We cannot claim that “the New Testament opens a completely new era in God’s revelation regarding marriage and family.”1 Jesus clearly indicated that he did not “come to abolish the Law or the Prophets … but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17). Thus, the divine ideal proposed for marriage and the family in the Old Testament is reaffirmed in the New. We can say, however, that the New Testament presents a clarification of Old Testament teachings together with a special unveiling of divine principles and new approaches to wome
The way people relate to each other in the family of faith is necessarily affected by the impact of the gospel. On one side what appear to be new insights are in fact a reiteration of God’s plan from the start: monogamy, marital fidelity, nurture of the home, or the radical elevation of women’s status.2 On the other side we also find reactions of the early church to cultural situations that we do not always understand completely, either because the divine ideals had been perverted in human history, or because we do not have the full picture of the historical context of some passages.
In order to better appraise what the New Testament says on the husband-wife relationship, it is necessary to keep in mind the general view of marital relationships in Hellenistic culture, because the New Testament is written in dialogue with and often in opposition to its historical context.
Greek culture had a long tradition of advocating an ontological inferiority of women with respect to men. Plato attributes to Socrates the expression, which has become commonplace in Western societies, that women are the “weak sex.”3 To be a woman was considered by Plato a punishment for faults committed by the soul in a previous life.4 And although he encouraged the education of girls, so that they may become useful women for society, he considered them “inferior and weaker in all things to men.”5
The viewpoints of the classical philosophers on the nature of women had a strong impact on Western mentalities, since they were taken by the educated sectors of society as unmistakable truths. This is especially so for Aristotle, who was, with Plato, the most influential philosopher of antiquity.6
At the same time, some Jews, such as Philo of Alexandria, interpreted the Old Testament in the light of Greek philosophy in order to make it compatible with Hellenistic mentality. They linked together Jewish traditions and Greek culture, and went even further in their disdain for women. The Essenes are an example for such an attitude.
The powerful influence of Stoicism also helped to spread a negative view of women in the Western world. Thus some Christian writers from the Patristic period reinforced the doctrine (dear to Epictet) of the inferiority of women. The only unquestionable good that they recognized in women was physical beauty, but this was also considered an evil, since this beauty usually led men into temptation. Later on this idea was taken over by many Church Fathers with the results of a theological exaltation of celibacy over marriage and of men over women with consequences that remain until now.
In considering the New Testament position on marital roles, we obviously need to start with Jesus. The gospel of Matthew reports that when Jesus was asked by some Pharisees, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Matt 19:3)—divorce was the almost exclusive privilege of men in first-century Jewish society—He answered, persisting in a very inclusive, plural language, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female … and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt 19:4–6). In this answer Jesus does not treat divorce as a privilege of males. He speaks of marriage and divorce as something involving both man and woman, and stressing this fact by persisting in the use of the plural pronouns “they,” “them,” and “the two.”
When the Pharisees reply, “Why then did Moses command one to give her a certificate and send her away?” (Matt 19:7) Jesus answers, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:8). With this answer Jesus gives an interesting pattern for biblical interpretation when dealing with issues related to marriage. According to this pattern, God’s ideal plan for the relations among spouses is to be found in the creation account rather than in the Jewish traditions—even those dealt with in the laws of Moses. The situation of marriage after the fall is conditioned and marked by “the hardness of the heart” of humankind, while God’s ideal for man and woman was not this way from the beginning (Matt 19:8). On this point Jesus invites His audience to be guided by the ideal of the creation order, rather than by the models that appeared after the fall, even those practiced in Israel.7
In the parallel text of Mark, probably addressed to the churches in the Roman empire, where women could also request divorce, Jesus denies the so-called privilege of divorce to men alone, extending the reciprocity of responsibilities to both spouses: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11, 12). Here, Mark grasps the essential mutuality in marriage restored by the gospel and applies it to the issue of divorce.
In the light of the gospel of Christ we see a glimpse of God’s redemptive intent for restoration of marriage to its first intention at Creation.8 “With regard to gender relations, we see that Jesus elevated the status of women and subverted the structures supporting male privilege and superiority … The trenchant social inequalities of the culture surrounding the New Testament Church were thus undermined and transformed by the grace and calling of Christ. The gospel called neither for a social revolution nor for a passive acceptance of the status quo. Rather, it initiated a transformation of social relations towards, mutuality, and positive interdependence.”9 We may say that because of the gospel the institution of marriage is to be restored to its initial beauty, and therefore couples in Christ are expected to experience a personal process of restoration. Although Jesus’ view on marital roles is not specific, clear principles can be deduced from His attitudes and teachings regarding women, which are clearly restorative of the Eden view of equality and mutuality. Christ reconciles humanity to Himself and restores oneness in human relationships. By the power of His ministry of grace the curse is removed.10
Paul, more than any other New Testament author, deals with the issue of gender roles in marriage. His statement in Galatians 3:28 constitutes a Magna Carta for human relationships: in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The context of this text deals with the oneness of all Christians in relation to baptism: Jewish and Gentile Christians, slave and free, man and woman. The argument rests on the cross of Christ as the source of reconciliation and equal acceptance before God: “Christ abolishes all barriers, whether religious, cultural, or social, that separate people from each other.”11 It urges mutual acceptance, but without denying distinctiveness.12 The six types of persons mentioned are given equal value before Christ, although, in the light of 1 Corinthians 7:17–24, some of them may remain in their roles “in the confidence that such distinctions belong to this transitory age.”13 However it would be surprising if the declared equality would not have any effect on the present life.
It has been observed that the formulation “neither male and female” instead of “neither male nor female” may be an allusion to Genesis 1:27 (and 5:2), and to the ideal equality between spouses before the Fall. In any case, Galatians 3:28 declares that important social differences are abolished through baptism into Christ. It implies that the Christian teaching on equality has profound significance for the issue of identity and it must be instructive to relationships and society. The gospel is meant to transform the mental structures that held human beings in unbalanced relationships of superiority and/or inferiority for each other. Now both Jews and Gentiles, free and slave, are to be united in the church as equals before God.14 In the same way, husband and wife, reconciled in Christ, should be united as equals according to God’s intended order. In the Christian home and church, men and women are to relate to each other primarily as human beings, rather than according to mere gender distinctions.15
We conclude that because of Christ, His ministry, His message, His death and resurrection, His power to re-create a new creation of our lives, we should now view human relationships—including the relationships between husbands and wives—in terms of a basic equality.16
However, Paul speaks in Ephesians and Colossians of what appears to be a differentiation in roles between husbands and wives in the home, namely the headship of husbands and submission of wives. Ephesians 5:22– 24 is a key passage concerning the question of functions within marriage.17 Different views on headship of males over females and on submission of wives to husbands are advocated by many authors on the basis of this text.18
Our first observation is that in the phrase “Wives, submit to your own husbands” (Eph 5:22), the verb “be submitted” does not exist in several of the most reliable Greek manuscripts. This verb (hypotassō) does appear in the previous verse, in a general phrase requiring mutual submission, addressed first to the Ephesians and through them to all Christian believers: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21, NIV) or “be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph 5:21, NASB). This obviously puts the “submissive” role of the wife to her husband in a larger perspective. The participle hyppotassomenoi in Ephesians 5:21 appears as an umbrella concept for the passage following the main predicate “be filled with the spirit” in Ephesians 5:18 which is applicable to all believers. Showing mutual submission appears, therefore, as an important principle of the Christian response to the gospel, and quite likely applied to marriage.
It is important to observe that the verbal form used in Ephesians for “being submitted” is in the middle voice. This form stresses the voluntary act of submission, and is used for actions intended in the interest of the one accomplishing them. It may include the meaning of “being faithful, taking care, helping”19 and even “carrying each other’s burdens” (see Gal 6:2).20
Furthermore, the wording of the passage does not support the conclusion that the expression referring to submission is to be understood in a sense of mere authority. The Greek verbs generally used for submission to authority are hypakouō (Eph 6:1) and peitharcheō (Titus 3:1), both usually translated by the verb “to obey” (cf. 1 Pet 3:1–7; Acts 5:32), and currently used for the respect expected of children to parents (Eph 6:5), of slaves to masters (Eph 6:1), to governors in general and especially to God (see, e.g., “we must obey God rather than men,” [Act 5:29]).
This particular form of submission of the wife is substantiated by a reference to the function of “head” given to the husband, and equated with “respect” in Ephesians 5:33.
Although nothing is said about submission of husbands to wives, the repeated requirements for the husband to love his wife “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), “as their own bodies” (Eph 5:28), or “as he loves himself ” (Eph 5:33, NIV) put very high demands on the exercise of the husband’s “headship” functions. These demands do not exclude the idea of “mutual submission,” since such attitude is required of all believers at the beginning of the section (Eph 5:21–33). The issue is, in fact, how mutual submission is to work. It seems that “headship” gets defined by the major motif of the section—mutual submission—rather than the other way around. Rightly understood, this passage is saying to men regarding traditional husband roles what the book of Philemon says to masters of the master-slave role. We observe in this passage—in the manner of both Paul and Christ—not an outright frontal assault on culture but a subtle (yet not-too-subtle) admonition to bring into these closest of human relationships the culture of Christ, liberating the weak ones from any form of oppression. The New Testament texts seek here, as elsewhere, equality and mutuality. It introduces the notion that the most important roles are no longer defined by gender, but by the giftedness of the individuals—both men and women (see Acts 2:17, 18).
We may conclude that the type of submission required here from wives to their husbands does not imply inferiority. The verb hypotassomai refers often to situations of protection and care. Christ was “submitted” to Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:51), although He was equal with God. He came to serve, and called His disciples who wished to become great and powerful to a life of service (Luke 22:24–28). Submission of wives, in the Christian sense, therefore has to do with obeying God’s calling and accepting the demands of one’s vocation, office, and tasks in marriage within the context of mutual submission requested of all believers. In any case, wives are told to be submitted “to their husbands,” not women to men in general.
The headship role of husbands is briefly explained in Ephesians 5:23, 24: “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. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” Since the metaphorical use of “head” (kephalē) suggests a certain inequality and hierarchy of functions, this statement is taken by some as the main argument for a hierarchical concept of roles in marriage.
It is important to observe that the word “head” in Greek (kephalē), like in many other languages, may refer both to the head of a body and to the head of a group. Normally, for the head of a group (the superior of rank) the Greek prefers to use the word archē in the sense of “the one who commands,” applied to kings, chiefs, governors, etc.21 The choice of kephalē and not of archē, is to be noticed, for kephalē is seldom used in the New Testament with this metaphorical meaning for patrons or rulers except for Jesus. It is, however, used for military leaders, in the sense of “the one who leads personally the army.”22 This may mean that as the head of the home, the husband is not exactly “above” but “ahead,” in the role of leading and protecting his family at the same time.
In Ephesians 5:21–33, the command “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph 5:25) does nuance whatever would be the intended sense of the word “head” and the headship function of the Christian husband. For the command of love Paul uses, as is common in the New Testament, the verb agapaō, a term that has to do with positive actions in favor of others. This higher kind of love includes giving value, uplifting, protecting, honoring, and elevating the wife. The leadership of the husband is not expected to be a leadership that demands to be served, but a servant leadership, on the model of Christ, made of self-giving love.
The other “head” metaphor applied by Paul to husbands appears in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, in a context allowing both men and women to prophesy in public, but requesting the veil on women: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the the head of Christ is God ” (1 Cor 11:3).
The supporters of the hierarchical principle in marital roles argue that “the injunction according to which women should be covered is based on a theology supported by the order of creation. Paul builds his own reasoning on the following hierarchical order: God, Christ, man, woman, with the following observation: Man is submitted to Christ, the woman to man, and Christ to God. Thus is founded the submission principle like a natural law of creation, enforced to everyone, included Christ … Man is the head of woman both because they belong to each other and because man is placed over the woman.”23 But the fact that the word kephalē was also used metaphorically for “origin” and “source of life”24 led others to the hypothesis that Paul’s argument here could be mainly chronological: Christ is the source of life for man (reference to the creation of Adam), man is the source of life of the woman (reference to the creation of Eve), and God is the source of life of Christ (reference to the incarnation of Jesus).25
Whatever might be the very much discussed religious background of 1 Corinthians 11:1–16, and the cultural and/or theological force of Paul’s arguments in Corinth, at least two points work against the equation “headship = superiority.” First, the fact that God is called “the head of Christ” (1 Cor 11:3), which does not exclude that both are equals (Phil 2:5, 6); and second, the fact that Paul concludes the passage stating the perfect mutuality and reciprocity of man and woman “in the Lord”: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman … ” (1 Cor 11:11, 12).26
The statement in 1 Corinthians 14:34, often invoked in this issue, also deserves our attention: “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says …” Since in the immediate context (1 Cor 11:2–16) Paul allows women to speak in church while praying and prophesying, this text cannot be taken out of its context. Here, Paul is not addressing women in general but wives, as 1 Corinthians 14:35 clearly shows: “If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home.” Although the passage does not give us enough information about the exact nature of the problem Paul was addressing, it suggests that the wives who were asking questions in the worship setting while their husband’s prophecies were being tested (see 1 Cor 14:28–35)27 are requested to keep the same attitude that was expected of men during public worship, namely remaining silent.
A similar notion seems to be at the background of 1 Timothy 2:8–15, considered by some scholars as “the most discussed passage in the Pastoral epistles today.”28 The text refers to a church setting that is not yet clear to us. Paul seems to address the case of dominant women—who advocated a wrong emancipation pattern—recalling to them the submissive role of the disciple to the teacher in a learning setting.29 It appears that in the context of the churches where Timothy was working, the leading role of certain women in public worship is probably discouraged for similar reasons as those in 1 Corinthians 14:34–36, and 1 Peter 3:1–6.30 In any case, the passage seems to address the issue of attitudes in church rather than the issue of roles in marriage.31
The traditional Jewish and pagan Greek ideas of headship of men and subordination of women do not fit Paul’s statements on the roles of Christian spouses. In several passages the apostle stresses the complementary roles of the spouses.32 Recognizing their respective places as wife and husband, he invites them to do their best to fulfill their marriage roles. Thus 1 Corinthians 7:4 has a strong statement on mutual submission in sexual relations: “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” Only the context of equal partnership set forth in the Genesis account does justice to these Pauline passages.
Despite any form of headship of husbands and submission of wives that may be acceptable by the gospel, we cannot conclude from the New Testament that either partner is superior to the other in the unique functions and gifts that each one brings into marriage. The gospel does not ignore these particularities. But it frees both spouses from the fear and/ or need of dominance that threatens to limit their mutual fulfillment in a Christian marriage.
One of the foundational questions underlying the discussions on headship and submission in marriage is the question of whether worth is determined by role.33 Can essential equality and functional differentiation exist side by side? At the background of the discussion lies an implicit assumption that a secondary or subordinated role implies diminished personal worth. Yet the equating of worth and role is not biblical. Nowhere in Scripture are worth and role ever equated. In fact, we often find the opposite: “The last will be first.”34 The “suffering servant” is not worth less than those he served. Paul’s analogy of the church as Christ’s body teaches that role and worth are unrelated: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ” (1 Cor 12:12). This was done “that there may be no division in the body, but that that the members may have the same care for one another” (1 Cor 12:25; cf. Rom 12:4, 5).35 In the light of Christ, service becomes the model of all types of relationships among believers. The cross changes everything—even our social and family behaviors. The good news of God’s kingdom is that worth does not depend on what role or function a person performs. Salvation by grace gives to all regenerated human beings equal worth as members of the body of Christ, regardless of role—even in marriage.
Our research has shown us that the understanding of gender roles in the wife-husband relationship according to the Bible remains debated in a world where the struggle for power, control, and domination by one over another prevails.
Our survey of the biblical texts on marital roles shows that the whole Bible sticks faithfully to the principles established in the Genesis account for husband-wife relationships. Equal partnership (described in Gen 2:24) remains the Biblical ideal before the Fall as well as after. Properly understood, the debated notions of “headship” and “submission” are called to play their rightful role in the Christian marriage.36 Both spouses are placed under a gospel call to loving partnership consisting of servant headship and mutual submission.
The gospel’s message of reconciliation and its call to restore God’s plan for humanity also affects marriage roles. The “new creation” brought by Christ (2 Cor 5:17–20) tends to produce a new design for relationships within the family, inspired both in the order of creation and the reconciling power of grace.37 As long as we remain in this world of sin, we need to apply the redeeming light of the gospel to the shifted situation in which we live, until there will be a definitive restoration of all things.
The conclusion for committed Christian couples is to always keep in mind that the final purpose of God’s plan concerning different roles in their marriage relationship is to reconcile all humanity to Himself, and recuperate in this life the ideal harmony with each other and with the Creator that He intended for all. Only in this way can we fully enjoy the communion of love that marriage was supposed to bring.
__________
1 Against K. O. Gangel, “Toward a Biblical Theology of Marriage and Family: Part 3,” Journal of Psychology and Theology (1977): 247.
2 Jesus accepted women as disciples (Luke 8:1–3) and Paul as active partners in the gospel ministry (Rom 16:1–15). See also Clarence Boomsma, Male and Female, One in Christ: New Testament Teaching on Women (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 21–26.
3 See Timaeus, 41d–42c. The New Testament also mentions this concept but in a much more respectful manner: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers (1 Pet 3:7, NIV).”
4 “The men who were brought to existence, and who were cowards or spend their life in wrong doing, were transformed in women in their second incarnation,” Timaeus, 90b–91b.
5 Republic V, 455b-e.
6 In Politics VII, 15.6 (1335a), Aristotle says, “Intercourse of too young people is bad for procreation. In all animal species the offspring of defective or too young parents produces smaller, defective or female individuals. And this is also the case for humans.”
7 It is interesting to observe that Jesus never references Genesis 3 or even alludes to it in His discussion of Christian marriage. He never calls us to enjoy what some have called the “blessing” of Genesis 3. He calls us to marriage as it was designed originally in Genesis 1 and 2. In this we see the great controversy theme of creation-fall-redemption applied to marriage, as it is applied elsewhere to the Sabbath, the only two Edenic “twin institutions” that remain. (Cf. White, Thoughts From the Mount of Blessings [Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1956], 63.)
8 “Marriage has been perverted by sin, but it is the purpose of the gospel to restore its purity and beauty” (White, Thoughts, 64). “Christ came not to destroy this institution, but to restore it to its original sanctity and elevation” (White, The Adventist Home, [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1980], 99.)
9 Mary S. Van Leeuwen, After Eden: Facing the Challenge of Gender Reconciliation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 8, 11. “Without any fuss or publicity, Jesus terminated the curse of the Fall, reinvested woman with her partially lost nobility, and reclaimed for his new kingdom community the original creation blessing of sexual equality” (John Stott, Involvement: Social and Sexual Relationships in the Modern World [Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984], 136).
10 See 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 2:14–17. “Like every other one of God’s gifts entrusted to the keeping of humanity, marriage has been perverted by sin; but it is the purpose of the Gospel to restore its purity and beauty” (White, Thoughts, 64). “Christ came not to destroy this institution, but to restore it to its original sanctity and elevation. He came to restore the moral image of God in man, and He began His work by sanctioning the marriage relation” (White, The Adventist Home, 99).
11 Karen and Ron Flowers, “Looking again at Ephesians 5,” in Celebrate Marriage (Silver Spring, MD: Family Ministries Department, General Conference of SDA, 2004), 71–73; cf. D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (London: SCM Press, 1959), 86.
12 See William Loader, Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 193.
13 Loader, 194.
14 See e.g., the counsel of Paul to Philemon regarding his attitude toward Onesimus (Phil 16, 17). We observe that the pair “male and female” is absent in Colossians 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:13.
15 Paul’s statement was certainly a strong means of affirming the equal status of men and women in a world where women were excluded or treated as second class. This is what we observe in the way the New Testament treats the couple Aquila and Priscilla. They are not only mentioned as partners on an equality basis, but three out of four times Priscilla is mentioned before her husband, against the use of that time (Acts 18:26; Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19; cf. 1 Cor 16:19).
16 “Women should fill the position which God originally designed for her, as her husband’s equal” (White, The Adventist Home, 231).
17 Ephesians 5:22–6:9 contains the most clear Christian Haustafel: “the table of household duties that exist in the mutual relationships of the family” (J. P. Sampley, And the Two shall Become one Flesh: A Study of Traditions in Ephesians 5:21–33 [Cambridge: University Press, 1971], 10). The basic three pairs of household relationships of the time are addressed: wives and husbands (Eph 5:22–33), children and parents (Eph 6:1–4), slaves and masters (Eph 6:5–9). Other instances of Haustafeln in the New Testament are Colossians 3:18–41; 1 Timothy 2:8–15; 6:1–10; Titus 2:1–10; 1 Peter 2:17–3:9.
18 The more traditional view states the following position: “The instruction about wives and husbands found in Ephesians and Colossians, expressed in the key terms of ‘be subject’ for wives and ‘head’ for husbands, teaches distinctive roles for wives and husbands. That instruction may be summarised both as a divinely mandated leadership role for husbands in the marriage relationship and a divinely submission to that leadership for wives” (Piper and Grudem, Recovering, 177). For other views see Flowers, “Looking Again at Ephesians 5,” 91.
19 “In the New Testament the term has a wide range of meaning centering on the idea of enforced or voluntary subordination. … The middle denotes enforced submission in Luke 10:17, 20, but elsewhere voluntary submission is at issue” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, abridged in one volume by G. W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], 1159). William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 855, speak of “submission in the sense of voluntary yielding in love.” Cf. Howell, 57–58, 67.
20 Seven occurrences of hypotassomai in the New Testament refer to husband-wife relationships, and all appear in the middle voice (1 Cor 14:34; Eph 5:21, 24; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1, 5).
21 See Wayne Grudem, “Does kephalē (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal 6, New Series (1985): 38–59. Cf. Peter H. Davids, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 599.
22 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. ed., eds. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Dankev (Chicago, IL: University Press, 1979), 431.
23 August Strobel, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, Zürcher Bibelkommentar 6.1 (Zürich: Tvz—Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1989), 167. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Woman in the Church (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1976), 257, states, “In Gen 2, the subordination (of the woman) is, first of all, suggested by the place that man plays in the creation account. Man was created first …”
24 See B. & A. Mickelsen, “What Does kephalé Mean in the New Testament?” in Women, Authority and the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 97–110.
25 While in this context Paul seems at pains to resist attempts to obliterate male-female distinctions in attire, at the same time he also resists any diminishing of women, arguing in 1 Cor 11:11, 12 that while in one sense man is the source of woman (in the creation story), a woman is also the source of every man (in birth). Such mutual need and recognition is also present in 7:3, 4, for Paul allows both women and men in leadership roles (e.g., praying publicly or prophesying in 1 Cor 11:4, 5; cf. Rom 16:3, 7). The main differences between believers in the church are gifts not genders.
26 Selwyn, Edward Gordon, The First Epistle of St Peter (London: Macmillan, 1964), 182–183, affirms that in 1 Peter 3:1–6 “it is not improbable that homoios, here and in verse 7 below belongs to the code of subordination which underlies the passage. The word idiois delivers the passage from any charge of inculcating ‘inferiority’ of women to men, and shows that the subordination is one of function, within the intimate circle of the home.”
27 Cf. E. Earle Ellis, Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 218.
28 William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, 46 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 94–149. Interpretations range from advocating Paul as liberator and champion of women’s rights to dismissing Paul as wrong and irrelevant in today’s culture. For discussion, see A. J. Köstenberger, T. R. Schreiner and H. S. Baldwin, Women in the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995).
29 For a stimulating analysis of this passage, see Rodríguez, 80–90.
30 Davidson, 278–279. Cf. Ron Flowers “Towards an Understanding of 1 Timothy 2: 9–15” (unpublished paper).
31 For an egalitarian interpretation of this passage in the light of 1 Corinthians 14:33–36, see D. W. Oden-Scott, “Let the Women Speak in Church: An Egalitarian Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:33b–36,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 13 (1983), 90–93.
32 See 1 Corinthians 7:1–8, 9–16; 11:11, 12; Ephesians 5:22–33.
33 Within the scope of this paper it is not possible to enter into this wide discussion. Since we are not dealing here with the role of women in the church but only with the role of wives in marriage, we will set aside any discussion on this hotly debated topic. See also M. S. Van Leeuwen, Gender and Grace: Love, Work and Parenting (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 33–71.
34 See Matthew 19:30; John 13:16; cf. 1 Peter 3:1–7; Luke 7:28.
35 “Even in the Godhead there is an eternal division of roles, but the three members of the Godhead are coequal, of equal essence. After the final judgment ‘the Son himself will be made subject to him (God the Father) who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all’ (1 Cor 15:28). If role and worth are equated, then one must necessarily conclude that God the Son is of less worth than God the Father because he performs a different, subservient role,” Mounce, 148.
36 All of the New Testament passages regarding headship and submission between men and women are limited to marriage relationships. See Davidson, 280–281.
37 “It is not our job to perform the curse more nicely, or in a more spiritual way than the rest of the world does. God has given us a new plan. It is our wonderful freedom to grow in relationships that carry out God’s plan” (Jeff VanVonderen, Families Where Grace is in Place [Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1992], 23).