Monday, October 6, 2008

Responses to questions and comments have appeared at last!

Below are the comments and questions posted during the “Blog Holiday” of a couple of months ago. I have responded to all. Any responses to my Blog Holiday responses should (obviously) be posted here, not under the original Blog Holiday post.

I have also responded (belatedly) to the more recent comments/questions under the posts, “The Question of Consistency, Part 1” and “Adam and Eve in Genesis and 1 Timothy.” I believe this covers everything. I hope I haven’t left anyone out!

Also, please note that I have begun moderating comments so that I can keep better track of them. (Hope it works!)


Blog Holiday comments:

Jamin Hubner said...

Much has been said and written on gender..but very little on exactly what "gender" is. While I tend to think complimentarians have the upper hand in possessing a hermeneutic at allows them to say "this is masculinity" and "this is femininity," I think both sides have not clearly defined gender itself (simply metaphysical differences between sexes? What's the dif between sex and gender? How much of gender is a social construct? How much is God-bestowed? etc. etc.)
June 19, 2008 2:36 PM

RMG response:

I responded to this in my recent post, “The Question of Consistency, Part 1.” Regarding the difference between sex and gender, it is interesting to note that gender was used only as a grammatical category until sometime around the 1970s when it also came to be used in the contemporary sense. My guess is that this word was given a new meaning when the concept of sexuality was compartmentalized into the physical and the mental/emotional aspects of personality (the “hardware” and the “software,” if you will). Thus the notion of maleness and femaleness in the nonphysical realm became malleable, socially constructed. This then cleared the way for designer sexuality, as it were. Where there are no longer any givens, anything goes. Personally, I have never resonated with the sex/gender distinction, and have not based my thinking on this concept. For me, “gender” simply means male or female; so I am really using it more in the earlier sense of “sex” (encompassing the whole package of male and female difference, both physical and nonphysical aspects, not just the hard wired, physical aspects).

kparis said...

I like your blog because you are really invested in this issue and have intelligent positions to put forward/defend. I would like to see more discussion surrounding culture's influence on this debate. (Historically, how has culture influenced a traditionalist interpretation of the Bible? What did 19th century "feminism" look like as compared to the women's movement in the sixties and seventies? How were the backlashes the same/different in the church and elsewhere? And what positions do we deem "biblical" that we should re-examine as merely cultural? etc.)
June 21, 2008 7:24 AM

RMG response:

Much of this is covered in my 1994 (but still relevant) book Women Caught in the Conflict. It is still relevant because, although the battle lines in this debate have hardened, they have hardly budged in the last decade. (Although I suspect that if Sarah Palin were to become Vice President, the battle lines would shift somewhat.)

One position that many deem traditional and biblical, but which in fact is a result of cultural change, is that man’s authority over woman is specifically a spiritual authority. (I discussed the problems with this notion in the recent post “The Question of Consistency, Part 2”.) But as I pointed out in Women Caught in the Conflict, male authority has been scaled down from culture at large (where male rule had been thoroughly ensconced since Genesis 3:16) to merely the realm of the church. This adjustment occurred when the larger culture began to accept women’s right to vote, to own property, to obtain an education, and so to have a measure of personal agency, all of which brought womanhood into adulthood, and rendered woman’s permanent and comprehensive subordination to male authority untenable in society at large.

Another interesting aspect here is that, according to Daniel Mark Cere’s essay in Does Christianity Teach Male Headship?, the concept of male spiritual authority was a late comer in this saga. For most of human history, male authority over woman was simply a cultural given, and it obtained in both secular and religious realms. Male authority was not considered to be specifically “spiritual” until the early modern era when the idea emerged in certain Catholic circles. This “theologization of conjugal authority,” as Cere puts it, then entered Protestantism with the Reformation.

Paul D. Adams said...

Rebecca:
How about architecting some kind of biblical egalitarian "manifesto" of sorts, along the lines of "we affirm..." and "we deny...."?
Various statements might address:
-- commitment to socio-cultural and literary exegesis as well as grammatical-historical exegesis
-- affirm the trinue nature of God; deny subordination of the Son as theological grounds for PC view
-- Gender versus sexuality
-- God as gender-less; God as Father and anthropomorphisms
-- heterosexual marriage only w/in bounds of Scripture; same-sex marriage not part of a responsible biblical egalitarian position
-- the cross of Christ as the basis of unity for all believers; gender debate not an essential defining belief, albeit important...etc.

You get the idea.

If a manifesto is warranted, then this blog could be the draft toward possible publication somewhere, I know not where (to loosely quote Locke).

Just thinking...Paul
June 23, 2008 10:31 AM

RMG response:

This is a good idea. I will keep it in mind. I have come across a number of comments in different venues noting the rather vast difference between what the BE view actually says and what the PC view claims the BE view says. If the record could be set straight on this somehow, it would certainly be helpful. I suspect the greatest need for clarification would be setting forth what the BE view does NOT affirm!

Your list of subjects to address is all good. I would also want to add something on the matter of “abortion rights,” since that is certainly a gender issue and is routinely brought up by the PC critique as one of the many evils of feminism: a point on which they are correct; it is one of the evils of feminism—that is, radical post-70s feminism. The early feminists in the 18th and early 19th centuries were firmly opposed to abortion; it was (rightly) deemed an abuse of both women and children.

The biggest difficulty in this project would be in getting the information out there. I don’t know where it could be published, or how the information could be made widely known, especially since the PC institutions “hold the microphone” in evangelical culture. JETS used to publish views on both sides of the gender divide, but no more.

believer333 said...

I've been intrigued lately by the term "sexual orthordoxy" coined I think, by the Bayley Brothers. As far as I know there has never been an orthodox doctrine on sexuality. I guess the hard core patriarchalists would like to lay claim to one. And I would like to see it exposed as what it is, an extra Biblical insertion with the intent of hoisting up the concept of male dominance.
July 15, 2008 12:54 PM

RMG response:

I’d not heard of “sexual orthodoxy,” so I googled Bayly and sexual orthodoxy and came up with only two blog posts on the Bayly brothers’ blog where that term appeared: their September 19, 2008, post http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/09/wic-westminster.html, and their March 31, 2008 post http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/03/i-notice-among.html. However, there may be other references that I’ve missed.

In each of the two posts, there was one comment that referred to “sexual orthodoxy,” each made by Kamilla, and neither offered any definition of the term. It is not even clear what the basic concept is here. I assume it is not mere sexual ethics, but something more comprehensive, perhaps encompassing the whole of the properly biblical PC perspective of male-female reality. Whatever it may be, it is considered to be the antithesis of Egalitarianism. “The core of Egalitarianism is a rejection of sexual orthodoxy,” Kamilla explains. At any rate, it is evident that the term, as used on the Bayly blog, carries with it a profound contempt for biblical equality, which is regarded as synonymous with feminism, which is regarded as hat in hand with the worst of the radical feminist movement (abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, men’s abdication of their responsibilities toward women, etc.)

A salient characteristic of this blog is its high pitch. Everything is writ large. There are perils at every turn. And such a thicket of rules and rhetoric!

At any rate, please feel free to enlighten us further, if you are able!

Gem said...

I wonder if you would be interested in doing some pondering and analysis of 1 Peter 3:1-6 along the lines of your analysis of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in "Leading Him Up the Garden Path"?1 Peter 3:1-6 is another passage where I find the traditionalist approach demeaning toward women and the egalitarian approach diminishing the power and authority of God's Word to speak to us transculturally in every age.I read your brief analysis of the 1 Peter 3:1-7 “The Bible and Gender Equality.” The entire epistle of 1 Peter is dear to me and filled with wisdom, encouragement, and spiritual challenge for a modern day woman dealing an oppressive PC marriage. I pondered a great deal about the use of Sara as the role model. I found that Katharine Bushnell has some good insights about Sarah which I find quite relevant to living out the teaching of 1 Peter. (see Lessons 66-69 here: http://godswordtowomen.org/gwtw.htm)
August 27, 2008 7:42 AM

RMG response:

There are two important points in 1 Peter 3:1-7 that generally are ignored:

1. While the surrounding culture was patriarchal in NT times, the church was not bound to male authority in spiritual matters. The apostle Peter actually commended Christian women who refused to submit to their husbands’ false spiritual beliefs, yet at the same time he urged these women to be submissive to the social roles of the time (1 Pet 3:1-6). The submission Peter asks of wives is not submission to the husband’s spiritual authority. Peter approved of women who rejected their husbands’ false religious beliefs (such women were his primary audience in this text). The wifely submission Peter asked of women was cultural, not spiritual, and was based on the principle of submitting to the authority structures of the time so as not to bring reproach on the cause of Christ, but rather to reflect Christ’s humility (see the preceding text, 2:11-25). The PC view today inverts the NT situation by advocating, in essence, an inequality in spiritual rights and responsibilities for women in a cultural context in which women generally experience equality in the larger society.

2. The passage concludes (verse 7) with a clear statement of woman’s spiritual equality (equal inheritance in Christ) and an exhortation to husbands to remember and respect their wives’ spiritual equality.

These two biblical truths are certainly out of sync with the PC perspective on this text.

I also have a section on this text in Good News for Women, pp. 172-176. And there are some helpful insights in Peter Davids’ chapter, “A Silent Witness in Marriage,” in Discovering Biblical Equality.

I am curious: What is the “egalitarian approach” that you see as “diminishing the power and authority of God’s Word to speak to us transculturally in every age”? Also, what were the insights you gleaned from Katharine Bushnell regarding the use of Sarah as a role mode? (I looked at the Lessons you noted but could not discern anything helpful. But perhaps I just don’t resonate with Bushnell’s communication style.)

14 comments:

Gem said...

RMG: I am curious: What is the “egalitarian approach” that you see as “diminishing the power and authority of God’s Word to speak to us transculturally in every age”?

I'll quote this from CBE which is written by you:

RMG hereMoreover, Peter's admonitions here are clearly tailored for the cultural situation of the believers to whom he was writing, and thus cannot be used to justify a biblically-mandated authority of husbands over wives for all time and every culture. As with any text in Scripture, the principle governing the text remains universally true; but its application is often culturally specific.ENDQUOTE

While I agree that the passage "cannot be used to justify a biblically-mandated authority of husbands over wives for all time and every culture" I don't think the passage could rightly and correctly be used "to justify a biblically-mandated authority of husbands over wives" in Peter's day and age. It sounds like you are saying that Peter was writing to them-then and not to me-now, that I can discount the passage as God's instruction to me because "its cultural".

I believe the passage IS God's instruction to me every bit as much as it was instructive to the first century recipients of Peter's letter. God's Word is not dead letters, it is "alive and active, sharper than any double edged sword".

OTH, I really like what you posted about 1 Peter in blog post because you are pointing out how it is not saying what PC claims it is saying and it is really countercultural on Peter's part to give wives permission to abandon the husband's gods.

On your question regarding Sarah as the role model. I'll respond to that in another comment after some thinking time....

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis said...

Peter was exhorting his readers on how to live as Christians within the authority structures of Greco-Roman culture. The key principle at work here is stated by both Paul and Peter in the NT: Submit to the authority structures of the day so long as it does not entail disobedience to Christ. This meant that NT Christian women would submit to their husbands’ legal and cultural authority over them (but not necessarily their husbands’ spiritual authority!). And, of course, slaves would submit to their masters, even when the masters mistreated them. This was the law of the land. To abide by these laws and customs was to demonstrate the humility of Christ, who submitted to death on the cross for our sake. In this way believers presented a good witness for Christ in the watching world.

But the Greco-Roman law requiring that women and slaves submit and obey is no longer in effect. That is why this text does not require us to re-enact the cultural conditions of Christians in the Roman empire. However, there is a meta-ethic (underlying moral principle) that remains for us to obey. Notice the sentence you cited from my essay: “As with any text in Scripture, the principle governing the text remains universally true; but its application is often culturally specific.” Therefore, as you insist (correctly), this “passage IS God’s instruction to me every bit as much as it was instructive to the first century recipients.” However, since the instruction was culturally embedded, the precise application of the instruction varies with the particular culture one is living in. But in every time and culture, the fundamental, transcultural principle that prompted Peter’s specific instructions (i.e., obey the law of the land so long as it doesn’t require that you disobey God’s law), should be heeded and obeyed by Christians through appropriate application in their specific cultural context.

We cannot obey the specifics of Peter’s instructions in this passage, since slavery is not a legally sanctioned authority structure in the U.S. as it was in Rome. Indeed, slavery and female subordination are cultural constructs that fall short of God’s original creational plan for his people. If these practices are not legally mandated, why should we be obligated to live according to their specific demands? Indeed, how could we? We do not have slavery in our culture (at least not legally). So we obey Peter by understanding and properly applying the transcultural principle in this text.

Gem said...

RMG said:But in every time and culture, the fundamental, transcultural principle that prompted Peter’s specific instructions (i.e., obey the law of the land so long as it doesn’t require that you disobey God’s law), should be heeded and obeyed by Christians through appropriate application in their specific cultural context.ENDQUOTE

The teaching is not restricted to the Christian attitude toward "the law of the land". There is a great deal in there about MARRIAGE, and especially for the wife who is married to a DISOBEDIENT husband. I think this teaching is still entirely relevant in this day and age and most particularly for wives who are married to professing CHRISTIAN men who are disobedient to GOD. Closet porn use is rampant among pew sitters and even pulpit pounders. These men are living a life of hypocrisy and DISOBEDIENCE to God and they are typically self centered, abusive husbands. I believe this is a strong factor in the high divorce rates among Christians. 1 Peter SPEAKS to the wives of such husbands TODAY!

Taken in context, the passage is quite clearly addressed to wives (see 1 Pet 3:1) which I take to mean that Peter and God apparently had some confidence that "wives" are capable of understanding, interpreting, and and applying it! :)
I am a wife! :)
Here are some of my findings:

The passage does not tell wives to "obey your husband". Not then, Not now. The reference to obeying husband is oblique "as SARAH obeyed ABRAHAM". So, we need to look very carefully at Sarah's role model. On a side note: Personally, it tickles me that SARAH is given as a wifely role model while husbands are told (Eph 5) that their role model is Christ. Sarah is ever so human and fallible and God is understanding and merciful to Christian wives, knowing our tendency to beat ourselves up mercilessly for our failures.

“even as Sara obeyed Abraham calling him lord”

Did you know that Abraham also obeyed Sara calling her “ruler”? And that it was GOD HIMSELF who instructed Abraham how to refer to his wife? "God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah." Gen 17:15 My paraphrase, "STOP calling your wife contentious and respect her when she speaks to you! SHE has authority!" GOD changed her name from Sarai (contentious) to Sarah (ruler)… which means that every time Abraham addressed his wife by name, he called her “ruler” and he would have been very much aware of that. (so its only fair that she addressed him as lord- like a queen calling her husband king and vice versa)

Sarah (ruler) assertively speaks GOD's will and GOD's Word (that which Abraham found "displeasing").

Look at Sarah here:
Gen 21:9-12

Exactly how much more authoritative can one get? All at once she speaks with authority into Abraham’s life, into history, and right into the Word of God in the new covenant:

Gal 4:29-31

How is that for GOD exercising HIS OWN AUTHORITY behind the "displeasing" words of a wife?
I LOVE that GOD will do that for a wife of a disobedient husband!
It is ever so comforting and encouraging! :)

I see Sarah as having her own relationship with GOD, her own communication with GOD, her own faith, and her own walk of submission and obedience to GOD. (She is in the Hebrews 11 hall of faith in her own right.) In Gen 21:9-12, I see Sarah as walking in submission and obedience to GOD. She heard from GOD and said what GOD's will was for their marriage, history, etc. And GOD informed Abraham that he needed to obey her... which is significant and powerful and I'm sure GOD knew that when HE designated Sarah as the role model for wives of disobedient husbands. :)

And I believe that GOD still honors wives who have faith in HIM, hear from HIM, obey HIM, and speak HIS Words into the lives of their husbands (even when it is displeasing to the husband as it was to Abraham). They will be daughters of Sarah if they "do what is right and do not give way to fear."

"do what is right" means to DO what is right, to walk in the way GOD leads, EVEN IF it is "displeasing" to her husband. Wifely submission is an attitude of humble cooperation which operates in the best interests of the husband, which is precisely what Sarah was doing when she told Abraham to "get rid of the slave woman".

The passage and Sarah's role model is filled with HOPE for women married to disobedient husbands. When she is right and her husband is stubborn, the very GOD OF HEAVEN is with her and will be speaking to her husband. :) (Course Abraham was a man of faith in his own right. He checked with GOD. I fear some modern Christians want to justify keeping their slaves and neglect to check with GOD------> high divorce rate!!!)

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear....
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.


Do you see the paradox there?
Wives, “FEAR”!
yet be “NOT AFRAID”!
The links go to the verse in the Blue Letter Bible where one can see the Greek word phobos and phobeo.

The question is WHY do Ephesians 5:33 and 1 Peter 3 tell wives to have an attitude of phobeo/phobos (fear, be afraid) toward their husbands?
What does this mean?

Think about Sarah, the role model given in the 1 Peter 3 passage. How did Sarah feel when her husband packed her off to the harem of a pagan king twice? Perhaps she struggled with fear? Nevertheless, GOD was with her. HE protected her. She was quite right to fear the men: her husband, that king. She was quite justified not to trust them, not to trust their motivations nor their spiritual maturity. What about fearing GOD? She did struggle with that too at times: “Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, ‘I did not laugh.’ But he said, ‘Yes, you did laugh.‘”Genesis 18:15

But God taught Sarah the same way HE teaches me and you!
GOD taught her
- BY EXPERIENCE-
that HE is trustworthy, HE is faithful, HE is loving.

At the risk of really being long winded I have one more point which jumped out at me. I believe that when the passage says "you are Sarah's daughters if..." that speaks right to ME TODAY. I am "Sarah's daughter if..." I have heard many disrespectful "takes" on Sarah where she is condemned for her handling of the Hagar situation and for being "uppity" in Gen 21, etc. I have noticed in scripture that GOD never criticizes nor condemns her. She is in the Hebrews 11 hall of faith, and she is held up as a role model for wives of disobedient husbands. Katharine Bushnell sheds interesting light on the Hagar situation- that Sarah was obeying the laws of her land in how she handled that. (The Maturing of Sarah)

If I am Sarah's daughter then Sarah is my mother and Jesus says if I dishonor my mother, then I am a Pharisee worshipping Him in vain, "laying aside the commandment of God" to "hold the tradition of men...":

Mark 7:5-11
“Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders? …


He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’


For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men… All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say [snip]______ making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Eve is "mother of all living". I used to have such a condemning view of her. Katharine Bushnell shed light for me on that(click here).

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis said...

Thank you for these very interesting and illuminating insights on Peter’s advice to women with disobedient husbands. Indeed, for women in that situation today, the application of this text can be direct. For the rest of us, we must make a biblically-based application of the universal biblical principle that drives Peter’s specific application.

In light of your observations, perhaps we can discern another universal biblical principle in this text: When seeking to win a deceived, hard, belligerent person to Christ, do not give him arguments or criticism, but let your gentle words and faithful life soften and redirect his heart, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is also important to note that in both Paul’s and Peter’s household codes, slaves and children are told to “obey,” and wives are told to “submit.” This is significant, consistent and intentional. Wives are not commanded to “obey” their husbands (although obedience was expected of wives in the culture at large).

Regarding “While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear…”: Here “fear” means “reverence,” not being afraid or fearful.

Also, it is interesting that in Genesis 18:15, Sarah doubted God, but was only reprimanded by God. In Luke 18:20, Zechariah had the same skeptical response as Sarah, and he was struck dumb for some nine months!

I was surprised to read your comments about the meanings of Sarai and Sarah, since I had not heard this before. So I asked Old Testament professor Richard Hess to comment. Here is my summary of his remarks:

It is true that God gave Sarah the name “Sarah,” and that this name means “ruler.” But both “Sarah” and “Sarai” have a root meaning of “ruler”; there is no evidence of Sarai meaning “contentious.” In the name Sarai, “ruler” probably would have spoken of the lordship of one of the pagan gods of that day; so this name was shortened in Scripture to eliminate the name of the pagan God. When God called Sarah and Abraham to himself, he changed Sarai to Sarah (and Abram became Abraham). The name Sarah does, indeed, mean “ruler.”

Below are Dr. Hess’s comments:

There is no evidence that I can find that Sarai meant or means “Contentious.”

Here are the facts as I understand them. The root is sar which means “ruler, prince,” as in Isaiah 9:6 where sar shalom is “prince of peace.”

Sarah adds to sar the characteristic Hebrew feminine ending, -ah, and can be translated as “(female) ruler, princess.”

Sarai is also based on the Sar(ah) root, but with a different ending, -ai instead of –ah. The –ai ending is known as a hypocoristic or shortened ending, and this particular ending is well attested on feminine names of Amorite women from the time of Sarah. The –ai ending means that the name has been shortened by the omission of another element, so that this –ai, from –aya, indicates that something else was originally there.

I would suggest that it was likely a divine name that was dropped, as is often the case in these types of names. Before Sarah and Abram received God’s revelation, they were polytheists like their ancestors (Joshua 24:2). The name Sarai was almost certainly originally a longer name meaning “God X is prince.” In the name Sarai, “God X” is omitted and replaced with the –ai suffix. This would make sense in the Bible and especially Genesis, where there is no interest in recognizing other gods. After becoming chosen by God as servants of God, God would naturally want to change this name to reflect Sarah’s new faith. What was a confessional name recognizing the lordship of a foreign god, became a name meaning “princess, (female) ruler.”

This both reflects her status alongside Abraham and also (and especially) her role as mother of the promised heir.

There are two other comments. Sarah, like Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, are all single-word names. However, Sarai is a shortened form of a longer (2-word in Hebrew) name that forms a confession. Both types of names – single-word and confessional - existed in the ancient Near East at the time of Sarah.

Within the context of Genesis it is also interesting to note that people of special prominence have two names: Abram and Abraham, Jacob and Israel, Esau and Edom, and Joseph and his Egyptian name. The same is true of Sarai and Sarah.

Thus Sarai never means “contentious.” Its comes from the same root as Sarah, but has a different ending that suggests a different kind of name.

Gem said...

Thank you. I really enjoyed your response and am honored that you took the time to enquire of a scholar as to the "contentious" theme in the name "Sarai".

I will list my sources for that. Apparently- in modern Hebrew- "Sarai" is understood to mean contentious:
Sarai ____ What's in a Name?

In this sermon from the Ray Stedman Library, he preaches that it means "contentious" and I heard another sermon on TV from a local megachurch pastor which originally got me researching this theme.

And I found this quite interesting. If I had access to a Hebrew Scholar I would be most interested as to whether this is a valid connection: I did a google search on the Sarai=contentious idea and found this:

The former name [Sarai] appears to be derived from the same root as Israel, if, indeed, Genesis 32:28 is intended as an etymology of Israel. “She that strives,” a contentious person, is a name that might be given to a child at birth (compare Hosea 12:3,4, of Jacob), or later when the child’s character developed; in Genesis 16:6 and 21:10 a contentious character appears.

Gen 32:28 "And He said, 'Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.'"

While the latter resource goes on to caution against "operating solely upon the basis of the Hebrew language" since she was mesopotamian, I see a trend in the OT that people's names were descriptive of them in very significant ways and I do believe that she contended/struggled with her husband and with God when she went through such harrowing experiences as being handed over to the harem of a pagan king twice and dealing with a concubine in the household.

I really like your opening point about the general principle of the 1 Peter teaching on how to win arrogant, hard, belligerant people. I might add that the passage is very strong teaching on how to deal with verbal abuse.

Jesus is given as the role model (to both husbands and wives)…. Look at the calling and the *promises*

1 Peter 2-3:
21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:



1 ¶ Likewise, ye wives, …

7 Likewise, ye husbands, …

8 ¶ Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a *blessing*.

10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

I noticed the instructions for responding to verbal abuse (no insulting back, but blessing). And I noticed a “no guile” sandwich (2:22; 3:10) around the renowned Sarah role model of submission . For me- timid, weak, doormat type that I was- it meant I had to start speaking up. God would not allow me to continue to be conflict avoidant and brush things under the rug in denial. It was scary and I was absolutely horrible at it at first… Takes practice.

In reflecting upon this passage and upon the role model of Sarah, I have come to identify with Sarah. She goes through a maturing process and comes to the place of having a great deal of influence and authority in her household. When Abram and Sarai are called, they don’t know God deeply at first. The covenants progress, and the accounts of them hearing God’s voice and seeing His miraculous interventions increase as they mature.

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis said...

God certainly tested Sarah and Abraham. I can identify with them in that respect! But God was also amazingly faithful to them both. Even when they were not faithful, the Lord remained faithful and patient toward them.

Gem said...

RMG: Regarding “While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear…”: Here “fear” means “reverence,” not being afraid or fearful.

Almost everywhere else the words PHOBEO/PHOBOS are used, they are translated "fear" and "be afraid". Among the definitions of phobeo in any of the lexicons at Tufts" respect/reverence" is not listed.
Translating the word "reverence" exclusively when it comes to marriage and the H/W relationship is not doing wives OR husbands any favors IMO.

The results:
1- misleads christian women en masse into a destructive form of "husband idolatry"
2- binds up a burden too heavy to bear on the wives of disobedient (abusive) husbands
3- robs women of their calling to be help MEET

reverence-a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.

I bet Sapphira of Acts 5 felt that about Ananias. What she SHOULD HAVE felt was appropriate FEAR!!!

And great fear (phobos) came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things. Acts 5:11
Why did "great fear" come upon the church?
(for the rest of the story read Acts 5:1 ff)
Was this "great fear" a GOOD thing, a HEALTHY thing?
The story has a "before" and an "after"
BEFORE: not much appropriate FEAR
AFTER: GREAT FEAR
I maintain that Sapphira lacked appropriate FEAR (phobos/phobeo)- toward God, toward her husband. She did not take seriously her husband's power (to initiate evil in this case) She did not act as his lifesaving ezer/help MEET and intervene in his best interests.

How would you respond to a wife who says the following about her husband? Would you chastize her for disobeying her wifely duty?

"pay no attention to that wicked man [insert husband's name]. He is just like his name—his name is Fool, and folly goes with him."

The woman is Abigail and the story is an excellent illustration of how God desires a wife to exercise an appropriate FEAR in response to her husband's foolish, dangerous actions. (see 1 Samuel 25)

I noticed that the Ephesians 5-6 periscope uses the word “fear”/phobeo/phobos in three instances:

Eph 5:21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear (phobos) of God.

Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence/phobeo her husband.

Eph 6:5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear (phobos) and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Does the latter sound like what one thinks of as “respect”? I don’t think so! This phobos/phobeo TREMBLES. That sounds like FEAR not “respect” to me! To me, the repetition of this phobeo/phobos/fear instruction in the 1 Peter 3 instructions to wives of disobedient (abusive) husbands makes the case even stronger that "reverence" is not an accurate, appropriate, nor wise translation choice.

cokhavim said...

While RMG is away, maybe I could put in my 2 cents.

About the name Sarai, it is interesting to link the name to "lisrot" which is "to contend, to strive." However, if I were to construct a word close to "contentious" out of lisrot, I would use the participle "Sorah" instead of "Sarai". By the way, there is no word "sarai" in modern Hebrew that I know of, but there are many other ways to say "contentious." However, I'm not an expert on ancient Hebrew, and I found Hess' explanation quite convincing. What I do know is that Sarai does not mean "my princess" as one of your links suggested. That would be "Sarati" in Hebrew.

About the word "fear", Gem, you make a good point that it seems unfair to translate it as "respect" only when applying to marriage, and "fear" everywhere else. And you make another good point that respect or reverence is inappropriate in many marriage situations. However, I would like to point out that fear is often inappropriate as well. In an intimate, godly marriage, fear is completely inappropriate. Why should you be afraid of your best friend? Where there is love, fear should not exist, according to 1 John. In fact, I would say that fear of one's marriage partner is a sign that there is a lack of intimacy and transparency that should be present in the marriage. I think that modern translators sense this point, and that's why they translate phobos as "respect" in marriage situations.

So fear just doesn't seem to be appropriate in a godly intimate marriage. But neither does gender-based, one-sided submission. I think that the fear goes hand-in-hand with one-sided submission to a higher authority. And since NT culture placed husbands in higher authority over women, then submission and accompanying fear were commanded in order that husbands and others watching would be won over. Afterall, intimacy in marriage was not important to that culture, as their purpose for marriage was to have legitimate children. Husbands and wives were definitely not best friends. Love and romance between them was definitely not the norm.

The bottom line is: I believe that intimacy and equality were part of the original plan and God's continual desire for marriage. Since such a marriage has no room for fear, then God cannot have wanted one spouse to fear the other in principle. Therefore the exhortations to fear in the NT must have been specific to their situation.

Gem said...

Hello cokhavim,

Thank you for your insights. :)

On "fear", I see a paradox. We are instructed to "fear God" yet:
"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love." 1 John 4:18

I don't think fear in marriage is restricted to NT times. Perhaps, the fear component of a marriage diminishes as a husband demonstrates spiritual growth and agape love? or as the wife learns to receive from God as the source of agape love which casts out fear? I'm not sure....

I know that telling women that they MUST have "reverence-a FEEEEEELING or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration" is cruel to women and isn't what I think the passage says or meant. One must honor those in authority, one must "outdo one another in showing honor" (Romans 12) but honor is about behavior not FEEEEELINGS. IMO is nigh unto impossible to FEEEEEEEEL respect for someone who is routinely cruel. One can go through the motions and behave oneself, but the FEEEELINGS are not "respect".

Gem said...

cokhavim said: The bottom line is: I believe that intimacy and equality were part of the original plan and God's continual desire for marriage. Since such a marriage has no room for fear, then God cannot have wanted one spouse to fear the other in principle. Therefore the exhortations to fear in the NT must have been specific to their situation.

I agree with you that marital intimacy is God's desire for marriage. But HE does not force HIS will upon us and the passage in 1 Peter 3 indicates that for the wife of a DISOBEDIENT husband, her heart "hidden" which I think reflects the lack of emotional intimacy in such a marriage. What a relief to know that GOD understands that Emotional intimacy in marriage is sometimes not safe (and that applies today every bit as much as it applied when Peter penned his letter).

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis said...

Gem wrote:

Almost everywhere else the words PHOBEO/PHOBOS are used, they are translated "fear" and "be afraid". Among the definitions of phobeo in any of the lexicons at Tufts" respect/reverence" is not listed.
Translating the word "reverence" exclusively when it comes to marriage and the H/W relationship is not doing wives OR husbands any favors IMO.

The results:
1- misleads christian women en masse into a destructive form of "husband idolatry"
2- binds up a burden too heavy to bear on the wives of disobedient (abusive) husbands
3- robs women of their calling to be help MEET

reverence-a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.

RMG response:

I was rather surprised at this objection, since I had always thought “the purity and reverence of your lives” in 1 Peter 3:1-2 applies to the believing wife’s attitude toward God, which serves as a silent witness to her unbelieving husband. It never occurred to me that I should take this as a requirement to reverence and venerate my husband; rather, I thought it meant I should have a pure and reverent demeanor toward God.

So I asked New Testament professor Craig Blomberg about it. Here is his response:

“Almost all commentators would agree with you that the phobos is directed towards God, not the husband. The difference between having God or a human being as the object of the action is sufficient to change a translation. Paul is clear in Romans that it is idolatry to worship a creature rather than the creator. Since "reverence" in English can suggest worship, it would be inappropriate to use with humans but appropriate for God. I don't know what your blog respondent means by Tufts, but Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich's standard Greek lexicon certainly includes "reverence" and "respect" as well as "fear". The (T)NIV uses "respect" in Eph 5:33 quite appropriately.”

I also asked Dr. Blomberg what it means to fear God. His response:

“When God is the object, phobos typically means something like a cross between fear and reverence. We just don't have a good word in English that captures the sense. People should "be afraid" of God in the sense that he is holy, righteous, just and will punish all unforgiven sin. Believers do not have to be terrified because our sins are forgiven, but we do need to reverence God.”

Regarding the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10), I don’t see the text as presenting Sapphira as just going along (in reverence to her husband) with his scheme. Rather, the sense I get from this text is that both of them were conspiring to do this thing. It was a joint operation.

In fact, I have always liked this text because it demonstrates that God does NOT hold the husband responsible for the woman’s behavior (as PC doctrine today would have it). Clearly, each one in turn lied to the apostle and promptly suffered the punishment—each as an individual before God.

Gem said...

You have such a wealth of interesting resource people, RMG. :)

It never occurred to me that I should take this as a requirement to reverence and venerate my husband

OK, there is NO basis in 1 Peter, according to Dr. Blomberg...

However, there are whole books written and diligently studied in Sunday Schools across America about the need for the wife to render the husband "unconditional respect/reverence". The proof text used is Ephesians 5:33 which instructs:

Eph 5:33 "Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence/phobeo her husband."

I don't disagree with the Word of God there in Eph 5:33- "PHOBEO". I disagree with the rendering of REVERENCE/RESPECT rather than FEAR as it is rendered nearly everywhere else including in the immediate context:

Eph 5:21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear (phobos) of God.

Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence/phobeo her husband.

Eph 6:5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear (phobos) and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

I think the rendering of reverence/respect is damaging in that it can fuel a destructive form of husband idolatry (which you and Blomberg have corrected by putting the focus of the wife's PHOBEO on GOD in the 1 Peter case).

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis said...

There is quite a difference in meaning between reverence and respect. The NRSV and (T)NIV render phobos “respect” in Ephesians 5:33. I have never seen a translation that uses “reverence,” which would be quite inappropriate since a human is not worthy of reverence, worship, veneration, etc. Any instruction to reverence one’s husband is out of line, as Blomberg (a complementarian) notes. But it is also out of place to literally fear your husband—unless he is a dangerous man, in which case I would neither venerate nor respect him; nor, for that matter, remain with him! However, I don’t see any reason not to respect a husband who is, indeed, a respectable man. I can see no problem with an exhortation to respect one’s husband. Respect does not entail worship (idolatry).

Gem said...

Click Here to see "reverence" in its Eph 5:33 context at BLB
and
Click Here for the Strong's entry for 5401 phobeo from Eph 5:33 the third of which is "to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience" (the marriage relationship is the ONLY place where that translation is actually used- which bothers me, can you tell?)

The rank and file PC sure is aware of it being cast as "reverence". You would see that if you hung around conservative message boards.