We have arrived at 1Peter 2:18. Last time, the author was telling his "free" readers to submit to the governing authorities. Now he is telling the slaves to submit to their masters, "with all respect." Not only to the good ones, but also the abusive ones that make them suffer unjustly. Why? Because it's commendable! And who is going to commend them, the bad master? Look what a great job you are doing being brave while he beats you. God loves you for it. Really? Or is this teaching because the author doesn't want christians to have a reputation for fighting against injustice? It's embarrassing and draws unwanted attention. Instead, he wants them to believe that the real credit is in suffering for doing good. The same exact suffering, for rebelling, gets you no points with god.
Then the author tells the readers they were "called" to suffer, because Christ suffered for them, leaving them an example. They should follow in his footsteps. Just so you know, Jesus suffered for about six hours in the entire story of his life, as found in the gospels. So that's all the reader has to suffer, right? The author then tries to stress the suffering of Jesus by quoting Isaiah 53:9, "He committed no sin (had done no violence in stead of committed no sin), and no deceit was found in his mouth." The words in parentheses are what my Old Testament version of that verse says. This committing no sin supposedly happened "when they (who is they?) hurled insults at him." At the time he was suffering, he didn't retaliate, he just trusted god. Be like Jesus, go to your grave suffering in silence.
Then the reader is told that Jesus bore their sins in his body on the tree (presumably referring to the cross.) so that they might "die to sins and live for righteousness." Why? Because they have been healed by his wounds. How does that work? How does one person's physical wounds heal another persons sins? How can a physical body carry the world's sins on it? Sins aren't even actual entities to be carried. They have no weight. They are offenses against an invisible god that does not choose to prove he actually exists.
The next group of people who are told to submit to authority are wives. They are to submit to their husbands in the same way that slaves are to submit to their masters and christ submitted to humiliating suffering. That is what it says. Don't go 'splaining how biblical slavery and biblical marriage was so much better than early American slavery. Didn't we just read about suffering, beatings, insults, and injustice?
Why should the women submit? The author says it's to convince their husbands about the truth of "the word." How are they to do this? They are to forgo finery and all attempts at outward beauty. Instead they are to practice inner beauty by having a "gentle and quiet spirit." That's the way god likes his women. The author tells us that Sarah was submissive like that to Abraham. As if. Go back and read the stories. Sarah was a shrew and possessed such great external beauty that kings and Pharaohs wanted her. The author conveniently forgets that and tells the readers they will be Sarah's daughters if they take her example. He must be writing to Jews. Gentiles would not know anything about Sarah or care if they are her daughters.
Next time we take a look at husbands. Till then. Share this site if you are enjoying the content. Thanks!
Showing posts with label submission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label submission. Show all posts
Friday, May 31, 2019
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Submission, respect, and the study of theology part 2
Last time, I talked about how when we do a bible word study, the average person does not have a masters degree in theology, nor a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, unless they want to rely on what someone else tells them a text means, they must take the translated text at face value, or use the tools available to the general public. Since I do not want to place my eternal fate in another person's hands, I prefer to use the latter methods of bible study. That is what most protestant christians do and what I, as an atheist, do in my writings here on this blog.
Thankfully, the internet gives us many bible study tools that were not always readily available to the masses in the past. I do not accept that there are people who have more authority when it comes to bible interpretation than I do. Mostly because I believe that the bible is a human product, not divine in any way. It only matters what you believe it says, if you think you have an interest in it being truly the work of a god with some kind of power over your life. Even when that is the case, how do so many different versions of christianity have different answers to the same questions?
The person with whom I was discussing Ephesians 5 not only said I was committing "root fallacy" when it came to the translation of phobetai as a cousin to fear. They also said that submission in this passage did not mean obedience or subjection as to a king or god.
According to this person:
"And from my study of the Greek text regarding "submission" it s not about rote obedience, but "to lovingly yield ones own interest in behalf of another" - and is implied from the mutual submission in 5:20. . . it's more about not seeking one's own way to the detriment of the other person than anything else, and not a complete abdication of will."
My response:
"How do you know what the usage and meaning of the time were? Source that supports this assertion, without biased interpretation? And how do you explain the clear statement for the wife to submit to the husband in Everything, if not a complete abdication of the will? Those words submit/submission are translated as obedience in other passages. Frankly, to me, you are reading the passage through rose colored glasses."
Lets look at the Greek interlinear for Ephesians 5 (link). Go to the end of the chapter and read from about verse 20. In the Greek there appears to be only two places with a word that actually means submission (verse 21) or subjection (verse 24). My NIV uses the English word submit four times. Verse 21 has the Greek "hypotassomenoi." Here is the Strong's concordance entry for that word. (Link) When I click on the word itself (link), I find that this form of the word only appears in the NT twice. The other time refers to servants being in subjection to masters.
The word in verse 24, "hypotassetai." has the same Strong's entry as the previous word. When I click on the word itself (link), I find a total of five occurances. Not one appears to have a connotation of "lovingly yielding ones interests on behalf of another." I maintain that the person with whom I was discussing this passage was looking at it with rose colored glasses--they saw what they wanted to see.
Both of the words appear to mean subjection with an implication of obedience, as to a higher authority. I am convinced that this passage means exactly what it appears to mean: Paul is telling wives to obey their husbands in everything. Christian wives do not have personal autonomy. That is unacceptable.
Thankfully, the internet gives us many bible study tools that were not always readily available to the masses in the past. I do not accept that there are people who have more authority when it comes to bible interpretation than I do. Mostly because I believe that the bible is a human product, not divine in any way. It only matters what you believe it says, if you think you have an interest in it being truly the work of a god with some kind of power over your life. Even when that is the case, how do so many different versions of christianity have different answers to the same questions?
The person with whom I was discussing Ephesians 5 not only said I was committing "root fallacy" when it came to the translation of phobetai as a cousin to fear. They also said that submission in this passage did not mean obedience or subjection as to a king or god.
According to this person:
"And from my study of the Greek text regarding "submission" it s not about rote obedience, but "to lovingly yield ones own interest in behalf of another" - and is implied from the mutual submission in 5:20. . . it's more about not seeking one's own way to the detriment of the other person than anything else, and not a complete abdication of will."
My response:
"How do you know what the usage and meaning of the time were? Source that supports this assertion, without biased interpretation? And how do you explain the clear statement for the wife to submit to the husband in Everything, if not a complete abdication of the will? Those words submit/submission are translated as obedience in other passages. Frankly, to me, you are reading the passage through rose colored glasses."
Lets look at the Greek interlinear for Ephesians 5 (link). Go to the end of the chapter and read from about verse 20. In the Greek there appears to be only two places with a word that actually means submission (verse 21) or subjection (verse 24). My NIV uses the English word submit four times. Verse 21 has the Greek "hypotassomenoi." Here is the Strong's concordance entry for that word. (Link) When I click on the word itself (link), I find that this form of the word only appears in the NT twice. The other time refers to servants being in subjection to masters.
The word in verse 24, "hypotassetai." has the same Strong's entry as the previous word. When I click on the word itself (link), I find a total of five occurances. Not one appears to have a connotation of "lovingly yielding ones interests on behalf of another." I maintain that the person with whom I was discussing this passage was looking at it with rose colored glasses--they saw what they wanted to see.
Both of the words appear to mean subjection with an implication of obedience, as to a higher authority. I am convinced that this passage means exactly what it appears to mean: Paul is telling wives to obey their husbands in everything. Christian wives do not have personal autonomy. That is unacceptable.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
More on Ephesians 5, submission, respect, and the study of theology.
Yesterday, in an online discussion, I mentioned my study of the submission passage in Ephesians 5. I told how I had done word study of "submit" and "respect" and how they appeared to actually mean, obey and fear. One person, who had a masters degree in theology and had studied Greek and Hebrew, said that I had committed a fallacy called "root fallacy" by assuming that the Greek words had a strong connection to their roots.
Let's take a look at root fallacies here and here. Basically, the idea of a root fallacy is in the assumption that a person studying scriptures can look up a Greek or Hebrew word in a book like Strong's Concordance and determine the original meaning of a word by learning its roots. This can be problematic because word usage changes over time and there are idioms, nuances, and plays on words that make interpretation more difficult. I can see how that might apply to my conclusions on the words submit and respect. But I am not convinced that it does.
What I found interesting when looking into the phrase "root fallacy" is that it is used, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively within the context of christianity and the study of the bible. It is said to be a kind of etymological fallacy. The etymological fallacy says that the present meaning of a word should rely on its historical meaning. It's a fallacy because present meaning has often changed so much from the historical that there is little correlation. The problem in bible word study is we are not looking for present usage and meaning, we are looking for historical meaning and connotation to begin with. We are not living in those times or speaking those languages any more. So, we must use the tools we have on hand.
The online bible study tool I use the most is Bible Hub. It has multiple bible versions, interlinear texts, concordances, and dictionaries. When I want to find the meaning of a NT word I click on the passage and first view the interlinear text. Then I click on the specific word in the text. Then I will see word roots, definitions, and how often the word is used in the bible, etc. when I click on the interlinear Ephesians 5:33, this is what I get (link). It says "she might respect" under the Greek word phobetai. If I click on the number above the Greek word, I get Strong's concordance reference for the word (link). That page gives me word origins, and definitions. Phobetai has a close word cognate of phobeo which means to fear, withraw from, avoid. The root of phobeo is phobos, which is given three definitions/usages. 1. To flee 2. To fear or be afraid 3. To reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience.
On the side of the page is a list of 95 times the root phobos appears in a NT word. Every single one of those words that I looked up has been translated across versions to mean some form of fear or fright. The word phobetai occurs only once in the entire New Testament. In my NIV it has been translated into the English word respect. What does it look like in other versions? (Link) On the left side of the page we see that some versions translate the word as respect, others translate it as reverence, others as fear. How are we, ordinary people, to know which is the correct approximation to the modern meaning of the historical word?
Let's say that this word uses the third meaning of the root phobos, so it has been translated "respect." Does that first century respect look the same as our 21st century respect? Are there any 21st century Christian women in the western world who venerate their husbands and treat them with deference or reverential obedience? These are words that have been applied to gods and kings, are modern women to apply them to their husbands? Are they truly following the scriptures if they don't? Doesn't reverential obedience come from a position of subjection and possibly fear?
Let's take a look at root fallacies here and here. Basically, the idea of a root fallacy is in the assumption that a person studying scriptures can look up a Greek or Hebrew word in a book like Strong's Concordance and determine the original meaning of a word by learning its roots. This can be problematic because word usage changes over time and there are idioms, nuances, and plays on words that make interpretation more difficult. I can see how that might apply to my conclusions on the words submit and respect. But I am not convinced that it does.
What I found interesting when looking into the phrase "root fallacy" is that it is used, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively within the context of christianity and the study of the bible. It is said to be a kind of etymological fallacy. The etymological fallacy says that the present meaning of a word should rely on its historical meaning. It's a fallacy because present meaning has often changed so much from the historical that there is little correlation. The problem in bible word study is we are not looking for present usage and meaning, we are looking for historical meaning and connotation to begin with. We are not living in those times or speaking those languages any more. So, we must use the tools we have on hand.
The online bible study tool I use the most is Bible Hub. It has multiple bible versions, interlinear texts, concordances, and dictionaries. When I want to find the meaning of a NT word I click on the passage and first view the interlinear text. Then I click on the specific word in the text. Then I will see word roots, definitions, and how often the word is used in the bible, etc. when I click on the interlinear Ephesians 5:33, this is what I get (link). It says "she might respect" under the Greek word phobetai. If I click on the number above the Greek word, I get Strong's concordance reference for the word (link). That page gives me word origins, and definitions. Phobetai has a close word cognate of phobeo which means to fear, withraw from, avoid. The root of phobeo is phobos, which is given three definitions/usages. 1. To flee 2. To fear or be afraid 3. To reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience.
On the side of the page is a list of 95 times the root phobos appears in a NT word. Every single one of those words that I looked up has been translated across versions to mean some form of fear or fright. The word phobetai occurs only once in the entire New Testament. In my NIV it has been translated into the English word respect. What does it look like in other versions? (Link) On the left side of the page we see that some versions translate the word as respect, others translate it as reverence, others as fear. How are we, ordinary people, to know which is the correct approximation to the modern meaning of the historical word?
Let's say that this word uses the third meaning of the root phobos, so it has been translated "respect." Does that first century respect look the same as our 21st century respect? Are there any 21st century Christian women in the western world who venerate their husbands and treat them with deference or reverential obedience? These are words that have been applied to gods and kings, are modern women to apply them to their husbands? Are they truly following the scriptures if they don't? Doesn't reverential obedience come from a position of subjection and possibly fear?
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Ephesians chapter 5, part 2
*We start at verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence to christ." What does that mean exactly? Constant submission to others is not healthy. It opens the avenue for abuse by those who are willing to use the command to submit to manipulate those around them. Paul is going to get specific.
*Verse 22: "Wives submit to your husbands as to the lord." In other words, pretend your husband is your personal savior. If you don't think that is what it means, just wait. Why should you act like your husband is your savior? "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is The Savior." Told you. Paul is going to continue in this vein with the analogy of the husband being like christ, the wife being like the church, christ being like the groom, the church being like the bride. It's kind of wierd, with sexual undertones in the relationship of christ to the church.
*I find it interesting to note that there are no Old Testament scriptures that are addressed to women about how they should submit to their spouses. There are many scriptures in some of the books of prophecy that equate the relationship of god to Israel as one of husband and wife, but I don't recall submission being an issue, just adultery. That analogy was used to describe Israel's supposed unfaithfulness to Yahweh when it followed after other gods. Not that a command for submission was necessary. What options did a wife have, when she was literally owned by her husband? I wonder if first century women in the Roman empire had more freedom? Perhaps that was why Paul felt the necessity to say "Now as the church submits to christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything." (Verse 24) In Everything. That doesn't leave any wiggle room, does it?
*I have looked up this section in the Greek interlinear version and "submission" in these verses of Ephesians clearly means to obey or be subject to, as a person would be subject to a ruler or deity.
*Verse 25: Husbands are not told to submit to their wives, but to love them as christ loved the church. It is christ's loving self sacrifice that made the church holy, so he could give himself a radiant, unwrinkled, and unblemished church. By inference wives are also made holy by a husband's love. What were they before they were wives, before their husbands "loved" them? Unholy? Verse 28: "In this way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies, feeding and caring for them, as christ does the church." This appears to be an oblique reference to the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve is created from Adam's rib and he calls her " bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." However, the man is the head, the part with all the brains and all the control over the body.
*The body analogy is carried further to say that not only is the wife part of the husband's body, the church is part of the christ's body. Now we have proof the author was thinking of Genesis and the creation story when he quotes "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) Not only are male and female one body because of the way women were supposedly created, but they are also united in sexual union as husband and wife. How does this apply to the church? Paul says that is a profound mystery. (He doesn't know.) Then he says this whole analogy was a an object lesson about Christ and the church, but all husbands should still love their wives as they love themselves, and women should respect their husbands. (Verse 33)
*See that word "respect" in that last verse? A quick look up of that word in the greek shows that its root is phobeo- a verb that mean to frighten or terrify. It is from where we get our word phobia. Almost every verse in the new testament that has a word with that root is translated as some form of fear or fright, except this one. Here the translators decided "respect" would be a better fit. Why do you suppose that is?
*Verse 22: "Wives submit to your husbands as to the lord." In other words, pretend your husband is your personal savior. If you don't think that is what it means, just wait. Why should you act like your husband is your savior? "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is The Savior." Told you. Paul is going to continue in this vein with the analogy of the husband being like christ, the wife being like the church, christ being like the groom, the church being like the bride. It's kind of wierd, with sexual undertones in the relationship of christ to the church.
*I find it interesting to note that there are no Old Testament scriptures that are addressed to women about how they should submit to their spouses. There are many scriptures in some of the books of prophecy that equate the relationship of god to Israel as one of husband and wife, but I don't recall submission being an issue, just adultery. That analogy was used to describe Israel's supposed unfaithfulness to Yahweh when it followed after other gods. Not that a command for submission was necessary. What options did a wife have, when she was literally owned by her husband? I wonder if first century women in the Roman empire had more freedom? Perhaps that was why Paul felt the necessity to say "Now as the church submits to christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything." (Verse 24) In Everything. That doesn't leave any wiggle room, does it?
*I have looked up this section in the Greek interlinear version and "submission" in these verses of Ephesians clearly means to obey or be subject to, as a person would be subject to a ruler or deity.
*Verse 25: Husbands are not told to submit to their wives, but to love them as christ loved the church. It is christ's loving self sacrifice that made the church holy, so he could give himself a radiant, unwrinkled, and unblemished church. By inference wives are also made holy by a husband's love. What were they before they were wives, before their husbands "loved" them? Unholy? Verse 28: "In this way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies, feeding and caring for them, as christ does the church." This appears to be an oblique reference to the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve is created from Adam's rib and he calls her " bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." However, the man is the head, the part with all the brains and all the control over the body.
*The body analogy is carried further to say that not only is the wife part of the husband's body, the church is part of the christ's body. Now we have proof the author was thinking of Genesis and the creation story when he quotes "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) Not only are male and female one body because of the way women were supposedly created, but they are also united in sexual union as husband and wife. How does this apply to the church? Paul says that is a profound mystery. (He doesn't know.) Then he says this whole analogy was a an object lesson about Christ and the church, but all husbands should still love their wives as they love themselves, and women should respect their husbands. (Verse 33)
*See that word "respect" in that last verse? A quick look up of that word in the greek shows that its root is phobeo- a verb that mean to frighten or terrify. It is from where we get our word phobia. Almost every verse in the new testament that has a word with that root is translated as some form of fear or fright, except this one. Here the translators decided "respect" would be a better fit. Why do you suppose that is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)