[Sissy]

Here is a study on what I consider to be a couple of the most missunderstood verses in the Bible. It will probably be kind of controversial for some, but I feel very strongly about this issue, and I firmly believe that what I present here is the truth.

Submission to Authority - Women and the Church - Wives and Husbands

“There is no distinction between Jew nor Greek, nor between slave nor free man, neither is there between male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him.” (Romans 10:12)

This is the over-riding principle when trying to understand how Christ views believers. When it comes to authority, salvation, gifts, ministries, etc., there are no distinctions between races, cultures nor between women and men. There are, however, relationships in life that place us in positions of responsibility or authority to which we are required to voluntarily respond.

"Let a wife quietly receive instruction with respectful submissiveness. But I do not allow a wife to be continuously teaching, nor to exercise autonomous control over her husband, but to be in quietness. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but his wife who was deceived." 1 Timothy 2:11-14

The above is taken directly from the Greek, emphasizing how it should be translated based on the normal translation rules for these Greek words. First thing to notice, due to the relationship of gune (“woman, wife”) to aner (“man, husband”) in the sentence, particularly the way it is compared to the first husband and wife, they should be translated with the specific "wife" and "husband," not the general "woman" and "man." In Greek, the only way to determine if the words should be specific (husband and wife) or general (man and woman) was context, and the context here points to the specific, not the general.

However, even if one refuses to accept that this is about husbands and wives, the idea that it forbids women from having spiritual authority over men in the church still has problems, as I address below.

When written as it should be translated, you see that this is speaking to the husband-wife relationship, NOT to positions within the fellowship. The assumption underlying this sentence is the culture in which these people lived. In this culture, men were taught in public, and they then had the responsibility to instruct their wives in private. This was not a rule laid down by the church, this is the way the SOCIETY functioned. As with many social issues in Christianity, this was NOT a laying down of laws within the body of Christ, but an explanation of how a husband-wife relationship should function within this specific culture. Remember, Paul told us in very clear terms, within the bounds of morality, to adapt to the culture we find ourselves in so that we may more readily bring those in that culture to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

Our culture does not have the men learning publicly and the women learning privately, so there is less application here to us.

TEACHING

This cultural approach to teaching had carried over into the church, since the people were used to public teaching to be to the men, and the women to receive private instruction from their parents or husbands. That was simply the way their society ran, and so that practice had continued in the church.

In the sentence "I do not allow a wife to continuously teach," our first clue that this is NOT talking about the fellowship as a whole is that it references a WIFE. This is a relationship issue, not a church issue.

The second clue is that the verb appears in the wrong tense. If the prohibition against teaching were absolute, it would have been an aorist infinitive: "I do not allow a wife to teach - ever." Being a present infinitive, it means "I do not allow a wife to teach continuously." Since it was the husbands who were being given the public education, the wives needed to be spending some of their times LEARNING from their husbands. The very choice of constructions, however, indicates the wives DID teach. Paul just says they should not be doing it constantly.

AUTHORITY

Wives are also not allowed to exercise absolute autonomous control over their husbands. The first thing to note is that this is the only place in the NT that this word (authenteo – “autonomous authority that answers to no one, dominating, oppressive authority”) appears. Because it is not used anywhere else in the Bible, we have to go to extra-biblical sources to be certain of its meaning. In classical Greek, it meant someone who was free from the authority of ANYONE, had become a law unto themselves, and exercised a control over those under them that was complete and total, even to the point of being able to decide if those people lived or died. No one could judge what they did, because no one was above them. This was the kind of authority wielded by tyrants, and as a result, this word is always used in a negative sense.

In reality, only God has that kind of authority, but this is a critical point in understanding this word: it is never used of God in the Bible because it has a built in negative implication of “abuse of authority.” The difference in meaning between exousia (the usual word for “authority” in the Bible) and authenteo (“autonomous authority”) is similar to the differences in meaning between “ruler” and “tyrant.” These two words have the same basic meaning, but tyrant includes the additional negative idea of a supreme ruler, answering to no one, who abuses his authority. Likewise, authenteo has the additional idea of someone who answers to no one (or acts like they answer to no one), and thus, begins to abuse their authority.

This is such an extreme word that it really is best translated "absolute autonomous control.” It is equivalent to addressing a congregation and stating, "wives do not have the right to murder their husbands." The most appropriate response to something so obvious would probably be (to borrow from my teen-aged daughter), "No duh!" But since Paul addresses it so seriously, it is almost as though some people might be expected to respond with, "Aw, rats. I thought we did!"

It raises the question, why did the wives have to be addressed about something so extreme?

I can't imagine this statement by Paul being greeted with anything other than stunned silence. I don't know what was happening in that fellowship, but it must have been fairly outrageous for Paul to use such an extreme word (and this is the ONLY place he uses it ever), particularly since HUSBANDS did not have this kind of authority over their WIVES either (masters didn't even have that kind of control over their slaves). Greek has a lot of other words that are much more moderated (such as katexousia or exousia). The only person in the Roman Empire who might be said to have this kind of authority was Caesar (and if used of him, it was considered an insult, not a compliment).

The only thing I can figure is that Paul specifically used this word for the shock value. Something was happening within the fellowship in the way wives were treating their husbands, and Paul intentionally overstated the issue to get their attention. In other words, it is similar to saying "if you hate your brother, you are a murderer" (1 John 3:15). It casts the situation in extreme language to illustrate how important this issue really is.

For some reason, Paul did not feel the husbands did needed to be TOLD this, while the wives did. It is worth noting, however, that it does NOT say husbands DO have this kind of authority over wives, either.

His use of this extreme word, BTW, indicates that wives DID exercise authority, but some had tried to take their authority and become miniature tyrants, dictators who answered to no one and whose words could never be questioned. If Paul had meant they had no authority at all, he would have used a completely different word (the primary word for authority in the NT is exousia).

Those who believe that women cannot exercise authority in the church need to answer the question, why does the bible NEVER say that women cannot have exousia over men? This word has no negative connotations, and it is used of all levels of authority, from soldiers in the military (Matthew 8:9), to the civil authority of human leaders (Luke 20:20), to the legal authority of life and death (John 19:10), to indicate that all authority of any kind comes from God (Romans 13:1), to spiritual authority over demons and sickness (Matthew 10:1), to the spiritual authority of church leaders (2 Corinthians 13:10), to the authority of Jesus over all of creation (Matthew 28:18).

If someone wishes to dispute that this verse is about wives and husbands, the central issues remain the same. Women are forbidden to become tyrants. They are forbidden to exercise a negative, totalitarian type of authority that NO ONE is supposed to use. That, frankly, is about ATTITUDE, not position.

Bottom line, women are NEVER forbidden to exercise exousia, the kind of authority that pastors and teacher and elders have, in the church. Women CAN be in positions of authority.

QUIETNESS

The word translated "quietness" primarily means "quiet tranquility," not literal silence. In other words, it usually references the state of the soul, NOT the state of the mouth.

That is the word used in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12

"For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear that some among you are disorderly, doing no work at all, but are busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet tranquility and eat their own bread."

This was not a command that when you work, you must maintain silence, but pointing out that an undisciplined, unproductive life leads to an inner turmoil that translates itself into a disruptive life, and that person then becomes a disrupting force, a CENTER of conflict, within the lives of all those around them. The opposite of a disorderly busybody was a person of quiet tranquility. That person was a source of STRENGTH to those around them, NOT a source of discord.

In other words, "Get to work, support yourself, and instead of being such a disruption in the lives of those around you, try being a stabilizing source of strength!"

SUBMISSION

Now for "submission." There is no exact English equivalent for this word, so it is always a struggle to translate it correctly. First, let's get the obvious stuff out of the way:

1) it does not mean "obedience." That is a different word in Greek.
2) it does not indicate that someone has control over another person. THAT too is a different word in the Greek.
3) It is never used of forced or involuntary servitude. (You guessed it: different word in Greek).

The best definition of this word might be something like "freely and voluntarily given respect, honor and trust." The underlying idea is actually that the person being so treated has EARNED that respect, and thus deserves to have their authority honored. In many contexts there IS an underlying idea of submitting to the will of another, but it is a voluntary submission that arises from the tremendous respect and admiration you have for that person's wisdom and leadership.

The over-riding concept is NOT about obeying someone, always deferring to their decisions or will, or even of letting them make the decisions. The strongest underlying idea is actually one of supporting, encouraging, or even holding someone up so that they don't collapse. It is mostly about an attitude of respect and honor, not about decision making or obedience.

This is the word used in 2 Corinthians 9:12-13

"For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God. Because of the proof given by this ministry they will glorify God for your voluntary submission by confession into the gospel of Christ, and for the generosity of your contribution to them and to all."

It is difficult to translate properly because we don't really have a word in English that describes the situation where we have so much admiration, respect and trust in someone that we give what they say extra value, sometimes to the point of voluntarily deferring to their judgment over our own, but either way, of always holding them and what they say in the highest regard.

So in the context of wives and husbands, it refers to a situation in which the wives honor and respect their husbands, supporting them and holding them up.

The verb form is hupotasso. One of the best scriptures for illustrating what it means is Ephesians 5:21 "Submit yourselves to one another in the fear of God."

This is something that we can do TO EACH OTHER. If we can do it to each other, it does NOT mean one is superior to the other, or one has authority to make decisions over the other. IT refers to voluntarily giving each other respect, trust and honor, and treating each other accordingly.

Note in Ephesians 5:22 it says, "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord."

First observation: This is speaking to the WIVES, not the husbands. This is between wives and the Lord. It does not say, "Husbands, make sure your wives submit to you as to the Lord." The only role the husbands play in this is in taking the respect and admiration of their wives seriously, and living up to it. What the wives actually DO is none of the husband's business. This is between a wife and God. It is not the husbands responsibility to see to it that a wife does this. HIS responsibility is to love her, sacrifice himself for her, and care for her needs.

The second observation, and the really radical aspect of this is that Paul is saying that wives should consider the LORD having earned their respect on the husbands behalf. In other words, no matter if the husbands have earned it or not, the wives should give it to them anyway as a way of showing their tremendous respect and admiration for God. The Lord is saying, "the general, over-all respect and honor you give your husband should be determined by how you feel about ME, not how you feel about HIM." This is the SPOUSE version of Christ's illuminating statement:

"Whatever you do to the least of these, my brethren, you do to me."
Christ is saying, “When you give respect to your husbands, you are really giving it to me.”

Again, this is NOT about obedience, this is about respect, trust, and honor, and the actions and behaviors that flow out of those attitudes. Contrast this with the verse at the end of this section: "Children, OBEY your parents in the Lord, for that is right." Different word completely. Obedience and submitting are not the same thing.

If there is any doubt as to what this is talking about, notice what Paul says to the husbands. "Love your wives."

No mention, EVER, of ruling over them. Even in the comparison to Christ and the Church, note what is emphasized:

"Husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER; THAT HE MIGHT SANCTIFY HER, HAVING CLEANSED HER BY THE WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD . .. so husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies." Ephesians 5:25-30

It does not say, "as Christ loved the church, and ruled over her . . . " In fact, it doesn't even mention authority, because submission is not so much about authority as it is about respect, honor and support.

Just as Priscila and Aquila were considered "co-workers" in Christ, so all women are equal to men within the body of Christ.

Women in the church

"Let your wives be quiet in the churches, for it is not allowed to them to be continuously speaking, but to be in submissive, even as the law says. But if they desire to learn something, let them question their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a wife to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

The Message translation actually catches the force of this paragraph best:

“Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking.”

Again, this is not about POSITIONS within the church, this is about husbands and wives, and the difference between FREEDOM and LICENSE.

First of all, this is dealing with a situation of service disruption between HUSBANDS and WIVES, not just of women in general. If it is an absolute reference to being able to speak, it means SINGLE women were exempt from this prohibition: only married women had to stay silent (because single women had no husbands to ask at home).

Second, the word translated "to speak" means continuous speaking (present infinitive), as in, being a disruption to the service. It is NOT a prohibition against ANY KIND of speaking (aorist infinitive). What is shameful is for the wives to be disrupting the services by constantly asking their husbands questions, chattering on and on. All of that should be contained and discussed at home.

There is NO prohibition against a woman being a pastor, a prophet, an apostle, a teacher, etc. In fact, there is no prohibition here against women “speaking” in the church. The prohibition is against continuous, disruptive, disrespectful speaking.

Throughout the NT there are several references to women who served with their husbands side by side, prophesied in the fellowship, etc.

Conclusion

Women and men are equal in scripture in God’s eyes. Women are allowed to hold all positions of authority that a man can hold. But women are ALSO required to show respect and honor to their husbands, NOT because of what their husbands have done, but because of what Christ has done. Even if the wives are more spiritually mature than their husbands, wives are NOT to use that as an excuse to become unquestioned rulers in their homes.

Likewise, husbands are required to place their wives ahead of themselves in terms of what their wives need, and to love them wholly and completely, even to the point of complete self-sacrifice, to giving their lives for their wives.

Grace and peace to you all,

Rhomphaia