Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Male headship in the church today can often be nothing more than an unbiblical system of Apartheid: Women-Injustice#8; Justice#19

Male headship in the church today can often be nothing more than an unbiblical system of Apartheid: Women-Injustice#8; Justice#19

Last updated on: July 23, 2021 at 7:55 am by Rob Dalrymple

Male headship in the church today can often be nothing more than an unbiblical system of Apartheid: Women-Injustice#8; Justice#19 2021-07-23T07:55:42-08:00 Rob Dalrymple

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“The world that human beings create is indeed “man-made.” The system that human beings construct to order their lives in the world sets men and the concerns of men at the center. It develops hierarchies of power in which some human beings rule over other human beings. The patriarchal system that configures the human world, in short, is a social manifestation of human brokenness that results from defiant humanity’s insistence on making the world on its own terms. In this world, Yahweh God has declared, that man will rule over the woman (Gen 3:16). Yahweh’s work to renew creation thus entails restoring interhuman relationships—as well as the divine-human relationship—to their original state.”[1]

The opening quote by Daniel Hawk affirms the position I have been arguing for in these posts. Namely that “a biblical theology of gender today must account for the coming of Christ and the advent of the kingdom of God. If in the kingdom of God, there is a restoration of the equality between male and female—after all, few would dare to contend that there is the subordination of women in the New Jerusalem—and if that kingdom has begun in Christ, then male headship has no basis among God’s people today.”[2]

This is what Paul is affirming in Gal 3:28,

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Now some may wish to respond by noting that there are several places in the NT where the distinctions between male and female remain.

The foundation laid in the previous posts has already provided an answer: male and female were created to rule equally as those who equally reflect the image of God. When read in light of the Ancient Near Eastern culture, this view of male and female was revolutionary!

Furthermore, there are no differences in the New Creation in terms of position and authority among the people of God. This is a fundamental argument of the NT.

In an analogous situation, we see that some of Paul’s opponents were attempting to argue that Gentiles must first become Jews before they can become Christians, Paul unequivocally rejects this notion. Christ has “broken down” the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile and has “made both groups into one” (Eph 2:14).

Furthermore, the idea that societal distinctions remained between slave and free (and therefore so do distinctions between male and female) fails to account for the fact that in the church there were to be no such distinctions.

Sure, society may make such distinctions. But they are not to be found in the Church. This is why Paul is able to refer to Onesimus as a “beloved brother” to Philemon (Phil :16).[3]

This is also why the NT affirms that all persons among the people of God are to submit to one another: “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph 5:21).

Ephesians 5 and mutual submission

Though some may still contend for male headship in the family and church today, the NT teaches a mutual submission of one to another. The model is the cross!

One of the more common passages used to assert male headship is Eph 5:22: “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” The problem with asserting Eph 5:22 as evidence of male supremacy is that the previous verse establishes mutual submission of everyone to everyone: “be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph 5:21).[4]

Paul clearly establishes that in the community of God’s people there must be mutual submission. Wives are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to submit to their wives.

Paul, in fact, a few verses later describes the submission of the husband to the wife. And he does so in terms of Christ’s sacrificial death, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). Why is it that the submission of wives to their husbands is stated plainly, while the submission of husbands to their wives is set forth in comparison to Christ’s submission to the church?

This is simple. In the Greco-Roman culture of the time, the wife was already expected to submit to the husband. In his exhortation to the wives, Paul is merely reflecting a cultural norm for which there likely would have been little objection.

When it comes to the husbands’ submission to their wives, however, Paul was presenting something radically counter-cultural and he may well have encountered resistance—if not all-out opposition. Consequently, Paul states emphatically that husbands are to submit to their wives just as Jesus submitted to the church.

To read Ephesians 5 as though it only affirms the submission of the wives and not also the husbands is to ignore both the clear opening command of mutual submission in Eph 5:21 and the fact that husbands are more strongly exhorted to submit to their wives in Eph 5:25.

Objections to this reading of Gal 5:18-21

Wayne Grudem, one of the more outspoken evangelical proponents for female subordination, suggests that this is not the proper understanding of this passage. Grudem contends that Eph 5:21 only refers to the submission of “some to others.”[5]

Though the next few sentences will be a bit complex, it is critical to respond to this line of argumentation.

The primary question here is the proper meaning of “allelous” (“each other,” or “one another”). The problem with suggesting that allelous means “some to others” (as Grudem contends) and not to “one another” (as reflected in every major English translation) is that it neither fits the context, nor the use of allelous throughout the NT.

Allelous in the context of Ephesians 5:18-21

In Ephesians 5:21, the command to “submit to one another” is the last in a series of commands (participles[6]) that follow the main verb.

In Ephesians 5:18-21, Paul tells the Ephesians, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.” He then lists what this means for them:

they should be “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:19):
they should be “singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord” (Eph 5:19):
they should be “always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father” (Eph 5:20):
they should “be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph 5:21).

Note that the first and fourth of these participles (“speaking” and “submitting”) are modified by reciprocal pronouns (“to one another”; Eph 5:19, 21). Paul is not commanding some of them to speak songs to others, but everyone one of them is to speak “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:21) to one another.

This means that the argument that the command to submit only refers to some in the church in relation to others does not correspond with the context and the use of allelous.

Allelous in the NT

The use of allelous in the rest of the NT affirms that Paul means “to one another” and not “some to others.”

In Gal 6:2 Paul says that we are to “bear one another’s burdens (allelous), and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.” Paul is not suggesting that we only bear the burdens of some.

In 1 Cor 11:33, Paul says, “when you come together to eat, wait for one another (allelous).” Are we to believe that during communion Paul is commanding the Corinthians to only wait for “some” so that some of you may eat together? Was he not commanding them to wait for “everyone” so that they may eat together? After all, the very issue in 1 Cor 11 was that the wealthy were not waiting for the poor but were eating without them.

John 13:35 also affirms that the ethic of the entire NT is that all Christians are called to love one another: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

The manifestation of this love is in the form of a cross-bearing, sacrificial submission to death for one another.

Mutual submission in Ephesians 5

Grudem’s suggestion that allelous only refers to “some” and not “everyone” undercuts the tenor of the NT and Paul’s argument in Ephesians 5 in which everyone in the church is called to lay down their lives for one another.

That Christian love is exemplified by a cross-bearing love toward all is evident in Ephesians 5. After setting forth the principle of mutual submission, which conforms to the NT ethic of love, Paul then applies this principle to the Christian household: i.e., wives and husbands; children and parents; slaves and masters.

In his exhortation to husbands, Paul states that husbands are to “love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). Note that this cross-bearing love among God’s people is explicitly applied to the male-female relationship.

Captains and privates?

Complementarians (those who contend that men are superior in position over women) often contend that the difference in roles between male and female are analogous to the roles of a captain to a private in the military, or a manager to a server in the restaurant.

The problem with these comparisons is that such roles can shift. One person is not born a captain or restaurant manager, while another is born a private or a server.

Such “roles” are the result of one person having more training or experience.[7] The fact is that a captain can be demoted and a private can be promoted.

When the complementarians use “role” to differentiate males and females, they are claiming that there is an essential difference between the two persons (a male and a female) that is inherent within them: i.e., one person was born to serve and the other was born to lead. This means that there are no conditions by which a woman will ever be permitted to rule over a man.

This line of argumentation, however, is no different than the arguments that were set forth to justify slavery and apartheid! This means that the complementarian position is nothing more than a system of apartheid. By its very nature, apartheid is a system of segregation in which roles are determined at birth.

According to complementarians, to use their own analogies, women may never become captains or restaurant managers but are relegated to the positions of private or server for life. As Kevin Giles notes,

“In these cases, ‘difference in role’ speaks of an essential and unchangeable difference, predicated on the premise that some are born to rule and some obey. The rulers and the ruled are not social equals and never can be. This hierarchical ordering is person-defining and given at birth. In ‘complementarian’ literature, this is exactly how men’s and women’s ‘roles’ are understood. Men are born to rule, women to obey. A change in ‘role’ is impossible. Women do not only function subordinately; they are the subordinate sex.”[8]

Such a viewpoint has no place in the NT conception of the inauguration of the Kingdom of God.

In the final few posts on women, justice, and the Bible, I will continue to respond to a few more of the prominent passages that are used to advocate for female subordination.

If you have been blessed by this blog post and would like to see others benefit too, would you please consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to support determinetruth ministries and make possible future posts like this? You can do so by following this link: https://tithe.ly/give?c=3648601

If you would like to have Rob speak at your church or organization in person or via zoom, please let us know by filling out the contact info on the Contact me tab on this site.

[1] Hawk, L. Daniel. The Violence of the Biblical God (p. 65). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.

[2] See my post, XXX

[3] See XXX.

[4] Technically, the context for Eph 5:22 begins in Eph 5:15. Space will not afford the opportunity to go too deeply into this passage.

[5]Grudem, “The Myth of Mutual Submission” in Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, 221-32.

[6] Participles are verbal nouns. They may at times, as they are doing here, act like commands.

[7] I do not intend to deny that prejudice is a part of the system. One person may be a captain and another a private because of gender bias or racial discrimination.

[8] Giles, 23.

Bible

Biblical Interpretation

Previous Post

June 4, 2021

The prominence of Women in the New Testament: Women-Injustice#7; Justice#18

Next Post

June 11, 2021 Does the NT teach the subordination of women? An examination of 1 Pet 3:1-6, 7; Women-Injustice#9; Justice#20

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 000 1 Cor 11:17-34 1 Corinthians 1 John 1 Peter 1 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 10 Commandments 2 Corinthians 2 John 2 Peter 2 Thessalonians 2 Timothy 3 John 666 Abortion Acts 2:42 Ahmaud Arbery AIPAC All Saints Day America antisemitism BDS Beast Betting Bible Bible study Biblical Interpretation Biden Book of Acts Boycott Campus Protests Catholicism Ceasefire Chavez Ravine Christian Nationalism Christian Zionism Christianity Today Christmas Church Colossians Communion Convict Leasing Covid-19 Craig Blaising creation Crucifixion Daoud Nassar Deception Deconstruction Democracy Devotional guide Discipleship Easter Eden Education Election End-times Ephesians Eschatology Ethnic Cleansing Evangelicalism Evangelicals Evolution Fall Famine Fascism FIFA Freedom of Speech Galatians Gary Burge Gaza Gaza; Genocide; Boycott Genesis Genocide George Floyd Global Warming God's will Gospel Gospel of John Gospel of Luke Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthew Government Grace Great Prostitute Hamas Harris healthcare Hebrews HeGetsUs Holy Spirit Holy Week Honor Father and Mother ICJ Immigration Indigenous peoples day Iran Israel Israel Palestine Itamar Ben Gvir James Jesus Joel Willits Jude Just war Justice Kamala Harris Kingdom Of God Kings and Queens land of Israel Law (OT) Lazarus Les Miserable LGBTQ+ Love Luke Mahmoud Khalil Man of Lawlessness Mark Mark of the Beast Marriage Martin Luther King Jr Mercy Mexican Repatriation Military-Industrial-Complex Ministry Mission Money NAFTA Nakba Netanyahu New Creation New Testament Nicaragua Nicodemus Non Violence Occupation Pacifism Palestine Parable Paul Peace Pentecost Peonage Philemon Philippians Politics Poor Power Prayer Pride Month Priests Pro-life Propaganda Prophesy Prophet Qatar Queen Elizabeth Racism Reconstruction Redemption Reformation Resurrection Revelation Roe v Wade Romans Romans 13:1-7 Rome Russia Sabbath Samaritan Seals Sermon Settlements Slavery Spiritual gifts Taxes Tent of Nations Terrorism The Beast Theology Titus Torture Trump truth Ukraine Uncategorized Veteran's Day War Warsaw Ghetto wealth Wedding Women World Cup 2022 Worldview Worship Wrath Yemen Zionism

Select a Month September 2026 May 2026 February 2026 November 2025 October 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 August 2018 June 2018 May 2018 March 2018 September 2017 July 2017 May 2017 November 2016 October 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I became queen through a beauty contest, hiding my Jewish identity at my cousin's advice. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Vashti Esther Sarah Ruth

Support this
Column