A passage I read this morning sheds light on this doctrine of men, even though it says nothing about wife submission. The context is a message to servants who are “under the yoke,” teaching the servants to honor their masters in a godly way so that “the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.”
I Timothy 6:3-5 “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”Notice that Paul uses “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ” as the most important guideline that we are to consent to. Clearly that was his guideline, along with “the doctrine which is according to godliness.” Remember, Paul did not consider his words to be scripture. He considered his words as letters which contained advice, direction, & teaching, but not as scripture. The words and teaching of Jesus clearly have top billing in Paul's mind.
With the words of Jesus having such high priority to Paul, what is the likelihood that he would teach anything contrary to the words of Jesus? Would he claim that “the doctrine which is according to godliness” would trump the words of Jesus? In Paul's words, God Forbid! He would never consider such a thing! Indeed, he considered himself an apostle of Jesus Christ. As an apostle, he must adhere to the teachings of his Lord.
Yet, traditional teachers & pastors preach from Paul's letters, teaching as if Paul was directing his listeners to do the opposite of what Jesus taught. Yet Paul, himself, wrote “Be ye followers of me even as I also am of Christ,” I Corinthians 11:1. By that directive Paul makes it clear that if anything he says is contrary to the teaching of Jesus that we are NOT to follow him in that teaching. By extension I would add that he meant to include anytime we misinterpret Paul's teaching to counter the teaching of Jesus, we are NOT to follow that interpretation.
What did Jesus teach regarding women and authority? By example He did NOT put women “in their place,” at least not in the place that men had decreed belonged to women. He elevated women and their children instead of classifying them as nuisances, disposable, or unimportant. He healed women, he honored Mary for taking a man's position and NOT serving, and He included women in his inner circle. He chose a woman to evangelize the Samaritans, and did not reject those who came to Him at her bidding. He chose to come to earth through a woman, He chose to “come out” at the temple via the announcement of a woman and a man, & He chose a woman as the first witness to His resurrection. He honored the woman who in an emotional (shall we say “that-time-of-the-month?”) crying jag washed his feet with her tears and anointed him with expensive perfume. He defended her “wasteful” use of perfume, and did not berate or belittle her for making the place “reek to high heaven.”
Jesus said absolutely nothing to even suggest that men were to take authority over women or wives. Instead, He said the entire law and the prophets are based on two rules; to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Further, He specified that we are to treat others as we want to be treated.
Luke 6:31 “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”The two laws are interconnected. If a person does not love his neighbor by treating his neighbor as he would like to be treated, he or she clearly does not love God, either. He has put himself ahead of both God and neighbor (or spouse). Do I want my spouse to give me the right to decide his life for him? To tell me what he thinks is best and then lay his concerns aside, choosing to follow my decisions--even against his better judgment? Absolutely not! Do I want him to give me that kind of power over him? God forbid!! To be handed such corrupting power would be loathsome to me. Therefore, I will not tempt my spouse with such corruption.
On the men's side, do they want women to take power over them? I am convinced they do not. So why are they doing it to women? In particular, why are they doing it to their wives whom they claim to love? Controlling another who is one's equal is how one would treat an enemy, not how one would treat a cherished and respected companion.
Finally, Jesus taught both directly and in principle that we are not to exercise authority over others nor seek to be greater than they.
Matthew 23:10-12 “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”
Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them unto him and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
John 13:13-15 ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”
Foot washing was a demeaning task that fell to the lowliest person in the household. It was so lowly that people often refused to do it. (In the house where the woman washed Jesus's feet with her tears, neither the host nor a servant had washed His feet. In His defense of the tearful, perfume-wasting woman, Jesus commented on the host's lack of manners). Peter did not want to allow Jesus, his Lord, Master, Superior, Teacher, and Friend to wash his feet; he saw it as so out of line with propriety and his love for Jesus that he protested. By both teaching and example, Jesus, our Master and authority, taught both male and female to choose the lowliest serving positions instead of ruler and superior positions. We are to follow His example.
Now with Jesus's teaching and example, how could Paul possibly conclude that husbands are to rule and act superior to their wives? His very focus on following the teaching and spirit of his Lord and Master would totally rule this out. Instead, he would teach husbands, especially those who “would be great among you,” to serve their wives through loving them sacrificially as Christ loved the church, giving themselves and whatever they thought would benefit themselves up for her, and to choose the lowliest tasks, which may include washing the feet of their wives or cleaning their wives shoes or boots, cleaning urine from the floor and toilet, changing oil in the car, hand-washing feces and urine from diapers (if the couple has chosen to be green and $ conscious and use cloth diapers), to humbly do whatever job needs to be done, and to do it well and as to the Lord without grumbling, complaining, or power-seeking.
If that is NOT what Paul was teaching, by his own statement, we are NOT to follow him. We are to follow the words and teaching of Christ Jesus our Lord. If any man (or woman) does not consent to following the words of Christ, “he (or she) is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth...”
Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.
Posts
As I'm reading you post and thinking about what you are saying, I come across this:
ReplyDeleteMatthew 23:10-12 “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Then I remember another favorite verse these comps love. It's that one in Peter where it talks about Sarah calling Abraham 'lord'.
Here again, they make what Peter says more important that what Jesus says and make Peter's words trump the words of Jesus.
They disobey Jesus in order to 'obey' Peter.
It gets freaking old.
What needs to always be remembered is that Paul, by his own description, was a Pharisee of all Pharisees who sought to kill and imprison Christians prior to his Damascas Road experience.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem with so many preachers is they can't see the Bible for what it is: a witness.
Neither can they realize it is not all equal. The OT points to the Gospels / everything after the Gospels is calling readers to come back to the way of Jesus.
The Gospels are the top of the mountain where people can see for themselves our closest picture of God through His Son. That is the basis of our faith declaration essential for salvation = "Jesus is The Christ!"
Those who act like Christ would never place another human in bondage and slavery don't know Christ!
Us Southern Christians, by and large, had no problem with slavery because there are passages in the Bible which condone it. However, any slave owner who did not treat his slaves as part of the family of God was not following Christ. There were many (probably the majority) who treated their slaves with compassion!
Slavery is not a matter of black ownership. It is a matter of demeaning. I still exists today with a flawed view of women as deserving less pay because they are women / deserving to do the "dirty work" because it is beneath men to do it / always getting the short end of society's outlook on social rank.
You read it exactly right, Waneta---and back it with Jesus passages!!! How stupid and mis-directed can some people be????
"Here again, they make what Peter says more important that what Jesus says and make Peter's words trump the words of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThey disobey Jesus in order to 'obey' Peter."
Great point, Mara!
What I find odd about Peter's writing is that if you meditate on it alittle, you remember that Abraham also obeyed Sara. I wonder why Peter didn't point that out in the section written to husbands. Is it because Abraham also did NOT live with Sara according to knowledge when he told her to lie about their relationship?
This was such a good one, I'm back.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you giving me I Timothy 6:3-5 and I Corinthians 11:1. They will be added to my 'favs' list.
And Gene, I also appreciate your word "witness" to describe the Bible. Duh. What does Testament, as in, last will and testament mean?
People try to use the Bible like it's an owner's manuel or like every verse is some sort of law. And they go to it looking for the "trouble-shooting" section on marriage, Ephesians 5:22 to the end (comps conveniently cut off vs 21).
People get so silly when they try to make the Bible into something it is not.
Does the Bible contain commands? Absolutely.
Does the Bible contain good instruction? Absolutely.
But is the Bible one big command/instruction manuel from the sky?
NO!
It is a witness of God's dealings with man in a dark and broken world.
Gene,
ReplyDelete"Those who act like Christ would never place another human in bondage and slavery don't know Christ!"
Would you please explain/enlarge what you are saying here? Are you saying Christ, himself, would put a person in bondage? How could this be so and not be sin?
Further: "Us Southern Christians, by and large, had no problem with slavery because there are passages in the Bible which condone it."
Are there passages that "condone" slavery? Or do they simply speak of it as fact? I know there are passages that limit slavery, and that free slaves every so many years--unless the person has chosen to be a permanent slave by having a hole poked in his ear with an awl.
"There were many (probably the majority) who treated their slaves with compassion!"
Yet did they treat them with respect? Were the slaves allowed to visit relatives and friends when they wanted to? to maintain dignity? To learn to read and write, add and subtract? To learn how to handle and save money? To have any hope for their future? I was under the impression very few were given an education or allowed any hope for their future. From what I read, people who would have been prone to be compassionate to slaves, became dictators once they owned one themselves. It's as if the act of buying and owning another human, perverted their sense of right and wrong.
I recommend Jocelyn Andersen's book "Woman this is war: Gender, Slavery, and the Evangelical Caste System." http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Gender-Slavery-Evangelical-System/dp/0979429323/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287153377&sr=1-1
I recently heard a statement by Joyce Meyer, saying that people are mean because they don't know God.
"Slavery is not a matter of black ownership. It is a matter of demeaning. I still exists today with a flawed view of women as deserving less pay because they are women / deserving to do the "dirty work" because it is beneath men to do it / always getting the short end of society's outlook on social rank."
It seems to me anytime one thinks they own another, they are demeaning them. (we may have to agree to disagree on that one!) That includes the buying/selling of humans (except when one buys in order to give freedom) demeaning people by giving them the "dirty work," lower pay and lower status. It also includes "men work from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never done."
Your statements are thought-provoking, Gene. I'd like to know more on how you arrived at your conclusions.
Mara,
ReplyDelete"I appreciate you giving me I Timothy 6:3-5 and I Corinthians 11:1. They will be added to my 'favs' list."
They've joined my favs list, too. There is so much freedom in the scriptures that we have missed due to the interpretation that has been shoved down our throats!
Gene & Mara, I was raised to consider the Bible as history & the instruction manual from God, so it is intriguing to think of the Bible as a witness. I will ponder that more. I've found so much freedom with viewing the Bible as God's direction to us, I wonder if I will lose God-breathed freedom by seeing the Bible as a witness.
For example, it was God, through Moses, who set limits on hard-hearted husbands by instituting divorce to protect the wives. That does come under: "It is a witness of God's dealings with man in a dark and broken world." Yet it also shows me the heart of God.
My take on much that is in the OT is that men back then were doing what hard-hearted men do today--work the law to their benefit. It used to be husbands would walk away from their wives and children, leaving wives to raise their children alone w/o support. But when the law required them to pay child support, many men decided to keep the children so they could use them as a pawn to further hurt their ex-wives. I think sinful men in OT times did similar things, using good laws to disadvantage women in order to maintain superiority over women.
I've been reading Susanna Krizo's "When Dogmas Die" and found that bad as we think Hebrew law was, the laws of surrounding peoples were far worse. The actions of Sara, for example, were in accordance with the laws of the land. If she had not given Hagar to Abraham, he would likely have divorced her or taken another wife because Sara had not produced an heir. Later, when Hagar was trying to raise herself to wife status, contrary to the law, Sara demoted her. Hagar fled rather than return to being a servant. God told her to submit herself to Sara, who apparently was not being abusive. The book is an eye-opener.
W.O.W.!
ReplyDeleteWelcome Incongruous Circumspection! and thanks for your comment, too.
ReplyDelete