- As some of you know, I'm a Quatholic. I lector at mass and next week I'm reading this (Ephesians 5:21, etc.).
I'd love to hear it discussed - I know there will be those who are completely turned off by the idea on so many levels, and to those I apologize. Others - I'm deeply interested in meaningful discussion about this piece of scripture. I wrote it off for most of my life. Now, I find insights, though difficult for me to articulate - a sure sign there is true Mystery there.
Brothers and sisters:
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is head of his wife
just as Christ is head of the church,
he himself the savior of the body.
As the church is subordinate to Christ,
so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery,
but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. - Jason Kilburn Evans I'm in far too silly and irreverant a mood to comment constructively.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Thanks, love!
- William S Lefler Nope, this was also used to condone slavery.
- Stephen Wheeley I have often heard this explained as meaning the husband had " spiritual authority " over not just his wife but his entire household, even as Christ ( obviously ) has spiritual authority over the Church. This was also partly a cultural thing, since at that time women were less likely to be independently wealthy or as educated as a man .
The important aspect most seem to miss is that the husband is to totally imitate / identify with Christ and Christ's relationship with the Church, the body of believers. This means of course the husband must show sacrificial love for his wife, not " lording it over her " , but always doing what is best for her welfare, regardless of the cost to himself. Including literally " laying down his life for her " even as Christ did for mankind.
So, with discernment we realize this is not actually a license to " dominate " one's wife for selfish ends or false pride, but to lead her spiritually by example as the " suffering servant " . Just as Christ is our example. 
- Helen Frances Hart This is a verse is so often twisted around. Women and men use it to justify abuse in families, beatings, sexual abuse against women and children. It has always made me cringe.
- Karen Ellacott There is probably some truth buried in there about the value of the soul's surrender and submission to Divine Spirit and the value of loving commitment where spouses cherish each other. But it got wrapped up in the writer's religious and cultural biases. This verse about loving and cherishing has been used forever to maintain a male power base in the church.
- Jeanmarie Simpson I appreciate that, William, but what it was "used" to do doesn't mean that was its original intent. Thank you, Stephen, for that insight - "laying down his life for her" has been resonating with me for a couple of days. My mate has worn his body out providing for his family. I think St. Paul is clearly speaking to a traditional relationship, where men were outside of the home and women were "inside." I'm a full-boar feminist - I think we must take in the entire context of things and discern deeply before reacting.
- Elizabeth Guthrie "Be subordinate to one another" I can get behind. None of the rest. Even the idea that a husband is supposed to identify with Christ and be the suffering servant, laying down his life for his wife and family... feeds the lie of the patriarchy - the lie that men are the natural heads of families (or churches,for that matter) that they should "lead" at all, rather than walk hand in hand, as equals, with their partners. If the analogy equate men/husbands with Christ and women/wives with the church, that is a hierarchical composition and must be rejected.
- Stephen Wheeley William Lefler, I believe you are thinking of Col 3:22 " Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as menpleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord . " Yes, scripture has been wrongly used to justify many things that a Christian should abhor. This is because many fail to know that ancient systems of " slavery " were often completely different than slavery in America, where people were stolen from Africa against their will . In Roman times poor people sometimes voluntarily became slaves to pay off debts or provide for their parents or families. They were often treated like members of the family, which we see by the words of the Roman centurian who asked Jesus to heal his slave.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Oh, lord. Yes, I know. That's our contemporary, post-feminist view. I'm asking for deeper discernment, Elizabeth, et al.
- Elizabeth Guthrie I like what Karen Ellacott said - "There is probably some truth buried in there about the value of the soul's surrender and submission to Divine Spirit and the value of loving commitment where spouses cherish each other" but that it is wrapped in bias and has been used for ill. So I guess my question is - why does that passage need deeper discernment than that? Must we save the bible from itself and redeem all the passages that don't agree with contemporary sensibilities?
- Jeanmarie Simpson I'm reading it at mass next Sunday. Deeper discernment, delving into the mystery, is what I'm asking for here.
- Jeanmarie Simpson I think the implications on the culture/world society have been enormous, as a result of men being expected to lay down their lives for women and children.
- David H. Albert I think it's just Paul being Paul. Is literal meaning is clear, and I have no reason to believe that it is in any way mysterious. Paul knew virtually nothing about Jesus (or what the Gospel writers in their ignorance were to write about Jesus.) He just made it up. It is virtually impossible to imagine Jesus saying that husbands should love their wives.
- Stephen Wheeley The fact that men have used both scripture and cultural " norms " to wrongly dominate women and nations is the fault of themselves, not the word of God. In another letter Paul again says that both husbands and wives should " submit to one another " . Note that at the beginning of this portion of Ephesians Paul wrote " Brothers & sisters be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ " . This is the over-riding principle we are to follow as disciples of Christ, whether dealing with our spouses or others.
The reality of life is that there will always be some who lead and some who follow, although in God's eyes we are " equals " because He loves us equally . But some will be more spiritually advanced than others, even as we all have different spiritual gifts. ( Or physical gifts, there are few qualified to be Olympic athletes for example ) This is why Paul cautioned strongly about the position of " teaching " being so important ( " Not all should teach" ) because wrong teaching causes separation from God and other men rather than unity. " Walking hand in hand as equals " sounds great, but it doesn't work in real life. 
- Bernice G Bell Bold in faith to submit!
- Elizabeth Guthrie Yes Stephen Wheeley, at some points some people may be called to be servant leaders. But walking hand in hand as equals can and does work in real life. The fact that Quakers believe it can is the reason I became a Convinced Friend in the first place. Also, people should be seen as leaders or teachers because of their passion and skill, not their gender. The whole notion of forming a family or any organization on patriarchal hierarchies rather than mutual respect and regard must be rejected and actively worked against.
- Stephen Wheeley David Albert . " Paul knew virtually nothing about Jesus " ? Really ? Do you deny the reality of " being lead by the Holy Spirit " ? Do you believe Paul lied about his meeting with Christ on the road to Damascus ? I have not " met Jesus in the flesh " either, but I have met Him in the Spirit frequently. That is normal when one has been " Born from above " .
- Stephen Wheeley Elizabeth, I agree with you and should elaborate on my statement about " equals " . I was speaking broadly about " the Church " in general, not about husbands & wives specifically . Yes, ideally we should walk as equals, since we are to become " one flesh " as husband and wife. But that takes a willingness to submit to one another by both partners and real life experiences show this doesn't always work out . Thus the divorce rate for Christians is the same as the general public .
In the Body of Christ we are also to be " one " even as Jesus is " One with the Father " , but again, this is unfortunately not the norm today. This means a minority are forced to be be leaders if the kingdom is to be advanced. I believe in ideals and strive to promote them, but I live in reality just as Christ did. 
- Pawel Broom years ago I attended a Meeting where there was discussion about changing the time of the Meeting so some could attend another church -- it was strongly suggested that those persons needed to choose where they wanted to attend- the time of the Meeting remained the same
- Stephen Wheeley Elizabeth Guthrie, I also wholeheartedly agree that leadership should be based on passion and skill, NOT gender. In my Salvation Army corp we have a rotating team of two couples who teach / preach on Sundays. The women are every bit the equals of the men on the days they teach. We usually alternate man / woman /man /woman during the course of each month.
- Pawel Broom equality of gender in some Meetings would be a good idea
- David H. Albert Stephen - I believe Paul believed what Paul believed. You can go through all of Paul, and there is not a single mention of Jesus' life or teachings as reflected in the Gospel writers. Paul was a Christian; Jesus was not.
- Bill Samuel It is key that it all begins with "be subordinate to one another..." For his culture, Paul was quite progressive on gender. Here, the standard he lays out for husbands is even more challenging than the one for wives. I don't agree with the gender role division, but it is a strong statement against the kind of view prevalent in his culture that the wife was virtually property. It is certainly a challenge to me when I ask if I love my wife as much as Christ loves the church. I really wonder if he sets it up as he does so he'll have the men nodding when he talks about the wife's role but then hits them hard because what he says to the husband is not what they expect and forces them to re-think how they treat their wives.
Also, if you look to the places where Paul addresses sexuality, you will note that he is pretty consistent in doing it as pairs of statements to make it crystal clear he is treating men and women equally. He has no use for the double standard, nor does he view women's sexuality as inherently different from men's. This is remarkable for his culture. - Stephen Wheeley David, I've seen many take your position that " Paul taught a different gospel than Christ's apostles " but that is not the position of the apostles themselves in Acts or Peter's own words. Yes, of course Jesus was " not a Christian ", He was the Christ.
Yet Paul obviously had dealings with a great many people who had direct personal contact with Jesus, not only the Apostles but the " great cloud of witnesses " Paul mentions. Paul was both an evangelist and the main expositor of correct doctrine about how the process of salvation actually works , how God transforms sinful men into saints . ( Through faith in Christ by His grace )
Yes, Paul did not concentrate so much on Christ's actual teachings, but rather on why we should believe in Christ and how submitting our will / life to Him can give us the peace, joy, love and compassion ( and freedom from enslavement to sin ) that nothing else can. Paul is teaching about " how to " come into a proper relationship with Christ and its vital importance eternally and in the present life. Once we come into that relationship Christ Himself will reveal Himself to us directly through the Holy Spirit, something no written words can accomplish.
We have the Gospels, especially John's Gospel, to show us who Christ is and His teachings. Paul's mission was to point to Christ Himself as Lord and Savior, the gospels provide the teachings. We need both for full understanding.. - Bill Samuel David H. Albert, according to most Biblical scholars, the bulk of Paul's writings predate the Gospels. Would you criticize a book published in 2000 because it did not reference books published in 2015?
- Geoff Thomason I would no more base my values on those of a 2,000 year old mindset limited by geography, culture, religion and gender than I would treat an illness with 2,000 year old medicine.
- Stephen Wheeley BTW, David H Albert , we should remember several things about Paul and his letters. First off, the Epistles were most often written to correct doctrinal errors ( heresies ) or failings in the local churches Paul had established on his missions. Thus they don't address directly " Jesus life or his teachings " as such but rather belief in Him as the Son of God / Messiah.
More importantly, we have little record except some passages in Acts or the epistles of what Paul actually preached to the thousands he addressed on his mission trips. Considering the radical response / success he had I can't help but think Paul did mention Christ's teachings and expound on His life in great detail. - David H. Albert Well, I can't help but think otherwise.
- Daniel Washburn This is a tough one, because it takes such a sexist stance. For this reason, I would probably not turn to this section of scripture on my own initiative. But we must remember that all revelation (if you believe in any) is polluted by the biases of its time. Here Paul (or whoever is writing in his name) writes to his Christian contemporaries using common the language and understanding of the time. If we strip away the expectation that the wife be subordinate to the husband, the metaphorical meaning of the text remains - that the members of the Christian community, and by extension humanity on Earth, should attempt to see past their differences and be as one body. I am actually kind of glad to have been given the challenge of trying to interpret this text, thank you.
- Geoff Thomason Leopards don't easily change their spots. One could see Paul as a self-centred Jew who became a self-centred Christian who could only interpret Jesus by reinventing him in his own image, which involved deifying him as the central figure in the religious tradition Paul was seeking to establish.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Friends, THANK YOU! This is AWESOME. Please, keep it rolling.
- Pawel Broom the silence in Meeting is not Mystery to me it is a theological statement that all are equal no Popes or church hierarchy
- Jeanmarie Simpson Okay, folks, I hear you. But it is our task here to take some time to bring this forward, not to condemn it by looking through our 21st Century lens. Equals, hand in hand, all that is lovely when we sit here today in this 2-income-family paradigm. But in those days, there was no such thing. The author of the scripture was, as has been said above, correcting misconceptions and laying out a new directive. For a husband to love his wife so thoroughly, to lay down his life for her - that cannot be simply dismissed as patriarchy, simply because he is the "head" of her. Put in the context of its time, this writing is revolutionary. The woman is to respect. The man is to, essentially, adore. I think it's extraordinary.
- Kevin Mortimer 'This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church' This has always been central to my Quaker understanding but the reality really took off when I discovered the real communion in the ancient church is the same communion intended by 17th century Quakers. I love the deep sense of communion and worship I experience when I'm at the monastery or attend Mass. I argue that Robert Barclay is better read through the eyes of the Catholic world than the protestant because of the centrality of communion. Thanks for writing out this beautiful scripture and inviting our response. Have you ever read Irene Lape's Leadings? It is a Catholic's Journey through Quakerism.
- Jeanmarie Simpson I haven't, Kevin. I will look for them.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Thank you!
- Ed Solenberger Love and reverence is great! Subordination to husbands, not at all!
- Matti Mäkelä Eiköhän tasa arvo avioliitossaole hyvin keskeinen asia. Miksi toisen pitäisi alistua? Tasa arvo ei merkitse sitä ettemmekö pystyisi kunnioittamaan ja rakastamaan puolisoamme. Olemme avioliitossa luvanneet rakastamaan ja kunniuittamaan toinen toistamme.See Translation
- David H. Albert "Love and reverence is great! Subordination to husbands, not at all!"
My experience is that continuing and even progressive revelation is true. We should have left Paul behind in the dust a long time ago. 
- Ben Brandon Moffett I look through my 21st century lenses and condemn it, but I don't for a moment believe that even in the day it was written there weren't also people and cultures that would also have found it reprehensible.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Which cultures and people, for instance, Ben?
- Gerald Frank Patterson I'm a Roman catholicQuaker
- Bernice G Bell How does a Roman Catholic Quaker do confessions?
- Bill Samuel Sometimes I call myself a charismatic, liturgical Quaker. smile emoticon I attend an ecumenical church with a shared leadership model (no Pastor) and which uses Quaker business process.
- Gerald Frank Patterson With a priest or before Mass at silent Prayer ... Talk to God
- Elizabeth Guthrie I do look backwards and condemn it, just as I look back and condemn all sorts of reprehensible views and practices that oppressed vulnerable peoples. The oppression of women might have been the norm, but that doesn't mean it was right back then, and it doesn't mean I need to figure our how to make blatantly misogynistic texts from that time somehow fit a progressive worldview. One has to do such rhetorical acrobatics to salvage "wives subordinate yourselves to your husbands" I wonder why do it all. The beauty of continuing revelation is that we don't have to kneel at the altar of ancient texts. That's the mystery to me, honestly. I wholeheartedly reject and condemn any religion or practice or faith or doctrine or creed that doesn't believe that every person is truly equal.
- Jeanmarie Simpson I don't think it's "oppression," in those days, necessarily.
- David H. Albert I know of matrilineal, matriarchal societies, where home ownership, inheritance rights, and birth rights all went through women, some of which still exist today, but which were common during the first century. The one I know best is in Kerala, India.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Okay, David - can you cite examples of them objecting to patriarchy and its effects at the time?
- David H. Albert They didn't have to object to patriarchy, as they didn't have it. An example that I know firsthand, but has just about died out, in Kerala. Family/clan compounds are built in a square. Women "marry" men, who then come to live in the compound. However, all the women have rooms with doors facing out, and can invite any man they wish to have sex (i.e. make babies). The babies are said not to be the children of the "husbands", nor of the sexual partners, but of rich uncles, who act like "fathers" in terms of responsibility for the children. Inheritance and ownership rights are all in the name of women, and passed down to the oldest daughter.
This practice has almost died out now, mostly due to Victorian and Pauline mores, and urbanization, which has made the housing pattern impossible to replicate as the population grows.
This practice spread to northern Sri Lanka around 12th Century. - Jeanmarie Simpson Elizabeth - I am engaged in a traditional relationship, for the first time in my life. He provides the income and I take care of the daily household comings and goings. He puts his life on the line every day, and I am safe at home. I can see how, when this was the norm and girls and women were born into the culture, it would not be at all strange to view the father/husband as the head of the household. They are more expendable - it takes just a few men to people a village, but many women and children. It is making sense to me - not to make it "fit" into now, but to see where it was coming from in its time. I feel insights around the reasons men feel themselves "oppressed" by feminism (that doesn't mean I "agree" with them).
- Jeanmarie Simpson David, that's a beautiful thing. But it doesn't mean Jews in the middle east "knew better."
- David H. Albert I never wrote that they did. (You must be referring to someone else.) Jesus himself, being a non-Jew, was the victim of patriarchy, for as his father could not be clearly identified, he was forbidden from marrying into the Jewish community for 10 generations.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Whoops, you're right. That was Ben. Sorry, David. And thank you.
- JoLee Sasakamoose My First Nation is matrilineal but white mans laws conflict with our ability to practice correctly
- Elizabeth Guthrie Jeanmarie Simpson, it doesn't matter to me that oppressing women (and yes, requiring members of one sex to submit to members of another sex is most definitely oppression) was the norm 2,000 years ago. Unfortunately, Paul didn't just reflect the norm of the time (which was also based on patriarchal religion) he perpetuated it. Those words you cite have kept women as second class citizens for millennia. The words just can't be saved, as far as I'm concerned. They must be put into context, that context must be seen as unjust, we must see how those words are still at work today, and then we must work to end the injustice that still exists. We also can read in the bible that slaves should submit to their masters (you know, and also masters should treat their slaves with fairness). It doesn't matter to me that it's just how things were done. the fact that those words were in scripture led to people believing that it was ok to own other people. That's why I don't worship the bible. And feminism is simply the belief that men and women are equal and that we must work to end inequity. Men who think they are being oppressed by feminism are foolish indeed.
- Jeanmarie Simpson I acknowledged, in the original post, that many would react as you are, Elizabeth. And, if you look again, you'll see that I wrote off this scripture for most of my life. I'm asking for insights and discernment, because I'm finding myself led to do so.
- Stephen Wheeley David Albert , " Jesus himself, being a non-Jew " ? I think you are reading too many authors who are non-believers, such as the " Jesus Seminar " type scholars, who lack even a shred of spiritual discernment but instead make broad assumptions from little evidence and then trumpet their conclusions as " factual history " . SMH . Pl;ease cite me scripture where Jesus is said to " not be a Jew " because there was uncertainty about his paternity. Contrary to your view, there are several passages that say things like " Isn't this the carpenters son ? ", meaning they accepted Joseph as Jesus' father.
- Ben Jimenez This doctrine, similar in other faiths, exists for good reason; to reduce harmful desires and opinions outside of love and goodness. The vital energy inside us is also more preserved and beneficial under this marital subjugation..and "the two shall be of one flesh"...in order to be stronger or ie be closer to God
- Bill Samuel "Brothers and sisters: Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ." This is the context. Mutual submission is unjust?
- Elizabeth Guthrie "Wives submit to your husbands" is unjust. "Husbands are the head of the family" is patriarchal and - yes - unjust. Mutual submission is fine! Unfortunately Paul is saying the man is the head of the household as Jesus is the head of the church and that, I'm sorry, is patriarchal and patriarchy is fundamentally unjust.
- Ben Jimenez This subordination should go further than just in action, as Christ said even your thoughts must be faithful and likewise submissive
- Gary Bagwell As I understand it, Ephesians is a second or third century forgery of a Pauline letter, written as the Roman ruling class began to incorporate their social concepts into the movement which was giving them so much trouble, under the guise of Epistles.
- Jeanmarie Simpson I have heard that too, Gary.
- Gary Bagwell And just in general, I think Paul misunderstands Jesus almost as badly as Ouspensky misunderstood Gurdjeiff.
- David H. Albert Stephen. It is in the very first chapters of Matthew, where Joseph "is of a mind to put her away in secret." The reason for that is that she became pregnant by an unknown (and putatively non-Jewish) father, and the penalty for what she did was stoning by her father and brothers. And so they fled "to Egypt" (only not really). (By the way, "Mizraim", the Hebrew word for "Egypt" is actually a very real town and region in northern Yemen.) Three of the four gospels make clear that Jesus did not have a Jewish father. Two of them try a tortured genealogy that makes no sense. In the fourth one, John, the Jew call him a "son of fornication" (i.e. a mamzer, and hence not Jewish. Jesus doesn't deny it (he can't ), so instead has a hissy fit and calls the "Children of the Devil" (Devils spawn.)
It is very rare that the gospel writers are unanimous about anything, especially since much of the time they are clueless as to what they are writing about. But in this case, they are. - Jeanmarie Simpson So the scripture is empty and meaningless?
- David H. Albert What do you think?
- Jeanmarie Simpson If I thought so, I wouldn't have posted this.
- David H. Albert So you think what?
- Stephen Wheeley I think there is some great misunderstanding here concerning the idea of " subordination " and seeing it entirely in negative terms as a form of " oppression " . Lets take a quick detour and ask this question : should children be " subordinate " to their parents in all things, particularly young children ? ( And with the caveat the parents are loving, moral parents with only the child's best interests at heart ) I was certainly " subordinate " to my parents as a child and my son was to me & my wife and his children to him & my daughter-in-law.
Are parents " oppressing " their children by setting rules intended to protect them, keep them healthy and educated or to teach them love & respect for others ? I think not .
The primary definition of subordinate is what most of those commenting think: " Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; minor; secondary " But 2. is " Subject to the authority or control of another . " Being subject to the authority of another, as in the parent / child relationship, is not inherently evil or oppressive as many seem to think. Are employees not under the authority of their employer or the members of a sports team to the head coach ? Isn't this necessary to avoid confusion and failure ?
Now I realize this is perhaps more of a " sore spot " with Quakers and your very " free form " manner of worship, apparently sans pastors in most cases. ( I'm not a Quaker, btw , so pardon any misunderstandings ) Yet even you believe you are under God's authority as expressed by the Spirit ( Light ) you " hear ", correct ?
And this is the real issue in this passage from Ephesians, " Spiritual Authority ", and who wields it . Don't ignore Paul's instructions in Corinthians telling " mature Christians " to be careful not to harm the spiritual development of those " new or weak " in their faith by doing things that are OK but might cause doubt or confusion in their immature brethren. Is this oppression ? Or is it actually a compassionate self-limiting for the advancement of another ?
At this point I must remind all of the importance of reading scripture " as a whole " and the dangers of taking isolated passages out of context and building false constructs from them based on human agendas rather than Spiritual insight. That is what those who use this passage to really oppress women TODAY and those who used the passages on slavery to oppress Blacks in the past & present have done. " Thinking as men do and not as God " .
My point is this : whoever wields authority, whether secular or Spiritual, is under the obligation to wield it properly, it's a grave responsibility, a privilege not a right and the consequences of misuse entail punishment by the One who has authority over all . Thus the husband's authority over wife & household is a double-edged sword . Wielded wrongly it destroys the one who has been entrusted with it. Wielded properly it defends those under the husband's authority from outside harm and " prunes " incorrect beliefs held by those under his protection. Remember, Paul was primarily writing this as a Spiritual teaching first and guide to family structure second. When we lose this context, particularly as 21st century people, then of course we react with outrage over this " blatant oppression " of women. But in 1st century times it isn't . It is rather a treatise on Spiritual authority. - Elizabeth Guthrie Ummmm, yeah. I don't think anyone has spiritual authority over me, so "Thus the husband's authority over wife & household is a double-edged sword" is meaningless to me because there is no such thing. I'm a Quaker precisely because I don't have to submit to the spiritual authority of anyone. Do I learn from the weighty Friends among us? Sure! But submit against my own good judgment? No way.
- Stephen Wheeley David, if one truly believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Incarnate son of God ( as I do and most Christians ) then we not only accept but embrace the fact that Joseph was not literally / biologically Jesus' father. So we agree on that point, which makes it moot, right ? Since Christ never intended to father biological children his being " barred from marrying a Jew " is also irrelevant , for His bride was always intended to be all Believers, ie. The Church .
So what's your point / argument ? We do know that Mary wasn't stoned to death, right, because she had other children by Joseph, some of whom became Jesus disciples. So whatever the Pharisees thought of Jesus lineage means nothing. - David H. Albert I for one am glad that Friends rejected Paul's notion of the spiritual authority of men virtually from it's inception.
Stephen - you can say whatever you like about Jesus, but one thing is for sure, and agreed upon by all four Gospel writers - he wasn't Jewish.
And you clearly have no idea of Pharisees either. 90% of Jews of the period were followers of the Pharisees. It would be like saying that talk of Muslims in Iran is incorrect, for, after all, they are Shia. And let's be clear, when Jesus calls the Jews "children of the Devil", the Pharisees aren't mentioned even once. - Stephen Wheeley Elizabeth, you miss the point. You don't live in the First century AD. I believe in progressive revelation, God doesn't change but we grow in spiritual maturity, so how God reveals His will to us changes. Some things Paul wrote are specific to his time period, some are timeless. You and the others who object to this passage are judging another culture by modern standards. That doesn't work in all cases.
- Stephen Wheeley David, haven't I made it clear that I care not if Jesus was " technically Jewish " ? Didn't Paul cover this when he wrote that after Christ's incarnation the only " real Israelites " were those who accepted Christ and that biology / genealogy meant nothing ? So again, what's your point ? Tilting at windmills , sir.
- Stephen Wheeley BTW, the only actual " Spiritual authority " comes from the Holy Spirit and the Written Word " as we are given discernment of it by the Holy Spirit. " As someone once said " A man with a Bible but without the Holy Spirit is Satan's greatest ally " . This is shown to be true by all the modern " scholars " who parse scripture with only their intellect to give them " understanding " and make fools of themselves in the process. This is why the Church is in so much trouble today, it's been lead by the spiritually blind in many cases for a long time. That's why men try to justify war with scripture and mistake America for God's chosen people and our national interests with Christ's gospel.
- Bill Samuel 1. The idea that spiritual authority should be totally unmediated by humans I think would have been considered by the early Friends as Ranterism, not Quakerism.
2. David H. Albert, no matter what you say is "for sure" Jesus is portrayed as Jewish by a...See More 
- Warren Summers This scripture speaks to me of the fallibility of scripture, and of those through whose hands the impulse of spirit is filtered. This scripture speaks to me of the horizon of human discrimination and predjudice. Seeing that discrimination with the benefit of hindsight I am optimistic. I am grateful that the author of this scripture made the limitation of their time/place/culture so plainly obvious that we might see more clearly because of it. The effort to find a new, less problematic, reading of this text also gives me optimism.
- Ben Jimenez The point of doctrine should be to strive toward the greatest amount of God and or enlightenment...the spiritual authority comes from your faith and belief, the freer it is the more actualized you are in the power if God .. Jesus turned water into wine because his mother asked him to even though he had said it was not his time..if I see the goodness of God in ur heart I will submit to you, whoever you are because I have faith that God with protect me just as he fed his people in the desert for 40 years..but even with all this in mind there are no absolutes in the faith, as Christ said so many times simply put those who have ears let them hear and those who have eyes let them see...free yourself from all ego and submit to all you love....
- Jeanmarie Simpson Warren - thank you. That deeply resonates.
- Paul Davis I believe that the most relevant statement giving context is the passage that follows:
25 gHusbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and hgave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by ithe washing of waterjwith the word, 27 so kthat he might present the church to himself in splendor, lwithout spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.1 28 In the same way mhusbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because nwe are members of his body. 31 o“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, andpthe two shall become one flesh.”
It should be no burden or oppression for a woman to "submit" (whatever that means) to a man who truly loves her enough to lay down his life for her, and views her as an integral part of himself. - Jeanmarie Simpson I think of prominent significance is the last line, in which the author acknowledges it's not simple and certainly not reduce-able to garden variety patriarchy:
This is a great mystery,
but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. - Stephen Wheeley Something I believe most modern people overlook when they read scriptures like this, particularly modern women, is that we fail to realize the mindset of the people involved . Paul didn't write this in the 21st century Western world, but in the First century world. Different culture, different ways of looking at the roles of men & women . What we see as " oppression " they would most likely see as the natural order as established by God in the OT Law. So, if those women accepted this as proper according to the Law, is it reasonable for us to say " No, they were oppressed " . I might also point out the Jewish laws about the husband's family ( brothers ) taking in a woman who was widowed and making her a part of his family. How many " modern men " would do this ? Or " modern wives " allow it ? Cultural context is important in understanding a situation before making judgments.
Further, as noted above, if the husband truly loves his wife and follows the model described by Paul, he will not " oppress his wife " but always treat her with love and dignity, just as he treats his own body. As I noted above, those who are given authority over others ( in any situation ) bear the responsibility for the godly treatment of those persons, whether wife, children, siblings, employees ( or slaves/ servants back then ) and are held by God to a higher standard than those in their charge. As it says in Luke " To whom much is given, much more is required . " I believe Paul is affirming this truth. - Ben Brandon Moffett Which really brings into question the utility of a bronze age theology.
- Bhai Ahimsa I think the Chancellor of the University of the Philippines, Dr. Michael L. Tan, is a "Quatholic". I'm amused at the term. I find it creative.
- David H. Albert Jewish law is NOT about taking in your brother's widow and "making her part of the family." That is deliberate ignorance. It is about making her a second or third WIFE. It is all about sex, ensuring that there will be children in the brother's line. The first wife has absolutely no say in the matter- it is the law.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Always, always, ALWAYS we must remember that this was written in a heavily patriarchal time. Can't we see how spectacular it is, then, for a male to compare a woman to the Church, and compare a husband's love to Christ's?
I do appreciate, for modern feminists (which, I hope are all of us), how difficult this is to swallow. Maybe because I'm an artist, have spent so much time in the theatre and doing Shakespeare, I have learned to look deeper into texts and to work to transcend the trappings of eras. Believe me, it wasn't always thus. The very name "Jesus" used to send me screaming from a room. - Jeanmarie Simpson David - that is really a gross over-simplification. There is much more to it.
- David H. Albert Excuse me, but I had pre-rabbinical training, and the,Talmud is quite clear on this. Women are considered chattel, and upon the brother's death, she becomes the other brother's property. The Levitate marriage is meant to IMPROVE her position, so she might have a son. (Daughters don't count.)
- David H. Albert The brother is also free to kick her out once she has a son. Some say when the son turns 13, others at 30 days old.
- David H. Albert (The reason for 30 days is that is when a firstborn son gets bought back from the Cohanim from being a Temple slave.)
- Jeanmarie Simpson I don't have time to thoughtfully respond to you right now, David. I'm on my way to mass and will check in afterwards. I'm grateful to all of you!
- Kevin Mortimer Thank goodness for the Gospels and the opportunity to become little Christs (Christians). The admonition to lie down beneath ones wife (die) is parallel to Paul's teaching of self-emptying (kenosis) in Philippians 2 intended for all people not just men. One of the amazing ministries I've been blessed to be a part of in addressing what David describes is Friends Bring Hope led by Karen Nash Bauer. William Penn refers to this simply as "No Cross, No Crown."
- Bhai Ahimsa in oriental philosophy, "no mud, no lotus".
- Jason Kilburn Evans Woa! Run that past me again... "Be subordinate to one another..."?! Are you serious? That's communism! smile emoticon
- Jeanmarie Simpson David - I do respect your training and appreciate the knowledge it gave you. But please remember that the Jewish faith has great breadth and depth and, just as with the Christian, laws and scriptures can be and are interpreted in myriad ways. Reform jews do not agree, at all, with your assertion. I, too, speak from personal experience.
- Barbara Harrison Um: The key is that the husband is to AGAPE (strongest Greek word for self sacrificing love) his wife.
- Stephen Wheeley David, I must agree with Jeanmarie that you seem prone to over-simplification and a failure to grasp nuance. BTW, I assumed everyone was familiar enough with Scripture to know that the primary purpose of the brother marrying his brother's widow was to provide a male heir since women couldn't inherit property . That doesn't mean he had to consider her as chattel and couldn't also grow to love her. The OT has many examples of men who had more than one wife and loved them both.
- Paul Davis Ben Brandon Moffett, we're well into the iron age in the middle east by the time of Paul.
Some churches (Dallas Theological Seminary, Chicago's Trinity Seminary, churches called Bible churches") offer up the opinion that interpretation of scripture h...See More - Kevin Mortimer Facebook
Love it! Christ laid down his life for everyone. No one left out! Fresh...See More - David H. Albert Stephen - it's even worse than I wrote. According to the Talmud, if the woman HAS a male heir who is under 13, she still is to be taken as the brother's wife, because she has to be owned by someone, and the son can't yet legally own property.
- David H. Albert Can't have free women running around...
- Stephen Wheeley David, aren't man-made " laws " like these one of many reasons Jesus denounced the scribes & Pharisees for " putting heavy burdens on widows shoulders but not lifting a finger to help them " ? Jesus' teachings and actions revolutionized the status of women in that culture and not just women but gentiles / pagans, those the religious authorities considered " less than human " . It's no wonder they hated Him so much because He exposed their hypocrisy , greed and lust for power. Just by speaking to the Samaritan " woman at the well " He violated at least 3 of the Jewish laws at once. 1 Speaking to a woman who wasn't a family member and in private. 2 Asking a Samaritan for water . 3. Speaking to a " sinner ", a serial adulteress .
Despite the protests of many that Paul neither taught Christ's gospel and was a sexist we see from scripture that Paul actually elevated women and broke Jewish law in doing so . Many women are mentioned as church leaders and teachers, such as Lydia and Priscilla. This would be unthinkable if Paul adhered to what he learned as a Pharisee, right ? - David H. Albert Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not change it even one jot. He considered them God-given laws. And, while the Gospel writers were ignorant men, with almost no knowledge of the Judaism of Jesus time, 'Pharisee' means, 'Jew'. More than 90% of the Jew were of the Pharisee party, which was a reform movement against the Temple priests that made Judaism relevant to people's daily lives. Most of the key sayings of Jesus can be found in Hillel, an early Pharisee leader.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Are you seriously trying say that Jesus wasn't Jewish, David? Or am I misunderstanding?
- David H. Albert I am saying the GOSPEL WRITERS say that Jesus wasn't Jewish.
- Paul Davis Which Gospel writers? There were several, including a certain amount of oral tradition and copying from previous sources.
Sounds like a rather arcane assumption in relation to the preponderance of scholarly opinion. - David H. Albert Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (whoever they were) all agree that Jesus father was not Jewish. In first century Palestine, that disqualified him from membership in the Jewish community. The Torah speaks directly to his condition - he was forbidden from marrying into the Jewish community for 10 generations - and there are other prohibitions, which Jesus followed. Of course the Gospel writers were ignorant of what they were writing about, and two made half-hearted and laughable attempts to trace his paternity through Joseph - which they denied. In John, the Jews - not the Pharisees - the Jews - call him the "son of fornication", which he can't deny, and gets all anti-Semitic on them.
Nothing arcane about it at all. - Jeanmarie Simpson Oh, for the love of GOD! This is absurd in the extreme.
- Paul Davis David H. Albert, I value your opinion on the matter and would like to examine it more closely. Are there scholarly references that you can refer me to, so that I can follow up on this rather unusual idea?
Thanks. - Stephen Wheeley The elephant in the room David Albert continues to ignore should be obvious to all who have read the Bible. The writers of the Gospel and the Epistles never considered Jesus' father to be Joseph but God. That's the whole point of the Incarnation, God becoming one of us . BTW, one of the genealogies traces Mary's lineage back to David, rather than Joseph's . But genetics is irrelevant in this matter, completely irrelevant. The Catholic Church makes a point of insisting on this, btw.
David simply doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, that is his real axe to grind, the paternity issue is simply a smoke screen. 
- Diana Hedrick Stephen and David > please take your discussion to pm. and stop arguing your viewpoints on group. ... this is not what the group is about
- Cynthia Kern Many of Paul's letters are considered of dubious origin. If you read the preface to Paul's letters in the New Jerusalem Bible you will find some interesting information. There is a lot of scholarly disagreement especially on the description of the body of Christ. A bit of a tortured argument. The author is purported to be trying to counter gnosticism, but personally I think the author is trying to deal with converts (Paul's chief purpose in life) and the traditions in many cultures including the Roman one that women had rights.
- Sam Barnett-Cormack Insulting a bunch of Jews doesn't make one antisemitic unless the insults are antisemitic.
- Jeanmarie Simpson Heh. True, Sam. If I call a Jew a big poop-head, it may have nothing at all to do with them being Jewish. smile emoticon
- Paul Davis Rome also recruited Celtic cavalry, people with strong female tradition.
Bernice G Bell I cannot read comments in different languages other than
No comments:
Post a Comment