Comments on: nebulous http://www.littleblackjournal.com/2008/09/23/nebulous/ a record of what i am learning|thinking|creating Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:44:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Jason http://www.littleblackjournal.com/2008/09/23/nebulous/comment-page-1/#comment-281 Jason Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:51:00 +0000 http://www.littleblackjournal.com/?p=361#comment-281 So glad you were there! I agree, it's really the nitty-gritty, "how does this work itself out in my relationships?" that these issues become real. Easy answers are definitely hard to find in this whole discussion -- especially given how different our culture is from 1st century Mediterranean. My thought on this particular issue of husband and wife is that the question swirls around what Paul means by "head" in Eph. 5. The husband is the head of the wife (v. 23) and the wife is to respect her husband (v. 33). I can't ignore that Paul has to mean something by head! What I've read is that the head can mean either "head of the tribe" or "headwaters." The first would be along the lines of the man providing some sort of leadership to the wife, maybe doctrinal teaching (since most women weren't educated), or protection, etc. The "headwaters" meaning would be along the lines of being a source of life to, sustaining, etc. I think the "headwaters" one resonates more with the imagery in the passage of Jesus being the head of the church and being its source of life. And if I'm honest, in our marriage we both lead where we feel gifted to lead and so that second interpretation resonates with how we actually see marriage working itself out. Of course, the questions remain, since Jesus does both sustain and lead by example the church. Argh, so many questions! Where I would finally rest is that the whole eph. 5 passage would have challenged men far more than it would have challenged women in the 1st century and it still should today. Women, who were basically their husband's property, are told "submit to your husbands" and then Paul even softens what that means by calling them to "respect your husbands" in v. 33. I think they would have said, "that's cake!," especially since teacher like Philo were writing "wives must be slaves to their husbands, a servitude not imposed by violent ill-treatment but promoting obedience in all things." And then Paul tells husbands to love their wives, serve them, instead of instructing them on how to make their wives obedient?! I can see them being shocked at just being the head; not Lord or Master or Paterfamilias! All that little soapbox to say I think Paul is setting a trajectory by undermining the household codes of his day that points to a mutually submissive marriage of equal partners. Anyhow, that's plenty for one comment, let me know what you think :) So glad you were there! I agree, it’s really the nitty-gritty, “how does this work itself out in my relationships?” that these issues become real. Easy answers are definitely hard to find in this whole discussion — especially given how different our culture is from 1st century Mediterranean.

My thought on this particular issue of husband and wife is that the question swirls around what Paul means by “head” in Eph. 5. The husband is the head of the wife (v. 23) and the wife is to respect her husband (v. 33). I can’t ignore that Paul has to mean something by head! What I’ve read is that the head can mean either “head of the tribe” or “headwaters.” The first would be along the lines of the man providing some sort of leadership to the wife, maybe doctrinal teaching (since most women weren’t educated), or protection, etc. The “headwaters” meaning would be along the lines of being a source of life to, sustaining, etc. I think the “headwaters” one resonates more with the imagery in the passage of Jesus being the head of the church and being its source of life. And if I’m honest, in our marriage we both lead where we feel gifted to lead and so that second interpretation resonates with how we actually see marriage working itself out. Of course, the questions remain, since Jesus does both sustain and lead by example the church. Argh, so many questions!

Where I would finally rest is that the whole eph. 5 passage would have challenged men far more than it would have challenged women in the 1st century and it still should today. Women, who were basically their husband’s property, are told “submit to your husbands” and then Paul even softens what that means by calling them to “respect your husbands” in v. 33. I think they would have said, “that’s cake!,” especially since teacher like Philo were writing “wives must be slaves to their husbands, a servitude not imposed by violent ill-treatment but promoting obedience in all things.” And then Paul tells husbands to love their wives, serve them, instead of instructing them on how to make their wives obedient?! I can see them being shocked at just being the head; not Lord or Master or Paterfamilias!

All that little soapbox to say I think Paul is setting a trajectory by undermining the household codes of his day that points to a mutually submissive marriage of equal partners. Anyhow, that’s plenty for one comment, let me know what you think :)

]]>