A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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".

I suppose that your version of love is "tough love." If you love your wife, you will be subject to her just as you are to Christ and the other Christians because of your love for them. The premise of a right to lead implies something that rises above your love. That will demand its place despite the love.

The rest of your comments are simply too canned to be taken seriously. It is like reading Lee to prove Lee is right.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I suppose that your version of love is "tough love." If you love your wife, you will be subject to her just as you are to Christ and the other Christians because of your love for them. The premise of a right to lead implies something that rises above your love. That will demand its place despite the love.

The rest of your comments are simply too canned to be taken seriously. It is like reading Lee to prove Lee is right.

It's not loving to submit to one's wife, but foolish. Adam submitted to his wife Eve, and look what happened. When Eve offered Adam the fruit, the most loving thing Adam could have done is reject the offer and correct her. Adam taking the fruit and saying submissively "thankyou dear for the forbidden fruit" is not love at all, but something else.

The command to obey and respect is given to the one in subjection i.e. the wife (1 Peter 3:1, Eph 5:22). Their greatest temptation is to disobey, disrespect etc, because they are in a position of weakness and subjection.

The command to love is given to the one who is to rule over the other, the husband. Their greatest temptation is to abuse, because of their position of power.

The concept of husbands obeying and submitting to wives is just not in the bible in a descriptive or prescriptive sense. Greek scholars (e.g. Wallace) and Christian history agrees.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

You would do well to stick with the problem of translations resulting in the erroneous mistreatment of women. Keep away from fantasizing about a world in which women get things right and men get it all wrong.

OBW,

The difference between the two statements above is just a matter of degree.

Perhaps a belief in the first instance led to conviction of the second.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not loving to submit to one's wife, but foolish. Adam submitted to his wife Eve, and look what happened. When Eve offered Adam the fruit, the most loving thing Adam could have done is reject the offer and correct her. Adam taking the fruit and saying submissively "thankyou dear for the forbidden fruit" is not love at all, but something else.

The command to obey and respect is given to the one in subjection i.e. the wife (1 Peter 3:1, Eph 5:22). Their greatest temptation is to disobey, disrespect etc, because they are in a position of weakness and subjection.

The command to love is given to the one who is to rule over the other, the husband. Their greatest temptation is to abuse, because of their position of power.

The concept of husbands obeying and submitting to wives is just not in the bible in a descriptive or prescriptive sense. Greek scholars (e.g. Wallace) and Christian history agrees.

The foolish is the one who does not understand the command to submit to one another. There was no exception provided. The specific statements made were not stated as reasons that it does not also go the other way.

Besides, it is only the fool who thinks that an environment in which all are commanded to submit to all that there is any one of them who is not required to submit to every one of the others in some aspects. And the way in which we submit to each other is not precisely the same or it would be like the two people standing on opposite sides of a doorway insisting that the other go through first with neither yielding to the other's request, but instead insisting upon being second.

Outside of the extreme situation of servitude and of our submission to God, we all do (or should) submit to the others around us in some things, and find that they submit to us in others. There is no place in which anyone has absolute position above any other in all things.

And that is exactly what you are suggesting (even insisting) when you say that it is foolish for a man to submit to a woman, and especially not his wife. You make it a statement of absolutes and therefore allow for nothing in which the husband should be in submission to his wife.

Now, "lemon" passages notwithstanding, it may be that the Bible actually provides certain ways in which a woman should always be in submission to a man, and more specifically to her husband. But it is not in all ways and in all times. And you will find that you cannot demand submission while simultaneously claiming to love and cherish. To give yourself for her is to submit your life to her. I suspect that those who fight the good fight of "never ever submit to a woman in anything" will not be found stepping in front of the bullet aimed at his wife's heart. That might seem extreme since few of us would quickly make that sacrifice for anyone without a moment of consideration. Or maybe the real evidence is what we do before we think.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The foolish is the one who does not understand the command to submit to one another. There was no exception provided. The specific statements made were not stated as reasons that it does not also go the other way.

Besides, it is only the fool who thinks that an environment in which all are commanded to submit to all that there is any one of them who is not required to submit to every one of the others in some aspects. And the way in which we submit to each other is not precisely the same or it would be like the two people standing on opposite sides of a doorway insisting that the other go through first with neither yielding to the other's request, but instead insisting upon being second.

Outside of the extreme situation of servitude and of our submission to God, we all do (or should) submit to the others around us in some things, and find that they submit to us in others. There is no place in which anyone has absolute position above any other in all things.

And that is exactly what you are suggesting (even insisting) when you say that it is foolish for a man to submit to a woman, and especially not his wife. You make it a statement of absolutes and therefore allow for nothing in which the husband should be in submission to his wife.

Now, "lemon" passages notwithstanding, it may be that the Bible actually provides certain ways in which a woman should always be in submission to a man, and more specifically to her husband. But it is not in all ways and in all times. And you will find that you cannot demand submission while simultaneously claiming to love and cherish. To give yourself for her is to submit your life to her. I suspect that those who fight the good fight of "never ever submit to a woman in anything" will not be found stepping in front of the bullet aimed at his wife's heart. That might seem extreme since few of us would quickly make that sacrifice for anyone without a moment of consideration. Or maybe the real evidence is what we do before we think.

Would you care to submit to what the experts say? .

Daniel B. Wallace (professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary) says this in Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, page 659:
"...v 21 is a programmatic statement ("being submissive to one another in the fear of Christ"), applicable to all in the church in a general sense. Only by exegetical gymnastics can it be made directly applicable to both halves of the three groups in 5:22-6:9 (should parents be submissive to children?).... If Jew and Gentile are on equal footing in the body of Christ, does this mean that all social hierarchies are abolished? The answer seems to be a resounding 'No.'"

As Wallace says, your view is one of "exegetical gymnastics". If the command to submit applies to both groups, then it also means that parents submit to children, and masters should submit to slaves, which is just silly.

In regards to whether the husband sometimes submits to the wife, consider carefully what versus 24 says (emphasis mine):
Ephesians 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

It does not say "submit to their husbands in most things, some things, or sometimes". If the wife is in submission to the husband in everything, then logically there is never an occasion where the wife is not in submission to her husband, nor a time when the man is in submission to his wife.


Your interpretation of submission being a two-way street is untenable when considering all of the evidence. Your view has no divine order, and the divine order is clear for New Testament experts such as D. Wallace.

As D. Wallace writes "there is a divinely ordained order to things that, if disturbed, could bring ruin."

https://bible.org/question/light-1-t...-over-men-do-y

The divine order is God>man>woman>Satan. This was inverted in the fall to Satan>woman>man>God. Your view is God > (man or woman) > (man or woman) > Satan. Whenever a man submits to the woman he could be unconsciously submitting to the serpent that whispered in her ear. So I fear that an order relation of God>woman>man>Satan is in reality Satan>woman>man>God.

Your view is not one of order but of disorder because you do not specify an order between the man and the woman. When Paul says "submit to your husbands in everything", he is specifying the order of God>man>woman that is supposed to apply 24/7.

There just simply isn't any specific instruction in the bible for the man to submit to the woman.
Consider, that only women were asked to wear head coverings (a symbol of submission), never the man. In other words, the bible specifies a symbol of submission for the woman, but never one for the man.

A very good analysis of head coverings is given here:
https://bible.org/article/what-head-...apply-us-today


This is a good article (written by a woman) about the importance of submission to husbands:

http://equippinggodlywomen.com/marri...ant-heres-why/

The Bible tells us in Ephesians 5:22 to “Submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord.”

It then says again in Colossians 3:18, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord.”

So, I ask you now, if we can’t submit to our husbands how can we submit to God?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There just simply isn't any specific instruction in the bible for the man to submit to the woman.

Consider, that only women were asked to wear head coverings (a symbol of submission), never the man. In other words, the bible specifies a symbol of submission for the woman, but never one for the man.

Bringing up head covering as an example is like grasping at straws. It was a matter of custom of the times. And the whole thing to Ephesus has a context of a pagan cult in which the women are the top and are on display rather than covered. Note that Paul did not give these kinds of commands to all the others.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There just simply isn't any specific instruction in the bible for the man to submit to the woman.

But there is a specific instruction in the Bible for all to submit to one another. Once you exclude anyone from having to submit to anyone for any reason, it is not longer one another, but more like "some of you should submit to others."

As for quoting DTS professors, I have been a member of a Bible church that stands somewhat in opposition so some of the DTS positions on women. A church lead by DTS graduates (among others) who spent 18 months concluding that women were going to be allowed to preach to the general congregation. Without pre-vetting of what would be said.

You are throwing the standard "everyone reads it this way" argument in the face of serious questions as to whether it has been read right in the first place. Just finding yet another significant theologian that learned from theologians that learned from theologians that . . . on and on . . . does not prove your point. You dismiss the suggestion as if to say "no one ever asked that question before, so I won't give it the time of day. Case closed." That is too often how well-entrenched positions become well-entrenched. Not by careful consideration of what has been questioned.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Bringing up head covering as an example is like grasping at straws. It was a matter of custom of the times. And the whole thing to Ephesus has a context of a pagan cult in which the women are the top and are on display rather than covered. Note that Paul did not give these kinds of commands to all the others.

Wallace says that it is not a one-off command, but was followed by all the churches:
https://bible.org/article/what-head-...apply-us-today

If we read verse 2 in isolation, it may seem like a local instruction only. However verse 16 says 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Wallace says:

The noun παραδόσις is no less rich in its theological implications. It is used but five times in Paul, but when it has to do with the traditions that he embraces as a Christian, such are intended to be binding on all. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul instructs the believers to stand firm and hold on to the traditions that he had passed down to them. In 2 Thess 3:6, believers are commanded to stay away from any believers who do not abide by Paul’s traditions. Thus, the verb παραδίδωμι and its nominal cognate, παραδόσις cannot be treated lightly. They do not mean ‘tradition’ in the modern English sense of the word of a nice custom that one can dispense with if desired.

How do we reconcile 1 Cor 11:2 with 1 Cor 11:16? Verse 2 governs v 16. That is to say, because the practice was a παραδόσις, it was put on the level of orthopraxy. It was a doctrine that the early church followed. Since it was on this level, most of the churches followed it religiously. Hence, Paul could appeal to what other churches were doing (v 16) as an appeal to the reasonableness and pragmatic outworking of this ‘tradition.’ This would be like saying, “Christ died for you; therefore, you should observe the Lord’s Supper. Besides, other Christians are already doing this and none have a different practice.” The practice puts flesh to the doctrine.

In sum, the view that 1 Cor 11:2-16 has no relevance today is based squarely on the English text, but not the Greek. It assumes that such traditions are optional, while Paul used words to describe them that he had reserved for the tradition of the death and resurrection of Christ. Surely, such ‘traditions’ are not optional with Paul!

Originally Posted by OBW

But there is a specific instruction in the Bible for all to submit to one another. Once you exclude anyone from having to submit to anyone for any reason, it is not longer one another, but more like "some of you should submit to others."

You are reading too much into this verse without considering the many other verses that clearly lay out the social order. Sort of like how some read too much into the verse which Adam left the garden of Eden so Eve must have been left behind. We need to read the bible with a degree of common sense.

You are confusing the general sense of the verse with specific meaning. It does not mean that the social order of parents over children, masters over slaves, and husbands over wives, or rulers over the people, is inverted. When Paul says submit to one another in the fear of Christ, it is implied that he is not upsetting the whole social order that is declared elsewhere. It would not make sense for Paul to be teaching that children submit to parents and masters submit to slaves, or that ruling authorities must submit to the people. There is no common sense with that view, so it is unlikely that it is the correct view.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for quoting DTS professors, I have been a member of a Bible church that stands somewhat in opposition so some of the DTS positions on women. A church lead by DTS graduates (among others) who spent 18 months concluding that women were going to be allowed to preach to the general congregation. Without pre-vetting of what would be said.

You are throwing the standard "everyone reads it this way" argument in the face of serious questions as to whether it has been read right in the first place. Just finding yet another significant theologian that learned from theologians that learned from theologians that . . . on and on . . . does not prove your point. You dismiss the suggestion as if to say "no one ever asked that question before, so I won't give it the time of day. Case closed." That is too often how well-entrenched positions become well-entrenched. Not by careful consideration of what has been questioned.

Wallace is not merely "learning from theologians that learned from theologians" etc. He is an internationally known Greek New Testament scholar who has studied all over the world, and done his research in his own right. By "whether it has been read right in the first place" you seem to be suggesting that even the Greek NT experts like Wallace may be wrong. You are questioning decades of research and their expertise.

The irony is, that those who reject Lee for not being a trained theologian, are themselves rejecting what the trained theologians have to say. Your discussion with Nell has already revealed a few kooky things he or Jane believes in -beyond what they claim about the "lemon translations". They sound just like those who are skeptical of medicine, and refuse to take their children to the doctor or take modern medicine. Their view that there are lemon translations of the bible is bordering on a conspiracy theory.

I knew something was up when I realized that no one on this thread apart from myself was willing to consult the Greek new testament experts on this matter. At first I thought I might find that the Greek NT experts agree with Jane's view. Instead, what I found by reading Wallace and others, was that the original Greek means almost exactly what the supposedly incorrectly translated English verses mean. That is, there is no conspiracy and no mistranslations - the lemon verses are not lemons at all.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are reading too much into this verse without considering the many other verses that clearly lay out the social order. . . . We need to read the bible with a degree of common sense.

I would say that it clearly does not mean that the sense in which a child is to obey parents can be the sense in which a parent could be subject to a child. Yet that is not the whole of submission.

And a slave cannot claim authority over a master. But a master can be subject to the slave in some ways that do not undermine authority.

I think that the problem you have is that "be subject to" is being understood as entirely about authority and hierarchy. There is much to being subject. A parent is subject to the needs of the child. The child even demands of the parent in many ways in which the parent obeys and does as requested. Neither is in all ways omnidirectional.

But in a writing to a culture in which there was a tendency for lording it over in the reverse, there was an extreme response. Your DTS professor may like for it to somehow be a more permanent version of tradition or practice, but it is the preference that makes it so, not the reading of the words without a desire for outcome.

And while I live in a world full of DTS grads and professors, know many of them, and think very highly of every one of them, there are certain ways that they are influenced by the thinking of others beyond what is clearly there. This is most commonly seen when they insist on special theological uses of words that had no such special theological use other than as has been overlaid by commentators of later times.

But let's look at one Lee did the same thing on since you will be familiar with it. It is like saying that "zoe" is simply God's life. That is a patently incorrect reading of the word. It might be argued that the best way to have zoe is to have God's life, but the world is full of people living "zoe." Zoe is simply all that makes up life, including the enjoyment of it. Therefore, those people going for all the gusto they can get as they open that can of Bud (I think that is who had that commercial), they are experiencing zoe. And from a careful study of the use of the term in the Bible (couldn't resist that given Lee's propensity to do the same) you will find that while there may be some uses that could be intending to imply an "only through God" kind of zoe, most do not.

So here we are relying on theologians schooled in an overarching view of eschatology that did not exist until the early-mid 1800s. And heavily influenced by the people who brought you the exclusive Brethren. And you want me to simply take it because one of them is sure that this word is "rich in its theological implications."

Remember. They are implications, not obvious and certain facts. And what they imply may not be agreed to by all.

And when I read what you posted from Wallace, I say to myself, "interesting." But I do not see that he has overcome the objection that he is creating a theological "implication," insisting that it is simply so (sort of like Lee would have), and making a bold declaration of fact that a straight reading of the "facts" that he gives cannot support as "simply so."