undoubtedly an eye-opening experience for all three persons of the Godhood. Unless you believe Jesus was play acting his last words on the cross, I offer that situation as proof of my comment, especially "El(o)i, El(o)i lama sabachtani".

Greg Harvey

Lydia said...

Thy Peace, I would be interested on your view of I Corinthians 11

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. 1 Co 11:3

Wed Feb 25, 11:59:00 AM 2009

Jeff, you have to read the whole passage. What on earth do you do with this part of the passage:

"10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."

Symbol of was added to the text. It actually reads that women should have authority over their own head. Because of the Angels relates back to chp 6 where it says we will ALL judge the angels.

But these verses negate what you are trying to pull out of that passage and call authority over another Christian:


"11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. "

Then Paul tells them we have no such custom in the Body. It is up to them whether to veil or not in the Body.

How can scripture be 'clear as a bell' when translators add words that are not in the original that change the meaning?

BTW: Head in the Greek does not mean authority. Although I know you want it to mean that real bad. The Holy Spirit would have inspired a clear as a bell 'authority' word if that was what He was communicating to us here.

Lydia said...

"My problem with the opinion you share is the fact that the Bible teaches about the bride (church) submitting to the bridegroom (Christ). I find it difficult to think Jesus would use the references to His relationship to the church as something different than wife submitting to the husband. If he did, the the illustration breaks He sues down for Him."

So in your example, Jon, you are Jesus Christ and your wife is the church? That is what you think that passage is communicating?

Lydia said...

Husband submit by loving their wives as Christ loved the church and wives submit by placing themselves under the spiritual leadership of their husband.

Wed Feb 25, 02:12:00 PM 2009

So there IS a layer between her and Christ? This means her spiritual growth is dependent on yours?

Lydia said...

Who in America holds to the eternal subordination of women.
Give me an instance please

Wed Feb 25, 03:21:00 PM 2009

There is another article at CBMW that speaks of eternal subordination of women in eternity. They are positively Mormon over there.

Paul Burleson said...

Lydia,

I agree with your questioning the traditional meaning of 'head' in 1 Corinthians 11:3 as well as other places where 'authority' or 'submission' is READ into the meaning.

This quote from someone who lived a few years ago speaks a thought we need to hear IMHO.

'In 1 Corinthians 11:3..'head' must be understood as 'source' rather than 'boss'... lest one arrive at a faulty understanding of the Trinity..'

Athanasius, Fourth-Century Church Father

That has proven to be a prophetic word.

Lydia said...

"Well stated. The defective view of the Trinity leads to an even more warped view of women."

ml, if you do not understand this, you need to watch Cheryl Schatz' DVD on the Trinity and listen to the Bruce Ware clips. As someone who has followed Ware and Grudem for quite a while now, I can tell you the issues are most definitely linked. Big time. Ware and those like him have become more like Mormons or JW's in how they view Jesus Christ in the Trinity. It is the biggest heresy in the SBC right now and very few can see it because they love the power it gives them over others. They SAY Jesus is equal but then go on to teach how He ISN'T Equal at all. It is subtle and deadly to the soul.

Lydia said...

'In 1 Corinthians 11:3..'head' must be understood as 'source' rather than 'boss'... lest one arrive at a faulty understanding of the Trinity..'


Paul, I agree because the other
Paul (smile) is building to what we see in this part of the passage:

11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. "

There is your 'source'.


This is a very difficult passage to interpret because it has been translated so badly. These bad translations have brought us some bizarre teachings from well known pastors on how long hair for men is a sin! Tell that to Paul who let his hair grow long for a vow! (see Acts)

So, he would teach that long hair for a man was a sin? What would that say about Samson? :o)

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wanda said...

Jamie Steele said . . .
"Who in America holds to the eternal subordination of women? Give me an instance please"

Glad you asked, Jamie!

I have been investigating this topic, and Wade is correct in stating that minimal research will yield much information.

Last October Trinity Evangelical Divinity School held a "Trinity Debate". The following link highlights what each side presented:

www.henrycenter.org/blog/?cat=25

Christianity Today's blog also covered the debate, which can be found at the following link:

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html

My understanding of the position taken by Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem in the Trinity debate is as follows: since the "Son" is eternally subordinate to the "Father" it follows that women are eternally subordinate to men. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong on their position.

Interestingly, Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem serve as Council Members on the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

In closing, I consider the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father to be heresy.

Christiane said...

Hi GREG,

I believe Christ Incarnate was fully God and fully Man. In His Manhood, He was like us in every way but one: He was sinless.

I do not think He needed moral instruction, as a human, since the Moral Law is imprinted on the hearts of all mankind by their Creator.

Your comments regarding the effects of sinless-ness on Christ's human neural structure are above my pay-grade, but are interesting, in the light of the variations of doctrines on the 'effects' of 'original sin' on the descendants of Adam. One would wonder about the contrast, yes.

Another insight is received when Christ was found at age twelve in the temple by Mary and Joseph. He had been speaking with the learned rabbis who were amazed at His knowledge. His knowledge, as displayed in the Temple, was not taught to Him by any man.

The mystery of the Incarnation is simply that: we cannot fathom all of it's implications at this time.

As for Christ's cry on the cross: 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' , perhaps this is best thought of as the cry of One Who is bearing the weight of mankind's sin's, past, present, and future.
He endured this so that we would not have to feel forsaken. We were spared. He was not. He willingly bore extreme spiritual and physical torture in our place.

Once again, the mysteries of the Redemption are matters of serious doctrinal disagreement.
But they are simply that: great mysteries surrounding the savage blood-sacrifice of the God-Man for the sake of the Children of Adam and Eve.

We can only begin to understand these mysteries in the light of the Resurrection.

I emphasize 'we can only BEGIN to understand'. . . L's

Wed Feb 25, 06:11:00 PM 2009
Post a Comment

Older Post Home

Jeff said...

So what? What if God has ordained eternal roles for men and women. This doesn't mean that women are less than men. It appears some on this blog are trying to say that those who believe in subordination believe women to be less than men. Friends, that not my position.

Lydia said...

So what? What if God has ordained eternal roles for men and women. This doesn't mean that women are less than men. It appears some on this blog are trying to say that those who believe in subordination believe women to be less than men. Friends, that not my position.

Wed Feb 25, 07:07:00 PM 2009

Jeff, Sure it is, you just cannot see it. You put a layer between women and Christ even in eternity. If it is not a layer then what is it? If you say leadership then what is that but a layer? A NT Priest for the woman?

Christiane said...

Just something to think about.

When a woman was betrothed, as Mary was to Joseph, the woman would have been culturally under the guidance of her future husband.

But Mary was called directly to serve God and responded to God's
Will immediately, without asking Joseph's permission.

As later, Joseph was reassured, he did not put Mary 'away'.

And the Magdalene was sent to tell of the Resurrection directly by the Lord Christ, Himself.
Did she have to ask permission to speak to the Great Apostles?
No. Why? Because of the Authority of the One Who sent her to speak to them. She spoke by His Authority.

Too often, the events of Scripture are 'played down' or 'ignored' or lost, as in the three thousand year old telling of God's Prophet Deborah, who led her people into battle, taught them from the Torah, and received God's favor in victory over their enemy.



Some men desperately need to believe that women aren't as acceptable to serve the people of the Lord, as men might be.

But God had no problem with the leadership of Deborah.
Christ had no problem sending, by His own Authority, Mary Magdalene with the Greatest of News to His Apostles.
And, at the central moment of all history, God chose a young girl to decide, on her own, if she would accept His Will, and become mother to the Christ Child.

Some men desparately need to believe that women aren't 'as acceptable' before God to serve His people, as the men might be.

And so, the women are 'put away'.

These men MUST then try to minimize the stories of the great women of the Bible, chosen by the Authority of God:

to lead His people against the enemy to victory,

to teach Torah to His people,

to prophesy in His Name,

to announce the News of the Resurrection to the Great Apostles,

and most of all, to be the chosen vessel for Himself, the Incarnate Living Word.

I would suggest that those men, who need to minimize the roles of women in the Kingdom of God, think again about on Whose Authority that they speak:
Surely not the God of Deborah; or the God of Mary, of the God of the Magdalene?

Surely, gentlemen, these great women of the Bible did not serve a lesser god?

Thy Peace said...

Cheryl Schatz: Women In Ministry Blog

Cheryl Schatz: Women In Ministry: DVD - Silenced or Set Free

Cindy Kunsman: Under Much Grace Blog

Jeff said...

There is no layer at all.

Example: All are equal on a committee but the chairperson runs the meeting. All have an equal vote...

Thy Peace said...

ABP: Opinion: Was Jesus a racist? By Miguel De La Torre

When I read Matthew 15:21-28, I always took it as Jesus was first going to the Jews with the message. And that this message was not for the gentiles (at least initially). I did not look at it as racism or even as a cultural bias. Also Miguel De La Torre has it backwards. I do not think Jesus needed to learn from this Canaanite woman. We have to acknowledge Jesus is God and this argument falls away.

But the article written was an opinion. And it mostly used this backdrop of Jesus and Canaanite woman, and projecting it on to discrimination being experienced by Hispanics today in US.

PS: Could it be that the "dogs" slur, is coming from Slum Dog Millionaire?

NYT: India Celebrates a Hollywood Victory

NYT: The Real Roots of the ‘Slumdog’ Protests

Christiane said...

A PRAYER FOR ASH WEDNESDAY


Jesus, you place on my forehead
the sign of my sister Death:
“Remember you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

How not hear her wise advice?
One day my life on earth will end;
the limits on my years are set,
though I know not the day or hour.
Shall I be ready to go to meet you?
Let this holy season be a time of grace
for me and all this world.

“Teach us to number our days aright,
that we may gain wisdom of heart.”


O Jesus, you place on my forehead
the sign of your saving Cross:
“Turn from sin and be faithful
to the gospel.”

How can I turn from sin
unless I turn to you?

You speak, you raise your hand,
you touch my mind and call my name,
“Turn to the Lord your God again.”

Christiane said...

From ISAIAH 58:


"Is such the fast that I choose, a day to humble oneself? Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush, and to lie in sackcloth and ashes? Will you call this a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord?

6 Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?

7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

8 Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.

9 Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am. If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil,

10 if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be like the noonday.

11 The Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy your needs in parched places, and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail.

12 Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called
the repairer of the breach,
the restorer of streets to live in."

Lydia said...

Example: All are equal on a committee but the chairperson runs the meeting. All have an equal vote...

Wed Feb 25, 07:45:00 PM 2009

Same principle as the pastor is CEO.

debbiekaufman said...

Lydia: It's interesting that you compare eternal subordination to the Mormon doctrine because that is first thought that came to mind when I first read of this view in CBMW, and in some Southern Baptist blogs.

Jeff said...

Lydia, No illustration is perfect but I do not believe the pastor is the CEO.

There are illustrations of different roles on sports teams.

The point is to show that subordination does not mean less than.

Wanda said...

Jeff said:
"The point is to show that subordination does not mean less than."

Jeff, which dictionary are you using -- the SBC edition? Mine gives the following definitions for the word "subordinate":

adj.
(1) Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; minor; secondary
(2) Subject to the authority or control of another

tr.v.
(1) To put in a lower or inferior rank or class
(2) To make subservient; subdue

Jeff said...

The only thing I know is that the Bible tells us that the husband is over the wife. Call what you want too, but thats what the Bible tells us.

Is Christ less than the Father?

Wanda said...

Jeff said:
Is Christ less than the Father?

Jeff,

It depends on whom you ask. Bruce Ware believes in the eternal subordination of the "Son" to the "Father". Please check out the links I posted yesterday at 6:13 p.m.

Jeff said...

Wanda, I don't follow links, in fact I find them quite distasteful in discussions like this. I am talking about what the Bible tells us. It tells us that The Father is the Head of Christ and Christ is the head of the man, and the man head of the woman.

I am going to bow out now. We have both stated our positions. I appreciate your opinion, and more -than that I consider you an equal in Christ.

Blessings to You

Wade Burleson said...

Jeff,

You act as if you talk about what the Bible tells us, but when my member, Debbie Kaufman, related to you on the next comment stream that she got "goose bumps" when reading what the Bible tells us about the ekklesia, you told her not to get too big goose bumps and then directed her to what a man wrote (D.A. Carson).

Sounds like to me that you posture loving the Bible, but direct people to men when you think they believe the Bible says something with which you disagree.

At least be consistent. If you love the Bible, then encourage a brother or sister in Christ who shares with you they get goose bumps when they read the Bible.

Blessings,

Wade

Jeff said...

Wade, Why are your responding here?

Wade Burleson said...

I was going to leave your comment to Debbie alone, though it bothered me, until I came here and saw your comment about "I am talking about what the Bible tells us."

It is your comment above that provoked my response.

Jeff said...

Ok, now I get it. I'm little slow. Wade, I certainly use other sources in my sermon research so I am not saying that one cannot use other sources. In fact, it is good to see what others said. My response to Wanda about links is that I want to hear what she thinks. For me its more of a pet peeve, than anything. In addition, I saw Debbie as responding to your quote of John R.

Hope that helps
Jeff

Tim Marsh said...

Thy Peace,

Jesus said that in heaven there would be no marriage and giving in marriage. He did not say that there would be no gender. If "Heaven" is the continuity of our earthly identity, then we must consider how our gender is factored into our identity. See Paul's doctrine of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 and Randy Alcorn's words on the subject. Too, most of our "angelology" is mere speculation. The Bible says very little about angels. "Like the angels in heaven" could simply refer to their "singleness.

Everyone,

However, in Christ, as Paul argues there is no "status." For me, Galatians 3:28 is the final word on the subject. Our status, regardless of race, socio-economic status, or gender is that of "heir" (See Rom. 8:17, Gal. 3:29).

When Paul speaks of outward practices, usually he calls the church to keep quiet and not cause an uproar nor give the world at large anything to talk about, lest they stir unnecessary persecution.

1 Cor. 11:2-16 is a veiled response to the head covering issue. If read closely, vs. 3-10 is not Paul's position, but the position to which 11-16 is a response, i.e., 11-16 is Paul's convictions. The Greek suggests in verse 11 a position contrary to the summary of a competing position in 3-10. He suggests that "in the Lord" things are different. And if one wants to be huffy, then a woman's hair is sufficient for her covering.

Paul uses Greek rhetoric, not English, and is writing primarily for his audience and in such a way that his readers understand the heart of the issue.

Finally, it is interesting that Jesus and Paul both rejected understandings of the law that emphasized internal matters over external matters. In other words, they were more interested in character than manners. They rejected any notion of placing external manners, behaviors or norms on par with character issues. Externals always came from internals.

The problem with many conservative branches of Christianity is the elevation of externals to the par of internals. And, as Wade pointed out, it is often that the externals are inconsistent with internals and are practiced randomly. Usually it is to JUSTIFY one's culture than to practice a way of life that TRANSCENDS culture.

Tim

Jeff said...

Are there different types of angels?

Christiane said...

Angels: Bible Concordance

Old Testament references:

Cherubim at entrance to Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:24

Appear to Abraham, Genesis 18:1-33'

Saved Lot and his family, Genesis
19:1-22

Intervened with Isaac, Genesis 22:11-18

Heavenly vision of Jacob's Ladder, Genesis 28:12

Accompanied Israel through the desert, Exodus 23:20 And Numbers 20:16



Aided the prophets :

Isaiah 6:2-7
Ezekiel 1:4-28
Daniel 7:9-10
Zechariah 1:9-19



New Testament references:


Appeared in connection with birth of Christ:

Matthew 1:20
Luke 1:26-38



Appear to:

Paul, Acts 27:23
Peter, Acts 12:7-11
Cornelius, Acts 10:3-6
Sadducees didn't believe in angels, Acts 23:8
12 Legions of Angels, Matthew 26:53



Mentioned by name:

Raphael, Tobit 12:15
Michael, Daniel 10:13
Revelation, 12:7
Gabriel, Daniel 8:16
Luke 1:19

Fall of the angels

Deuteronomy 32:17
2 Peter 2:4
Jude 1:6
Revelation 12:7-9

Tim Marsh said...

When I said that the Bible says very little about angels, I meant about in the sense of their duties, functions, essence. I did not mean that they did not appear in scripture.

Again, I reiterate that many of the conclusions we draw regarding angels are not actually scriptural. Much of our imagination is fueled by popular conceptions of angels through church tradition and art.

Very few of our conclusions are actually deduced from solid readings of scripture.

Tim

Jeff said...

Are there angels who of higher rank?

Anonymous said...

Does eternal subordination of women mean that we are to be considered inferior in heaven too? Doesn't sound like heaven to me! Sounds more like the supposed Muslin idea of heaven where the men get 70(?) virgins; what do the women get?

A possible interpretation of the story of the Canaanite woman is that Jesus, knowing she would argue, (don't we believe that He pretty well knew everything, except the time of His second coming, which He said He didn't know) was using it to teach His disciples.

BTW I think that's the only story in the Bible where Jesus lost an argument. And to a woman! Consider that, you male supremacists.

Susie

D.R. said...

In answering your question Wade:

YES! YES! YES! and YES!

This is a poor way to bring up a topic that you continue to misunderstand and help perpetuate others doing the same. You framed it in an inappropriate way and you allow your readers to continue to attack your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ without allowing them the benefit of the doubt that you so graciously give to De la Torre.

I just don't get how you think you can take the moral high road reflected in your most recent post on the "Baptist Identity" folks, when you continually seem to allow your fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ like Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem (and pretty much all who hold to Complimentarianism) to be spoken of like dogs.

I remember that as a Reformed Baptist I once supported much of what you wrote, but now, I seem to not be able to support anything you write.

Oh, and as to Ephesians 5:17-21, you should know as a Pastor who is charged with interpreting the Word that these verses were written to describe how the church should relate to itself as a whole, and the next verses (22-33) were written specifically for how the a husband and wife should relate to one another within the confines of marriage. Thus you cannot use vv.15-21 to contradict the clear teachings of male headship in the home in vv.22-33. Mutual submission in the home is simply not taught here. That's poor exegesis.

Kathy said...

'Thus you cannot use vv.15-21 to contradict the clear teachings of male headship in the home in vv.22-33.'

Did you get the belief that the husband is the head of the home from some idea that Christ is the head of his home?

Does Christ have a bride or both a bride and children (home)?

Are children the body of their fathers like the wife is the body of the husband?

I'm thinking that father and child cannot become one flesh as only head (Christ/husband) and body (Church/wife) can and that we are God's children, not Christ's. Therefore the father cannot be head of the home (children, dwelling) because he does not become one with them.

Tim Marsh said...

D. R.,

You may be the one exhibiting poor exegetical skills. In exegesis you would discover that "submit" is not even found in vs. 22 in the Greek, but borrows its verb from verse 21, thus linking 22-33 not only with verse 21, but vs. 16ff as well, thus making 16-33 a unit. Furthermore, "submit" is a particple, not an imperative, just as all the verbs in 16-21 are participles.

Using submit in vs. 21 made an easy transition from community life to home life. However, verse 25 turns to the husband, calling for his love for his spouse to be the same extent as Christ loved the church. He further defines that love as a laying down of his life. John 13, Christ demonstrates servanthood. In Phil 2:5-11, Christ took the form of a servant, no "slave."

Though Paul did not use the word "submit" the conduct required of a husband toward his wife is one of servanthood, thus being the definition of "submission." If this is not mutual submission, then what is?

The overarching point of the entire passage is harmony in community life, whether that community be the church or the household. They are to do so because they days are "evil." Every opportunity to demonstrate Christlikeness before the world is crucial.

Before calling out someone's exegesis, please check your own. Careful reading of scripture is a must, because the days are evil.

Tim Marsh said...

One more thing, no matter what one thinks about women in ministry or women as ordained deacons, some of the comments here cause extreme concern for me.

Women have been abused, treated as property, left uneducated, and at best understood to be second class citizens for much of the history of the world.

I think some of this is inherent in views of subordination, not merely the result of misapplication in a fallen world.

Christianity is an alternative to the world's culture, not a justification of the world's culture.

Though these comments may seem judgmental toward those who differ with me, and though I respect anyone whose opinions are based upon the desire to be faithful to scripture, we really need to prayerfully consider whether or not these views are taught in scripture.

Or, are we really trying to justify our own practices, what is or was taught in the church's of our youth. Because the SBC failed in race issues in the 20th century, could we also be failing in gender issues?

I have a daughter. I want her to marry a Christian. However, now, I must, in my prayers, scutinize what kind of Christian that I would want her to marry.

Anonymous said...

The Canaanite woman begged for 'crumbs from under the Master's table'.

Would we make the poor always beg for crumbs from beneath our own tables?

Surely they deserve the Master's blessing, and we may share the gift of food we have received from Him?

D.R. said...

Tim,

Sorry that it has taken me a few days to respond.

I may not have been as clear as I would have liked in my response to Wade. So let me start over.

Wade said the following regarding Ephesians 5:17-21:

Do you believe that this passage is teaching that both men and women have an obligation to mutually submit to one another, or do you believe that this submission is only for females to men?

I, of course, believe that Christians, both male and female, should mutually submit to one another (prefer the other above oneself).

If you wish to argue that the example given by Paul in the next verse ("wives, submit to your husbands") EXCLUDES men from submitting to their wives, then you logically would have to interpret the next verse ("husbands, love your wives") as EXCLUDING wives from loving their husbands.

Both the husband and the wife have the obligation of mutual submission and mutual love.



First, in v.21, Paul is not specifically talking about male and female relationships, he is clearly talking about relationships between all Christians, particularly in the Ephesian congregation.

Verse 22 begins an entire section (from 5:22-6:4) on family relationships, with 6:5-9 concluding a larger section on individual relationships within the church.

Verse 21, as George Knight points out in his article "Husbands and Wives as Analogues of Christ and the Church" in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Piper and Grudem, serves as a "transition verse to the entirety of the section on household responsibilities."

In fact, Knight addresses Burleson's contention:

The mutual submission to which all are called and that defines the larger context and sets the tone does not, therefore, rule out the specific and different roles and relationships to which husbands and wives are called in the verses addressed to them.

You can read his whole argument by accessing the book here:

http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbmw/bbmw.pdf

It's found in Section II - Chap. 8.

It's clear here that Paul is giving a general principle to the Church, then giving a specific admonition to wives in relation to their husbands.

Now, as to a couple of your arguments:

In exegesis you would discover that "submit" is not even found in vs. 22 in the Greek, but borrows its verb from verse 21, thus linking 22-33 not only with verse 21, but vs. 16ff as well, thus making 16-33 a unit. Furthermore, "submit" is a particple, not an imperative, just as all the verbs in 16-21 are participles.

Neither of what you mention here is a problem for my exegesis of this passage. Paul often transitions from a general argument to specific application, and often words are omitted in Greek when understood from previous sentences. That doesn't mean that women are not called to submit to their husbands in a specific way, nor does it mean that men are not called to love their wives in a particular way.

As for the idea of "submit" being a partiple, again this is not a problem exegetically for my view. It is simply an Adverbial Particle functioning like an Imperatival Particle, like we see Paul do in Romans 12:9-19 and 2 Cor. 8:24. Other examples of this in Ephesians would be found in 3:17, 4:22-24, and 6:18.

You further say:

Though Paul did not use the word "submit" the conduct required of a husband toward his wife is one of servanthood, thus being the definition of "submission." If this is not mutual submission, then what is?

Ahh...and there's the rub. Paul doesn't use "submit" to refer to the husband's role. And so reading it into that by implying that the "servanthood" of the husband is equal to "submission" in the same way that the wife submits is eisegesis - putting into the text what is not clearly communicated.

Further, two more points that Paul makes make it clear that there is a special type of submission in view for the wife that is not there for the husband. First, the wife is compared to the Church and the Husband to Christ. In that regard, the husband is said to be the "head" of the wife, or the "authority over."

Secondly, v.24 says that "As the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything."

So, it's clear from this that Paul has a specific type of submission in view for the wife that the husband does not reciprocate, otherwise you have to say that Christ is subject to the Church in mutual submission and that the "headship" language is essentially meaningless. Is that what you and Burleson would say?


Finally, you said, "Before calling out someone's exegesis, please check your own. Careful reading of scripture is a must, because the days are evil."

I think it is clear that I have checked it, along with about 2000 years of Church history, which seem to back me up on this. In fact, the Early Church was clear on the submission of wives to husbands and the idea that the husband was the head of the wife. So, if my exegesis is wrong, then so was much of the Church's for 2000 years.


Now regarding what you wrote in your second comment, you said:

Women have been abused, treated as property, left uneducated, and at best understood to be second class citizens for much of the history of the world.

I think some of this is inherent in views of subordination, not merely the result of misapplication in a fallen world.


First of all, you are correct in the first paragraph. However, the blame should not be placed on the traditional Christian view of manhood and womanhood, but rather on our sinful desires. Most (dare I say almost all) abuse doesn't come from those seeking to honor the Biblical principles of marriage, but rather from those who act out of their sinful desires. Those who advocate the traditional position are an easy target, but abuse can be found in egalitarian households and non-Christian households just as easily. Complimentarianism can lead, as I have seen it practiced, to loving homes where husbands and wives are greatly satisfied.

Finally, Tim, might I suggest that you spend some time with some competent complimentarians as I have done. I think you will see that most of the talk around here sets up false stereotypes and puts on display either poor examples of complimentarians or those who don't really understand how to practice it properly.

But you are right that we need to practice what the Bible actually teaches. And that is why I am convinced that Complimentarianism, when practiced correctly, it the most Biblical option - because it explains the Biblical passages most accurately.

Tim Marsh said...

D.R.,

Though I understand the thrust of your argument, I am not opposed to arguing against the church's position on her exegesis of scripture for the past 2000 years. I think that the principle that the Reformation taught us is that the church should be challenged as well as cherished. Look at the book of Revelation and other apocalyptic texts. Look at uses of scattered verses in the Old Testament to justify racism. These are not isolated incidents. I would even go as far as to accuse Reformers and counter-Reformers of teaching Christian Ethics that justified their church-state governments rather than teaching Scripture. I have no problem going against the tradition of the church.

I do not think that Paul thought in Complimentarian/Egalitarian categories. However, vis-a-vis both Greco-Roman and Jewish thought and culture, the New Testament is clearly progressive in regards to women's roles in marriage as well as community, particularly the church. Paul's ethics are particularly loose in the areas outward practices, providing principles, such as Gal. 3:28 and Eph. 5:16ff, by which churches in different contexts and historical time periods could make decisions.

For example, when I read the qualifications for Bishop and Deacon in 1 Timothy 3, I do not study the particular attributes listed for each (though I do not ignore them) but ask the question what does it mean to be a person of good character and good reputation in the church and the wider community context. I follow such passages as the lengthy meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor. 8-10 as a cue for such exegesis.

However, regarding the passage in question, I do feel confident that Paul calls for mutual submission. Using a familiar maxim for women, Paul offers a parallel for the man that leaves no doubt he has the same submission for the man in mind.

Paul calls for a radical dismissal of status in Gal. 3:28 to be practiced within the church, not merely an equality of value. However, he calls for it in a way that the church remain "quiet" and respectful within its cultural context so that the church does not stir unnecessary persecution. I think that this call for quietness is what has been misred as complimentarianism.

What I am saying is that there is nothing mandating complimentarianism. Yet there is nothing mandating total egalitarianism, if this was an either/or question. It could be some of both. What I have the beef with is a reading of Eph. 5:22-33 that disregards its context and wider Pauline theology. That reading which says complimentarianism is the only way, I have a problem with it, and maintain my position that there is something inherent in the view of subordination in marriage, in the church and in society that is leading to problems against women.

Too, another reason that the church read the verses in the way you suggest for 2000 years is that women were subordinate for much of the church's 2000 year history.

I appreciate your kind reply, and should examine complementarian literature, but with the same suggestion that you engage more egalitarian readings.

Most of all, as men called to preach the Bible, we should, regardless of our views, defend the value of women as well as teach men Eph. 5:25ff.

God bless!

Tim Marsh said...

One further thought regarding Gal. 3:28. I commented that Gal. 3:28 is aboloshing status, not merely value, within the Christian community. Though this may not be apparant in the immediate context, it certainly is a valid reading in the wider context of Galatians. The Jewish Christians, including the apostles, wanted to separate from Gentile Christians at the table.

Paul sees such promotions of outward status not only hypocritical, but part of an inherently flawed soteriology.

Just worth pondering...