Tag-Archive for » authority «

Worship in Corinth

Monday, May 13th, 2013 | Author:

That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.  1 Corinthians 11:10 ESV

Because of the angels – Sometimes when you have half a conversation in a letter from another culture and another time, you can barely figure out what the argument was all about.  You have to piece it together like a jigsaw puzzle.  The problem with this particular jigsaw puzzle is that all the pieces are the same color.

Paul writes about head covering.  The very fact that he even broaches the subject tells us that something was happening in Corinth that raised the question about what men wear on their heads during worship.  Interestingly, this isn’t about written Torah commands.  As Paul says, it’s about traditions.  But traditions are extremely powerful and often guide our behavior despite what the Scriptures actually say.  So Paul provides some advice to this struggling assembly.  First, he sets the proper relationship between the parties.  Gilbert Bilezikian’s work makes it clear that “head” (kephale) in verse 3 is about origin, not authority.  Yeshua as Creator is the source (origin) of Man.  Man is the source (origin) of ishshah (woman – Genesis 2) and YHWH is the origin of Yeshua as Messiah (“This is my beloved Son”).  Once Paul establishes this relationship, he turns to its implications for worship.  According to Paul, if a man covers his head during worship, he disgraces his relationship to his own origin.  This may seem strange to us because we don’t think in terms of the symbolic nature of heads or head coverings.  But Paul does, and in Corinth this was apparently an important issue.  Bilezikian suggests that the imagery is like Adam standing before God in the Garden.  Uncovered.  Naked.  Transparent.  For Paul, covering the head (a symbol of a man’s dependence on his Creator) is like Adam’s fig leaves.  It becomes a sign of hidden agendas.  No, says Paul, stand naked before your Creator, that is, completely transparent.  Don’t put anything between you and Him that represents what happened in the Garden.

Then Paul tackles the question about women in worship.  If a woman uncovers her head, she makes herself like the one “whose head is shaved.”  Paul must have some particular cultural circumstance in mind since there is no Torah instruction about women shaving their heads.  Even the Talmud does not require this.  So the custom must have had something to do with Corinthian culture.  There are two cultural traditions that may have been in place in Corinth.  The first was the practice of shaving a woman’s head if she were caught in adultery.  The second was the practice of shaving the heads of temple prostitutes.  Obviously, either case would cast aspersions of the synagogue assembly in Corinth.  Imagine how difficult it would be for a Gentile convert from either circumstance to come into the Messianic fellowship of Corinth.  Paul simply says, “Cover your head,” and rather than single out those whose past was dishonorable by head covering, he suggests that all the women do the same.  Now no one call tell the difference.  Unity and equality prevail.

Paul provides further rationale about this issue with head covering in verses 7-10.  While most congregations emphasize the first half of verse 7, few recognize the implications of the second half.  The first half tells us that man is the glory of God.  Therefore he should not hide this symbolic relationship with a head covering.  Great!  Men hold this up as if it endorses their importance.  But consider the second half of the verse: “but the woman is the glory of man.”  The analogy goes like this:  God’s glory is man.  Man’s glory is woman.  So, who’s the final statement of full glory?  Woman, of course.  She incorporates all of Man’s glory which incorporates all of God’s glory.  No wonder she is the last of God’s creative acts, the pinnacle of His work.  She is the final, ultimate masterpiece.  In fact, the Greek conjunction, de, could be read “and she is the glory.”  The point is that this is not a comparison of relative worth.  It is a statement about order of creation and representation of God’s handiwork.  God’s glory shines through, step by step until the final design.

But just so we don’t jump to the feminist conclusion, Paul adds verse 8.  What is the proper relationship between these two glory-exhibiting creations?  Woman was created from man.  In keeping with the Genesis 2 account, Paul corrects any tendency to assert that woman is in a higher position because she is the final figure of glory.  No, says Paul, she might be last in the design effort but she is designed for the purpose of the ‘ezer kenegdo, the one who brings blessing to her man.  Hers is not the role of tyrant but rather of servant.  She is God’s glory-summary purposed to serve another (just like the way God acts, wouldn’t you say?).

Now we encounter a translation bias.  The NASB translates verse 9 as “woman for man’s sake,” but the Greek text says nothing like this.  ESV says “woman for man,” but that still isn’t right.  The preposition is dia, usually translated “through.”  Read as “through” it follows perfectly the Genesis 2 account.  Man was not created through woman (although obviously every man since is born through woman) but woman was created through man.

Finally we encounter our strange verse.  In the NASB, it begins with “therefore,” reminding us that what Paul says next is based on his prior argument.  And what is the prior argument about?  The argument is about what happens in public worship.  Because of this prior argument about order and decorum in public worship, “a woman ought to have authority on her head.”  Better read that again.  Did you notice that the gloss, “a symbol of” has been removed from this reading?  That’s right, it isn’t in the Greek text.  The Greek text says that a woman ought to have exousian epi kephales.  The NASB and ESV add the gloss “a symbol of.”   But Paul isn’t thinking about symbols.  Symbols were vehicles used to speak about worship.  In the Corinthian culture, a man is uncovered in order to honor God’s name in worship.  A woman covers in order not to dishonor God’s name in worship.  But when it comes to authority, that rests on a woman’s head.  And that is related to the angels.

What does Paul mean?  When authority rests on someone’s head it means that the person acts on her own.  She makes her own choices under her own power.  Exousia is the power to act free from external restraint.  It is the right of choice.  Angels freely choose to worship YHWH.  They continuously sing His praises, not because they are compelled to do so but because they desire to do so.  So a woman with exousia on her head may choose the same and is allowed to do so through (again, dia) the exemplar of the angels.  Women in worship may choose to celebrate His name, to honor Him and praise Him as they desire.  They are not bound to the restrictions of the Corinthian culture when it comes to public worship.

It takes some serious additions and cultural extractions to interpret this verse as an endorsement of male hierarchy.  It’s time to straighten out the glosses – because of the angels.

Topical Index:  angels, angelos, worship, women, authority, 1 Corinthians 11:10

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 8 Comments

Accusative Assignment

Wednesday, March 27th, 2013 | Author:

Also, he has put all things under his feet and made him head over everything for the Messianic community, which is his body, the full expression of him who fills all creation.   Ephesians 1:22-23  Complete Jewish Bible

Head – The Greek word kephalen in this verse is a singular, feminine noun in the accusative.  This means that the word “head” is the direct object of the verb “made” (root – didomi).  But this is a problem.  If the word kephalen is the direct object, then the verse should read “and made head” not “and made him head,” because syntactically the pronoun “him” is the direct object of the verb “made.”  This is why the ESV inserts the adverb “as” in its rendering “gave him as head.”  You will also notice that the ESV correctly translates the aorist verb form of didomi as “gave,” not “made” (“put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things”).  What does this little lesson in Greek teach us (beside making us wish we never had to deal with any of this)?

We find that the idea that God made Yeshua head needs to be slightly revised.  The verb alone tells us that this is a gift, not a disposition.  We see that the focus of this act is Yeshua, not his resulting position.  In fact (and this is the real point), the word kephalé most often does not mean “head” as a sign of authority, but rather as a designation of what comes first.  It is used for the top of a wall, the prow of a ship, the mouth of a river, the start of an era and the point of departure.[1]  Gilbert Bilezikian has provided an exhaustive analysis of kephalé in ancient literature and concludes that “the word kephalé is never used as ‘authority’ in the New Testament.”[2]  With this in mind, the Ephesians passage should be translated, “he has put all things under his feet and given him first position over everything.”  This fits Bilezikian’s research and the use of kephalé to describe prominence.  Yeshua is the first in the Messianic community.  He has been given prominence as the first expression of the new man, the first fruit of the renewed covenant, the first expression of the renewed creation.  Even the use of hyper (translated “over”) has the meaning “beyond” as a spatial relation, not a hierarchical one.

Most importantly, even in this verse we find no warrant for the idea that there is a hierarchy of authority established by God.  The common belief that God instituted an arrangement of relative importance such as “Christ – Man – Woman – Child” is simply not Scriptural.  It might be convenient for men who desire divine endorsement of their penchant to be in control, but it is, in my opinion, a first-rate heresy that flies in the face of Scriptural evidence and diminishes God’s intended role for women.   For those who wish to live according to the text, such assertions must be abandoned regardless of prior tradition.  As Katherine Bushnell pointed out more than one hundred years ago, how can men assert some sort of biblical sanction for authority when the expressed declaration of the Messiah is that there is no difference between men and women in the Kingdom?

Topical Index:  kephalé, head, authority, Ephesians 1:22-23


[1] See TDNT (abridged), kephale, p. 429.

[2] Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles (Second Edition), p. 249.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 10 Comments

An Oxford Education

Monday, January 21st, 2013 | Author:

But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.  James 3:17  NASB

Gentle – When I arrived at Trinity College, Oxford as a graduate student, I was invited to dinner with the president of the college.  I assumed that this was a formal “meet and greet” occasion for all incoming new students.  Imagine my surprise when I arrived at the president’s home to discover that the dinner was for six – two Nobel laureates and their wives and me and my wife.  It was one of the most interesting and gracious dinners I have ever had.  That’s when I discovered something quite special about Oxford.  The faculty at Oxford are gracious because they have nothing to prove.  They are already the best in the world.  They have what James would call epieikes, gentleness expressed from a position of full power and authority.

Paul uses this same word to describe the “meekness” of the Messiah (2 Corinthians 10:1).  The translation belies the real impact.  Yeshua HaMashiach is epieikes because He has the full power and authority of God Himself.  He has nothing to prove.  It all belongs to Him.

I wonder if we understand what this means for us.  Do we spend effort proving our faith to others?  Are we caught in the endless battles of proof texts and theological arguments?  Do we feel assailed on all sides by critics?  If James has anything to say about this, he would tell us to stop the nonsense.  We have nothing to prove.  That godly wisdom from above which is shown in moral and ritual purity, which is exhibited in the continual conversation with the Father, requires no other justification.  We are children of the One to whom all authority has been given.  What do we have to prove?

Peter addresses those women who were so anxious to have their disobedient husbands come to the truth that they couldn’t stop insisting on change.  In gentleness, he tells them to stop talking.  The “proof” is in the pudding.  Live it and let it be.  Did Yeshua enter into theological arguments with His detractors?  Did He give Scriptural justifications?  Or did He simply state the claim and note that those with ears would hear and the rest would not.  There is a world of difference between genuine inquiry and the demand for validation.  Knowing the difference is part of godly wisdom.

The community that honors Yeshua as the first-fruits of righteousness is unconcerned about the rhetoric of justification.  “Go and report to John the things that you hear and see,” said Yeshua to John’s talmidim.  The actions speak for themselves.  Gentleness is not argument.  It is the action of righteousness seen by men.

If the talmidim show up at your door and ask, “Are you the one or should we look for another?” what will you tell them?  Will you tell them to go report what they hear and see in your life?  Will that report be enough to prove your claim to be His disciple?

Topical Index:  gentle, epieikes, authority, proof, James 3:17

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 18 Comments

Top of the Pyramid

Monday, December 10th, 2012 | Author:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.  1 Corinthians 11:3  ESV

Head – Gilbert Bilezikian’s research into the Hebrew and Greek words translated “head” clearly and convincingly shows that “head” is to be understood as “source,” not “authority.”[1]  Bilezikian’s work results in this summary: “This survey indicates that head, biblically defined, means exactly the opposite of what it means in the English language. Head is never given the meaning of authority, boss or leader. It describes the servant function of provider of life, growth and development. This function is not one of top-down oversight but of bottom-up support and nurture.”[2]

It’s so refreshing to see scholarship that uncovers the errors of a history of misogyny.  The idea that a husband rules over a wife because of some divine edict is completely a fabrication of a chauvinistic theology.  It must be rejected

But now that we see what Paul was really saying, that the true role of the “head” is as a servant, we also discover something else – something that further illuminates the Genesis account of the formation of the woman as ‘ezer kenegdo.  The Church does not exist for its own purposes.  It exists to fulfill the purposes of its source, Christ.  As Hegg notes, “If ever the centrality of the life of Yeshua is eclipsed by other things, regardless of their importance, the congregation has lost her primary mission.”[3]  In other words, Christ serves the Church by providing it with life and the Church serves Christ by enabling His purposes and goals to become a reality in this world and the next

Apply that same logic to the Genesis account.  The man is the source of the woman (from ish comes ishshah).  But the man is not the authority over the woman (that doesn’t occur until the man makes it so after the Fall).  The man is mutually submitted to the woman in order that they may both fulfill the purposes of God.  But just like the Church, the woman exists because of the man and  her role is to insure that the goals and purposes of the man become reality.  She serves him, not as slave or domestic attendant, but as the one who is committed to do whatever is necessary to bring about God’s will in his life.  And as Hegg says, if this goal is eclipsed by anything else, no matter how important, the real purpose of her existence will be diminished.

The man lives in order to fulfill the commandments of God.  The woman lives in order to bring about the fulfillment of the commandments of God in her man.  The man cannot fulfill those commandments without her guidance, nourishment, support and love.  And the woman cannot fulfill her godly design without committing herself to see her man as God sees him.[4]  Perhaps this is why the rabbis taught that a man without a wife reduces the image of God in the world.  Perhaps Paul’s remarks about headship have a backwards illumination to them as well.

Topical Index:  head, ‘ezer kenegdo, authority, Church, 1 Corinthians 11:3


[1] Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles.

[2] http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

[3] Tim Hegg, The Letter Writer, p. 116.

[4] Do not think that this means there are no roles for unmarried persons.  There are, of course.  They just aren’t the same as the roles for those who have mutually submitted to each other.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 7 Comments

The Believer’s Bill of Rights

Sunday, October 28th, 2012 | Author:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God  John 1:12  NASB

Right – Here is the Greek word exousian.  This word means “permission” or “authority.”  The root behind this word carries the meaning of having the power to do something.  But in this verse we need to notice carefully that this power or authority is not something that we have in ourselves nor is it something that we can claim as an entitlement.  We only receive it as a gift.

Entitlement and rights are very much in vogue today.  People and groups who believe that their “rights” are under attack and that they are entitled to fair treatment or special consideration constantly bombard us.  But the Bible takes a different view.  What we have is given to us as a gift, not as something we deserve or earn.  God is gracious enough to provide many gifts to His children, even when we do not appreciate His goodness.  So many times we act as though our possessions belong to us because we “earned” them.  We often treat life the same way.  “I deserve better than this.  I worked hard for what I have.  It’s mine!”  A fundamental component of the American way of life is the assumption of inalienable rights.  Whatever the reasoning, entitlement ignores the God who provides everything.  We should be reminded of Paul’s warning.  God abandoned those who did not acknowledge Him as sovereign and were not grateful for His gifts.

In this verse, John tells us that the most important factor of life cannot be earned and is not a right.  Our relationship with God depends entirely on the permission given to us by Yeshua.  Without His permission, we are excluded from this relationship.  There is no entitlement, only gift.  Anyone living in the first century in Israel clearly understood that life depended entirely on the permission of the Emperor (and ultimately, on God).  Unfortunately, our democratic thinking has effectively removed us from the reality of life’s fragile existence.

How much of our lives would change if we began each day by asking permission from God to exist in His world?  How many of our struggles would disappear if we realized that we are not entitled, only permitted?  How would my life change if I put my concern for my “rights” in the hands of God?  What if I just concentrated on the one right that I have been given – the right to become His child?

The first prayer of the observant Jew, the prayer said before getting out of bed, begins like this, “I gratefully thank You, living and existing King, for returning my soul within me with compassion.  Abundant is Your faithfulness.”*  That settles the issue, doesn’t it?

Topical Index:  John 1:12, right, permission, authority, exousian

 

* In Hebrew, Modeh ani lefaneha, melech veka-yam, shehehezarta bee nishmati behemla.  Raba emunatecha.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 2 Comments

A Responsible Hierarchy

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012 | Author:

“Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass unless the Lord has commanded it?”  Lamentations 3:37 NASB

Command – This Hebrew word (tsiva) has an important place in our thinking about God.  Here it is found in a book that most of us don’t know very well.  Lamentations is made up of five poems.  They are laments about the destruction of Solomon’s Temple.  These poems were read every year at a specific time as a national day of mourning.  It is about suffering on a national scale.  It speaks eloquently of God’s interaction in history.

The word here is not the same word for “commandment” although they are related.  Here is the word means “an instruction or an order from one who rules.”  Today we need to look at the entire sense of this verse.  It is a rhetorical question.  That means it is a question that implies an expected answer.   Here the answer that is expected is:  “There is no one who makes anything happen unless God orders it to happen.”  The reason that this implication is important in the Jewish national day of mourning is that it reassures the believers that the destruction of the temple occurred only because God allowed it to occur and only to serve His purposes.  It was not accident, tragedy, fate or the will of evil people.  God stood behind everything.

Maybe we need a national day of mourning to remind us that God stands behind everything now.  So often we feel that bad things are out of control.  Terrorism, catastrophes, genocide and all kinds of individual and corporate disasters seem to challenge our faith in God’s care.  But here is the reminder.  God stands behind it all.  Nothing happens unless He says so.  We can mourn, grieve and lament.  God hears us.  But life is not out of control.  We are not left helpless.

Many of us have gone through great tragedies.  God wants us to know that He is still the One giving the final orders.  Nobody and nothing can get to us without His involvement.  That doesn’t mean our lives are protected from bad things.  Obviously not.  It means that no matter what happens, God is there.  Are you living a lament?  Do you see God there?  If not, maybe you need to take a deeper look.  The Man behind history always leaves clues.

There is one other implication of the word sawa that needs to be articulated.  Sawa only works within an assumed hierarchy of responsibility.  Commands are passes from one person to another with the expectation that they will be followed.  God is in charge, no doubt, but the execution of His will depends in part on the acceptance of the hierarchy of order.  And we are not at the top of the chain of command.  In fact, the more people refuse to acknowledge the natural order of things (God’s design), the more God’s will is not accomplished as He planned it.  That doesn’t mean His will can’t be done.  It just means that it won’t be done with the cooperation He intended.  Tsava means following according to design.

Topical Index:  authority, hierarchy, command, tsava, Lamentations 3:37

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 6 Comments

The Mark Of The Beast

Friday, April 23rd, 2010 | Author:

They are dreaded and feared; their justice and authority originate with themselves.  Habakkuk 1:7

With Themselves – The Chaldeans are coming!  Habakkuk’s warning is a call to immediate repentance in advance of certain destruction.  God’s people are about to be chastised in a most severe way.  As if that isn’t bad enough, Habakkuk provides an insight into the reason the Chaldeans are so dreaded and feared.  What he says about them is true of every nation that does not serve YHWH.  It ought to make us shudder in our shoes.

Mimenu is the Hebrew for “of himself.”  Our English translation makes it into a plural because we normally view a group of people (the Chaldeans) as plural.  The Hebrew language merely recognizes that this people comes as if it were a single enemy.  Just like Israel, the Chaldeans are one – one dreaded executor of God’s justice.  Why are they so dreaded and fearful?  Because they make up their own rules to the game.  Their view of justice and authority does not depend on the character of YHWH.  They have assumed the role of God’s sovereignty.  They come to do their own bidding.  Run while you can.

If history teaches us anything at all, it teaches us that men are the harbingers of hell on earth.  Ha-satan hardly needs to enlist fallen angels to bring death, destruction, suffering, torture and torment to humanity.  We are more than capable of inflicting unspeakable evil upon our own kind.  Without YHWH’s standard of justice and authority, human civilization quickly becomes human degradation.  Any people who believe that they make up the rules as they go along is a people to be feared.  They may offer many apparent rewards, but in the end, they serve themselves at cost to everyone else.  Habakkuk knew what was coming.  Mimenu is the religion of “I am my own god.”  Apparently we have learned very little since the Chaldeans.

What do the righteous do in circumstances like these?  Actually, they inherit collateral damage.  When the people fall, the righteous usually go with them.  No wonder Proverbs says that the righteous weep when the wicked come to power.  They know what Habakkuk knew.  Sometimes being salt and light stings and burns.  Sometimes the only way to be the redemptive change-agents in a world in collapse is to be carried off with the powerless or to die with those who take a stand.  Being God’s man or women doesn’t seem to mean escape.

The mark of the beast might be 666 in some books, but for most of us, the mark of the beast is the self-proclamation of divinity.  The mark of the beast is not doing justice, not loving mercy and not walking humbly with God.  That should be a lot easier to identify.

Topical Index:  mimenu, of himself, Chaldeans, Habakkuk 1:7, justice, authority

ISRAEL DVDs:  If you haven’t ordered yet, please do so.  The lessons are wonderful and your purchase is really needed now.  Thanks.  Click here.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 10 Comments

Thematic Interpretation

Thursday, December 17th, 2009 | Author:

Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: “He jealously desires that spirit which He has made to dwell in us”? James 4:5

The Scripture – When you read this verse, do you simply assume that James is quoting some verse in the Old Testament (Tanakh)?  Better check your cross references.  You may find some suggestions, but you won’t find any verses that say what James says.  Careful reading discovers that James isn’t actually quoting Scripture at all.  At least, he is not quoting Scripture in the same way that we think about quotations.  So, why does he mention the Scripture here?

There are two important lessons to learn from James’ vocabulary.  The first is right on the surface although it is easily overlooked.  It is simply this:  for James the Tanakh is God’s word.  It is the relevant source of authority for understanding what God says about us.  What we call the Old Testament, James calls Scripture.  It has not been set aside.  It has not been surpassed or made obsolete.  It has not been abolished.  It is still the final rule of faith and practice in the believing community, years after the resurrection of Yeshua.  James appeals to the Scripture without hesitation, explanation or justification.  What God says in the Tanakh is directly applicable to Messianic believers.

Once that point is settled, we can examine the next discovery.  James isn’t actually quoting any particular passage in the Tanakh.  He is summarizing a grand theme of the Old Testament.  That theme, found throughout the Tanakh, is the righteous jealousy of God over His people.  God desires (intensely) that His people act with absolute fidelity toward Him.  He is jealous over the fact that He chose us.  He desires that the spirit He gave His chosen people directs all their activity toward worship.  He will not and does not let us go.

We all know this indubitable fact of spiritual existence, but what James makes clear is that all of the Tanakh is riddled with this divine jealousy and all of it is useful for teaching, instruction and correction.  Actually, the fact that James doesn’t quote any particular verse but rather summarizes a consistent theme is of great benefit to us.  It teaches us that the early church did not parse out some books of the Old Testament as acceptable and others as unacceptable.  The theme of the jealous God is found everywhere in the Old Testament, and as a result, James’ vocabulary endorses the whole of the Old Testament.  When James uses the Greek ‘e graphe, he has in mind everything from Genesis 1 to Malachi 4.  James’ Bible was the Hebrew Scripture.  Its themes, instructions and purposes were valid for his community.  That means the Hebrew Scripture was the authority for the early church.

Is it still your authority today?

Topical Index:  Scripture, James 4:5, graphe, authority

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 3 Comments

Gender Idolatry

Monday, November 30th, 2009 | Author:

“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other.” Matthew 6:24

Serve – Yeshua is pretty clear about divided loyalty.  No one, man or woman, can serve two masters.  The Greek word used here is douleuo, a verb that literally means to take the position of a servant, a doulos, a slave.  No one is able to accept slavery to two different authority figures.

Most of the time, we apply this famous verse to the issue of materialism.  We act as though the subsequent remark, “You cannot serve God and mammon,” is the only application of this verse.  But that is foolish.  Yeshua doesn’t restrict the principle to finances.  He merely makes one application of the general principle.  Divided loyalty doesn’t work.

Katherine Bushnell provides what I consider the final closing argument about the position of husbands and wives by applying this general principle to the case of marriage.  If no one can serve two masters, then it follows that no woman can serve two authority figures as the same time.  A woman cannot be in subjection to her husband and be in subjection to God.  The same general principle applies.  She will love one and despise the other; hold on to one and hate the other.  Clearly, Yeshua expected every follower to recognize the foolishness of this division and put loyalty to Him ahead of everything else.  This is no less the case in marriage.  A woman who serves her husband as a slave (douleuo) cannot be God’s slave, and a man who insists on a wife’s obeisance stands in opposition to the command of the Lord.  When Paul and Peter exhort wives to submit to their husbands, they simply cannot mean wives should act as their husbands’ slaves.  That would violate everything Scripture teaches about the proper relationships with the Lord.  If the principle is true about money, it is all the more true about relationships.

This tells us that submission is not servility.  It is not about “who’s in charge here,” or “who’s the head (authority) of the house.”  Submission must be something other than a hierarchy of slave service.  We are all enjoined to submit to one another as unto the Lord, so whatever submission means, it must apply equally to both husbands and wives.  It cannot be about an authority hierarchy or it would fall under the two-masters indictment.

What does it mean to serve from an Old Testament perspective?  The Hebrew word is avad, the word for work, serve and worship. God Himself uses this verb when He instructs Pharaoh to let the people go so that they might serve Him.  Now we see the bigger picture.  My service to God is my work and my worship.  With this in mind, no husband can possibly insist that his wife serve him.  That would require the wife to worship her husband.  It’s time to stop this gender idolatry.  The partners in a new covenant redeemed marriage do not endorse or demand an idolatrous hierarchy.  They act as one on their way back to the Garden.

Topical Index:  slave, master, marriage, douleuo, avad, authority, Matthew 6:24

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 7 Comments

Code of Honor

Friday, November 06th, 2009 | Author:

“But not so with you, but let him who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.” Luke 22:26

Not So With You – The leadership fad will run its course.  Eventually we will learn that leadership is a verb, not a noun.  Then we will realize ubiquitous leadership training is wasted effort.  We should be training those who are born leaders, not expecting everyone born to become a leader through training.  Once we see this distinction, we can concentrate on Yeshua’s insight into leadership.  Leadership is serving, a verb for everyone.  It is the application of each person’s unique gift for the benefit of others.  Leading is serving someone else according to the way God made me.

Yeshua’s disciples thought leadership was a matter of status.  The greater the rank, the more important the person.  Those who lead are at the top of the pyramid.  But Yeshua turns it upside-down.  Serving others is God’s measure of leading.  It’s not a position.  It’s an action – an action that anyone can perform.

Now that we’ve settled this issue, we should notice one important implication.  The phrase “not so with you” (in Greek humeis ouk outos) is gender neutral.  Oh, it’s clear Yeshua is addressing His disciples, but we can hardly justify the claim that His statement applies only to them.  Yeshua declares that anyone who is a disciple will follow this exhortation.  So, every man and every woman who claims Yeshua as Lord will lead by serving another.  Seems obvious, doesn’t it?  If it is so obvious, then how can we justify the claim that husbands are the rulers of their homes and wives are to be subservient to husbands’ wishes?  Should we ignore Yeshua’s declaration?  Does serving another apply to everything except marriage?  Hardly!  If a husband is a follower for Yeshua, then he leads by serving his wife, not by demanding she serve him.  His leadership is exhibited in his willingness to give up his agenda and take care of hers.  He lives for her.  This, by the way, is exactly the behavioral expression of Yeshua’s sacrifice for the Body.  If leadership is service, then there is no room at all for status or ranked authority in the Christian home.

Most Christians are quick to apply the servant-leader vocabulary to circumstances outside their homes.  They try to emulate Yeshua’s behavior at work, at school, at church and in social settings among others.  But when it comes to marriage, the principle is suddenly abandoned.  Now men rule.  Now the curse of Eve puts a wife under her husband’s authority.  Now the man is the “head” of the home by divine proclamation.  Now women are to be silent, submissive and subservient.  And we call this leadership?  Who are we kidding?

Oh, yes, before all the women stop cheering, remember that the principle applies to both sexes.

Topical Index: leadership, serving, authority, husband, wife, Luke 22:26

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 7 Comments
« Previous Entries