Board index ‹ Women

[Demonic]

Q: How can you be a feminist Christian when the bible says things like the following, even in the New Testament? Or is it just not possible to be both a feminist and a Christian?

Wives, follow the lead of your husbands as you follow the Lord. The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. The church is Christ's body. He is its Savior. (Ephesians 5:22-23)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18)

I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12)

[jimwalton]

My study of the Bible shows an exalted view of women. Let's talk about some of your texts.

> Eph. 5.22-23.

You've missed some really important parts. First of all, v. 21 is the heading for the whole passage, and specifically states that everyone is to be submissive to each other. Nobody's the big cheese except Jesus. It's not "men are the bomb and women are trash." Everybody should value, respect, and exalt the other person. Therefore, submission is not an admission of inferiority, but rather a position of taking the form of a servant. It is not the recognition that someone else is superior to you, but instead that the other person has a role to play to which you need to conform out of reverence for Christ.

Second, notice the role of the man in vv. 24-29. He is supposed to submit to the woman with I-would-die-for-you love, complete sacrifice, selfless care (v. 29) and a desire to make her exalted (v. 26). A submissive, loving husband wants his wife to be all that Christ designed her to be. The passage has more to say about the husband's submissive serving of the wife than it does about the woman. Why do you see the passage as denigrating to women?

The word "submit" doesn't occur in v. 22. It is "understood" from its use in v. 21. So what it says is, "Submit to each other out of reverence for Christ, wives to your husbands as to the Lord." She is supposed to submit to the husband with I-would-die-for-you complete submission, respect, selfless care, and a desire to make him exalted. It's not obedience, it's respect. Notice there is no word of male rulership anywhere in the text. It's all about mutual submission.

> 1 Tim. 2.11-12

This is very context specific, and not a general rule. In 1 Corinthians 11, women were allowed to speak. In 1 Corinthians 14, women were allowed to speak. Priscilla was a teacher, a friend of Paul, who instructed Apollos. Scholars have discovered that Ephesus (where Timothy was) struggled with Gnostic-influenced women teaching a false gospel, and Paul is telling them to stop it—to keep quiet and not teach. Certain prominent female teachers had been deceived, so Paul is shutting down the whole kit-and-kaboodle. The present tense of the verb "I do not permit a woman..." indicates that Paul's prohibition was limited to that particular situation and was not meant to be a command for all time. The Scriptures elsewhere offer an impressive number of examples of women exercising social or political authority over men without raising any questions as to the propriety of that authority. So the reference here must be specifically to matters of public worship in Ephesus at that particular time.

> Col. 3.18

It's similar to the Ephesians text. It's a mutual exchange of respect and love. We need to take the whole context in mind. In roman society, many women were haughty and men were exploitative. Paul is calling them both to task. But notice in v. 19 that God never give leadership or men the prerogative of authoritarianism.

> 1 Tim. 2.12

This is a repetition. You put it down twice.

Hopefully that helps. I'd love to talk more about it.

[Demonic]

> It's similar to the Ephesians text. It's a mutual exchange of respect and love. We need to take the whole context in mind. In roman society, many women were haughty and men were exploitative. Paul is calling them both to task. But notice in v. 19 that God never give leadership or men the prerogative of authoritarianism.

So god calls to the husband to lead the wife in the same manner that Christ leads the church. So a benevolent leadership, a leadership that demands care and respect of the led but a leadership nonetheless. What if the wife wants to benevolently lead the husband in a like manner?

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. (Ephesians 5:23 ESV)

[jimwalton]

Excellent thinking, and good question.

You should probably know off the top that the word "head" is quite the mysterious term. We Westerners seem to zoom right toward the "boss" idea, but that may not be the eastern idea that was part of the Greco-Roman context of Ephesians and Colossians.
First, "head" corresponds to "body," not to "submit." The idea is one flesh, not boss and underling. It's a term of relationship, not one of power or hierarchy. The focus in the text is not on authority, which should be clear from what it says about the man in vv. 24-29, but more on self-giving love. Contextually, "head" seems to refer more to responsibility and service than boss or privilege. The text assumes the oneness and equality of the couple in 5.28 and 31.

When it speaks of Christ as the head of the church, the context of Ephesians is about growth, oneness, and life. The church is one with Jesus and His physical presence on the Earth. He gave himself for the church in sacrificial love (Eph. 5.23). It says Jesus is the savior of the church. is is not a statement of position or hierarchy, nor even one of status or superiority, but only one of role and function. Identification as “savior” is a statement of sacrifice for the wellbeing of another.

Clearly husbands are not the spiritual or religious saviors of their wives, so that's not what it means. In the Greco-Roman world, husbands were “saviors” of their wives in a more general meaning of the providers and source of security for the households that were dependent on them. In that sense the husband is the head of the wife, emphasizing connectedness, care, and provision. So when the text says the husband is the head of the wife, it probably means that he sacrifices himself to make her all that she can be (as I said in the last post) to make the connection with her the most life-giving that it can be. I hope all this makes sense.

You see, I think Western men (well, I guess Eastern men, too) are just all too eager to interpret the text as "I'm the boss," and women are (understandably) very eager to take offense. I think people are too busy reading the words superficially and not paying attention to what the text is actually saying.

But your other question is good, too: "What if the wife wants to benevolently lead the husband in like manner?" You can tell by now I'm an egalitarian: I'm quite convinced that text is showing the equality of men and women, not a hierarchy, authority, obedience, or leadership. "Everyone submit to everyone else." The wife loves to help her husband be all that he can be, and the husband sacrifices everything necessary to help the wife be all that she can be. I see it very clearly in the text. "Headship" is about connectedness, care, and responsibility. They are a team (just like in Gn. 1.26 and 2.15-25). Each respects the other's rights; each respects the other's place and roles. This isn't about "who's the boss," but about the great sacrifice that love demands for people to be true partners.

May we talk more?