Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Directly, no. But before Paul said for wives to submit to husbands in Ephesians 5, he said to submit to one another. That is the first charge. Everyone is charged to submit to the others.
(And in this one charge, Nee's Authority and Submission is severely crippled.)
Yes, he does continue on to say what he does about husband and wife, but nothing generally about man and woman.
And what follows concerning the husbands is within the overall charge of "submit." To miss this is to treat it like a series of unrelated verses. Like fortune cookies.
I would suggest that, similar to the speaking to Timothy that has already been posted concerning the culture of Ephesus, the more definitive passage to the wives was pointed at that and not intended to create some general status of women as a whole being second-class citizens.
I would agree that there are roles, but that there are examples throughout scripture that demonstrate women in capacities that are beyond what your declaration of universal meaning to this passage would allow. So when there is an uncertainty between what the Bible describes and what you want to extend beyond what it says, I would stand with what the Bible describes every time. It does not definitively say that a woman should never be in a place of authority. That is your extension. But I see examples of women in authority, therefore the presumption of some universal principle must be rejected, or at least suspect.
|
Why does it not say then "wives be subject to your husbands, and husband be subject to your wives". Rather it says "husbands love your wives". There is nothing about subjection to the wife in that.
Since the fall in Creation, man was placed to rule over the woman. "he shall rule over you". It does not say woman will rule over the man, or they will rule over each other.