Man the Head...

[Tom Wetmore]

Christianity Today, November 2005

Bridging the Ephesians 5 Divide

A fresh look at what this controversial marriage passage says—and doesn't say.

by Sarah Sumner** | posted 11/18/2005 09:00 a.m.

"Marriage is a mystery: The Bible says that husband and wife become "one flesh," as head and body, in the likeness of Christ and the church. The husband is the head; the wife is the body. Together they project a spiritual image, a bizarre picture of a male-headed female body.

The language of "one flesh" and "head" is metaphorical, of course. And as Eugene Peterson wisely puts it, "A metaphor, instead of pinning down meaning, lets it loose. The metaphor does not so much define or label as it does expand."

But as metaphors expand into mystery, we become impatient, and we start reading into the metaphor things that are not there.

For example, it is often assumed that the word head means "leader"—though the Bible never says the husband is the "leader" of his wife...."

If this got your attention and you are interested in exploring this a bit further go to Christianity Today to read the rest...

**Sarah Sumner serves as associate professor of theology and ministry at the Haggard School of Theology at Azusa Pacific University. She adapted this article from her book Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership (IVP, 2003).

[Nicodema]

Very interesting article. I like Sarah Sumner's work. I've read some, though not all, of her book Men and Women in the Church. I very much appreciate the way while she's not afraid to challenge the entrenched errors in the lazy status quo consensus, neither is she afraid to deal with tough scriptural truths.

[aldona]

Haven't had a chance to check out the link yet (it's almost 10 pm here and I'm still at the office, because the other doc called in sick today and I had house calls to do and it's almost Christmas so we're frantically busy... <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />)

...but I recall an old Polish saying:

"Man is the head, but the wife is the neck" (and as we all know, it's the neck that moves the head and gives it direction.) <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

and there's another old Polish saying along the lines of "man is the head, but his wife is the crown upon the head."

...bearing in mind that medieval Poland was an extremely conservative, patriarchal feudal society in which to live.

more later...have to go home or I'll fall asleep.

aldona

[Tom Wetmore]

Nico,

I have read her book and when I saw the article I thought it a good quick summary of one of the very significant perspectives I gained from it. I appreciate the fact that she takes a careful exegetical approach to Scripture. Her perspective on the head/body metaphor is quiet profound in its simplicity.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

**Bump**

So of the 40 or so folks that took a peek at this topic, did nobody have a reaction or response?!?

What does this interpretation of the head/body metaphor do for the headship notions regarding the roles of men and women in the church?

Tom

[Bravus]

I didn't read her article - no time - but if we really understand Jesus' model of servant leadership, I think our issues pretty much disappear.

[Clio]

Tom -

I've studied this topic out for myself. I've found that what I am convicted of, has little bearing on men's and women's role in the church. My submission is to my OWN husband, second only to Abba and Jesus. It has nothing to do with what I might, or might not, be called to do within the church.

And submission doesn't mean doormat. Hupotasso, is a military term, and when applied in a non-military context relates to the voluntary shouldering of a portion of a heavy burden, support, as within the chain of command.

That support, and fitting in with his plans, although not into sin, is a gift which I give voluntarily to my husband, in obedience to Jesus. I don't give such a gift to an organization.

Clio

[there buster]

I found the article facile and disingenuous. While the analysis of the three "couplets" is quite good. the author does what so many do with this passage, create difficulty where none exists.

For example, I love this:

Quote:

---

For example, it is often assumed that the word head means "leader"—though the Bible never says the husband is the "leader" of his wife.

---

That sounds quite erudite until one remembers the text:

Quote:

---

23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church,

---

Since the two clauses are clearly parallel, we can apply the Sumner's analysis of the first clause to the second:

Quote:

---

For example, it is often assumed that the word head means "leader"—though the Bible never says that

Christ

is the "leader" of his

church.

---

A quick word search of the NIV turns up no use of the word "leader" at all in the New Testament, so the statement is, in its narrow way, true.

Now, the head may not be the "leader" of the body, but it is where the decisions are made. The "head" of an organization is a similar metaphor, and such individuals are called to be leaders. I'm open to some other consistent and coherent interpretation of the role of the head, but, as I say, Sumner's article seems a little disingenuous. There's a bit of "bait and switch" going on. Since Sumner is so meticulous about pairing the other parallels, it's a little strange she should leave out this one.

Another example is that Sumner limits the examination to Eph. 5, when chapter 6 is a continuation of the exposition begun in chapter 5, and the two are clearly connected.

You have the general statement about believers being subject to one another in 5:21

There follows an application of this principle to three crucial relationships in the Ephesian church.

Husband/wife 5:22-33

Parent/child 6:1-4

Master/slave 6:5-9

I'm in NO WAY stating that these are exactly parallel, for example that a husband has the same relationship to his wife that a parent does to a child. IF that were the case, all the explanation would not have been necessary: Paul could have explained the first relationship and then said, "and so the parent with the child, and the master with the slave." But he didn't. He applied the general principle of submission to each one because the relationships are different.

To the degree that this says ANYTHING at all about the roles of men and women in the church, it equates them. That is, they both fall under the general principle of submission. But that is largely an argument from silence, since this passage, while quite specific in spelling out the three relationships listed, is pretty silent about the more general relationship of church member to each other outside those named relationships.

The exegesis of Ephesians 5 is not so terribly tricky, its the application that gets difficult.

[Tom Wetmore]

In truth, Bravus, I am with you 100% on the servant leadership approach!

But I guess I still feel burdened to deal with the variety of arguments put forward by those opposed to women in ministry. One of their favorites is this headship idea. I think Sumner has done a very good job putting the head/body metaphor into its proper perspective.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

Ed,

"facile and disingenuous" !?!? Those seem rather oddly misplaced characterizations... But admittedly my perspective is from having read Dr. Sumner's book on the topic. Admittedly her article, for the sake of brevity, doesn't quite do her book complete justice, although I think it a fair introduction.

Most significantly, I think perhaps you miss the essential point by getting too hung up in defense of the popular notion, born of long church tradition dating back to at least the dark ages, that the head/body metaphor has something to do with leadership/authority. (But before you go too far in impressing on the metaphor the modern era realization that decisions are a brain/head activity, consider it in its original ancient context where the heart (body) plays an essential, if not the central role in such activity...) The essential point is that the head/body metaphor is most significantly about unity/oneness.

Just as Jesus affirmed that marriage is two becoming one flesh, the core concept of the head/body metaphor is the inseparability and complete interdependence of the head and body. They are two essential parts of a single organism. One without the other is dead. It is that quality that Jesus described as being his and God the Father's relationship. That is also the point Paul makes in talking about the body of Christ. He is driving home the point of unity and cooperation of the parts. And despite your apparent effort to see an inconsistency with the "husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church," the unity concept holds up very well in the comparison, especially if you read carefully the whole context.

I would encourage you to reread Dr. Sumner's article and get a copy of her book.

Tom

[cricket]

The whole concept is ridiculous. Quite frankly, I'm tired of it. It's a nice concept that men should be the head and lead as God would; a nice concept that women should follow the men.

In reality, men don't lead as Christ would. Women don't follow as...well, as humans should.

It is a curious thought though: if leaders aren't doing their jobs properly, how on Earth are the subordinates to do theirs?

If men would lead as they should, women's lives would be so much easier.

A challenge: think!

QB

[there buster]

Tom:

facile

adj 1: arrived at without due care or effort; lacking depth; "too facile a solution for so complex a problem"

disingenuous

adj : not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness

First of all, I did read the entire article.

I called it facile because it skips over contradictory evidence.

1. Dr. Sumner may or may not have answers to that evidence, but ignoring the head/body metaphor for Christ and the church in the same verse as for man and wife is either shallow or slick.

2. Ignoring the obvious connection between chapters 5 and 6 has the same effect.

I called it disingenuous because Dr. Sumner appears to be candid by avoiding a conclusion, simply saying it's more complex than we thought. It can be quite charming for an academic to admit not knowing something. Unfortunately she only reaches this position by avoiding the evidence right before her eyes.

1. The head/body parallel of husband/wife and of Christ/church. Even though it's in the very same verse, she can't bring herself to mention it. Perhaps she would be less confused.

2. Her confusion over "head/body" vs. "submitting to one another" might be alleviated if she viewed the extended discussion of parent/child and master/slave in chapter 6.

Now, as to your speculations.

Quote:

---

too hung up in defense of the popular notion, born of long church tradition dating back to at least the dark ages, that the head/body metaphor has something to do with leadership/authority.

---

If you will read carefully, I made no such defense. Perhaps you are hung up on debunking that notion. I simply pointed to what the text says.

Is it your position that Christ as the head of the church in this passage has nothing to do with leadership? If so, that might be a reasonable position. We can discuss that. But speculating on another's "hangups" is not productive.

Quote:

---

the modern era realization that decisions are a brain/head activity, consider it in its original ancient context where the heart (body) plays an essential, if not the central role in such activity

---

You left out the ancient notion that the chest is the seat of magnanimity and other ordinate emotions, and that the intestines are the seat of mercy (see for example Phill. 2:1; Col. 3:12; numerous others).

No, I am quite aware of this matter, and considered it. There are two difficulties with that position.

1. The heart is nowhere mentioned in this passage. So what Paul might have thought about its role is pure speculation.

2. Like Dr. Sumner, you seem certain on what the head is not,, without bothering to explain what actual role it might play here.

Quote:

---

The essential point is that the head/body metaphor is most significantly about unity/oneness. . .especially if you read carefully the whole context.

---

Oh, really. And what about the parent/child and master/slave metaphors? Are they about unity also? Or do you not include them in "the whole context?"

Look, I'm sorry if this analysis disappointed you. So answer my points from the passage, rather than making unfounded and unwarranted assumptions about why I made the points.

I have said repeatedly at CA, my interest is in what the text says. If it matches up with what I already believe, fine. If it doesn't then I need to rid myself of mistaken and false beliefs. Appeals for or against tradition have little influence on me.

[Tom Wetmore]

Ed,

Call me dense, but notwithstanding your attempted explanation of your characterizations, I still am puzzled by your oddly ill-fitting characterizations of the article as "facile" and "disingenuous". (Ironically, I would find your analysis "disappointing" because it comes much closer to your own charactizing labels than the object of your analysis!) But whatever....

Since you have pulled out your dictionary you may want to refresh your memory of the definition of "metaphor" in view of your reference to the "parent/child and master/slave metaphors". Something seems backward, upside down or missing, don't you think? Since you are claiming to be simply interested only "in what the text says" how does Paul apply the head/body metaphor to these relationships? Compare and contrast those relationships with the husband/wife and Christ/Church relationships. How does the operative mutual submission of this passage relate to leadership/authority?

If you are looking for the whole context for the head/body metaphor you actually have to go back to the preceding chapter in Ephesians. Chapter 4 is where Paul introduces the metaphor in this letter. There you will find the specific idea of the unity of the body of Christ. That is the context that introduces the head/body metaphor that is continued in references to the realtionship of husband/wife as compared to that of Christ and the Church in chapter 5.

Tom

[there buster]

Tom,

I will grant you that an overarching theme of the epistle to the Ephisians is unity.Whether that is precisely what is being discussed here is another matter. Ephesisans 5 is specifically about "walking in love," a subset of the larger theme.

As to the word metaphor, yes, I misread and andspoke in my haste.

You still have not answered (nor has Sumner explained) whether or not Christ as head of the church indicates anything about "leadership." If NOT, what does it indicate? Why does Paul use such a misleading comparison?

For example, the President of the United States is the commander in chief, which means he is the "head" of the armed forces.

Of a chairman of a committee, we might say, she "heads" the committee.

This is not just an English idiom or concept. "Capitals" are the "heads" of columns. That's Latin, just as one example.

I called Sumner facile for slickly ignoring evidence that contradicts her position. Disingenuous for acting confused when that confusion is a product of her own obfuscation.

As Sumner rightly points out, verse 21 speeks of submitting to one antoher. Verse 22 then says, literally, "wives to their husbands." This meaning is not obscure.

In the church, we all are equals . . submitting to one another.

In marriage, wives submit to husbands.

In the family, children submit to parents.

In the household (a technical term in the NT), slaves submit to their masters.

In each case, the one to whom submission is due also has constraints. Husbands must love their wives and sacrifice for their welfare. Parents must not "exasperate" (Gr. παροργίζω - "to enrage") the children by unwise and unfair demands. Masters must not abuse their slaves.

The parallelism is obvious and simple. Applying it in real relationships, like almost any other high calling of Scripture, is the difficult part. There are difficult passages of Scripture to exegete. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

So far, Sumner's and your opposition amounts to "head doesn't mean leader, head doesn't mean leader."

Well, in ordinary usage, in most languages, when head is used to describe one person in a relationship, it means : "A person who leads, rules, or is in charge; a leader, chief, or director: the head of the corporation." Dictionary.com

I'd be interested in another usage of "head" as a metaphor in the relationship which does not render the passage meaningless.

[Tom Wetmore]

Ed,

The problem as I see it is that we so easily impose the full 20 centuries of accumulated connotations to the English word "head" rather than what a 1st Century Greek speaking Jew might understand from the head/body connection metaphor. But to set aside the notion of headship being only or even primarily about leadership/authority in favor of thinking about the head/body metaphor as a metaphor about connection/unity/oneness hardly renders the passage "meaningless", unless of course unity and oneness is not viewed as a top priority for a marriage relationship or in the church.

It would be helpful for you to read Dr. Sumner's book, for she does address in significantly more detail the points you raise. I doubt that I could do her justice, so I have taken the time to pull out my copy which I read several years ago and will excerpt a few paragraphs from the chapter entitle "The Husband Is the Head", upon which it appears the CT article was based. Keep in mind that the point of emphasis is on the marriage relationship in the article and the chapter. She does revisit the issue of Christ as head in later chapters.

Here it is in her own words:

Quote:

---

To begin with, Ephesians 5:23 parallels the husband as the head of the wife in correlation with Christ as head of the church, he being the Savior of the “body.” Implicitly, then, we see the church is the body of Christ and the wife is the body of her husband. The same concept is reinforced in Ephesians 5:28, which says that husbands ought to love their own wives “as their own bodies.” He

is

the head of his wife, and she is

as

the body of her husband. This makes sense in light of Ephesians 5:31, “The two shall become one flesh.” Head and body form one flesh. It also explains the rest of Ephesians 5:28. “He who loves his own wife loves himself.” As it turns out, she is not “as” his body; she

is

“himself.” Thus in Ephesians 5:33, the husband is commanded to love his own wife “even as [the body of] himself.”

---

A few paragraphs later Dr. Sumner spends a fair bit of time commenting on the Southern Baptist Convention statement of the role of women which emphasized what she characterizes as the popular Christian misconception about marriage that submission is correlative to headship. Her summary:

Quote:

---

At presented in the [southern Baptist Convention] statement, the husband and the wife connect as leader and helper rather than as body and head.”

“Which of the two is more intimately connected? A leader and his helper? Or a body and head? The answer is obvious. It is far more profound for a wife to be the husband’s own body than for her to be his functional assistant. Are you getting the picture? It really is a picture, isn’t it? The Bible presents a picture of a body organically connected to a head.

---

Tom

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The problem as I see it is that we so easily impose the full 20 centuries of accumulated connotations to the English word "head" rather than what a 1st Century Greek speaking Jew might understand from the head/body connection metaphor.

---

I'm fully aware of understanding it in the sense of a 1st Century literate Jew. I dealt with that in pointing out the "capital" as head of a column coming from Latin and similar expression in Greek. You might want to note that Latin has not been widely spoken for more than a thousand years. Perhaps I should be more careful to point out what I'm answering.

The "one flesh" metaphor indicates one sort of unity; the head/body relationship indicates another. But then, so does parent/child and master/slave.

Sumner's and your analysis continually truncates the passage, and ignores the parallelism of these three.

In the larger context, Ephesians continually emphasizes unity but not radical equality. Our unity is in one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all. At the same time, this unity comes from diverse gifts.

In this passage on submission, we are submit to one antoher in the church. But in marriage, the family, and the household, there are different modes of submission. To insist, in spite of both linguistic and historical evidence, that headship has nothing to do with leadership, is indeed to make the text nonsensical.

For to be consistent, you must insist that Christ does not possess leadership and authority over the church, that the parent does not possess leadership and authority over the child, and that the master does not possess leadership and authority over the slave. AS I already mentioned, this does not mean that the leadership and authority are identical in all three situations.

Surely, there is a clear progression here. It begins with equality, and moves through relationships of increasing inequality. Both the social and historical context and the syntax of the passage demand it.

To do so is to turn the text into a cut-and-paste resource for one's own philosophy, rather than conscientious exegesis. AS Walter Kaiser says, conscientious exegetes must treat each verse the way the golfer plays the ball-- "as it lies."

Please note those exist in the text, and do so without reference to contemporary mores or attitudes.

Actually, it appears that Dr. Sumner and yourself are far more concerned about contemporary sensibilities than I. I have never cited current attitudes or the Southern Baptis Convention in my arguments. I am totally indifferent to their position on this, when it comes to examining the text.

It is you and Sumner who keep raising 21st century concerns, not me. I keep looking at the text.

The astonishing thing in this passage to the 1st Century would have been the constraints placed on those in authority. Husbands must sacrifice for their wives? Parents should not exasperate their children? Masters should remember they are accountable for how they treat their slaves? These are the astonishing notions to the 1st Century.

Quote:

---

unless of course unity and oneness is not viewed as a top priority for a marriage relationship or in the church

---

This manages to beg the question, be reductionist, is slyly ad hominem, and appeals to contemporary sensibilities all at once.

It begs the question, because it assumes the answer it supposedly wants to discover. It's reductionist because it reduces everything in Ephesions to simply unity. It is ad hominem because it implies that someone who disagrees must not value unity.

It's also quite curious that you continually truncate the passage, leaving the parent/child and master/slave couplets out. Certainly it makes your position more problematical.

Actually, it's Sumner's position that is more concerned about contemporary sensibilities. The idea that husbands actually have authority and the responsibility to lead is, as someone has said on this thread, "ridiculous" to contemporary sensibilities. So Dr. Sumner will have no trouble selling books that feed that contemporary appetite. no one ever went broke writing what people want to hear. Sometimes, these efforts to wrest the text can be inspiring in a way, when we see the logical and linguistic gymnastics necessary to support these positions.

Really, there's no point in continuing until you adress the entire progression from mutual submission to master/slave.

And, do you or do you not think that Christ as head of the church in this passage involves the ideas of authority or leadership? Do you propose that the 1st Century Christian reading this passage did not see authority and leadership in the position of "head?"

Are you proposing that when 1st Century Jewish Christians read the head/body metaphor, they saw only unity, without any hint of leadership or authority?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

...do you or do you not think that

Christ as head

of the church in this passage involves the ideas of authority or leadership?

---

You seem to have a valid point. This debate should prove interesting.

I do, however, have two points to make as it pertains to "the head".

Point 1] Of the husband it says, "love your wives, [how?] just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her."

Point 2] And of Christ we read, "And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant." [Matt 23:10,11 NASB]

In this leadership role Christ goes on to say, "Whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” [Matt 20:27,28]

What are your thoughts? I'll be staying out of this debate....

Rob

[there buster]

Rob:

I've already mentioned the imperative of sacrifice in this passage. So, yes, leadership is not "dominance."

Leadership as presented in Scripture is quite complex, as your post indicates.

Tom:

Here's an interesting text by the same author.

Quote:

---

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence Col. 1:18

---

It is in a different epistle, but the head/body metaphor is the same. Not dispositive, but makes me wonder about the numerous omissions in Dr. Sumner's discussion of the concept.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

...Not dispositive, but makes me wonder about the numerous omissions in Dr. Sumner's discussion of the concept.

---

Ed,

I am gaining a sense of why a number of others on this forum have given up in exasperation trying to dialog with you.

I have repeatedly suggested that to be fair to Dr. Sumner's "discussion of the concept" you must read her whole book. It is unfair on several levels to suggest that she makes "numerous omissions" in her treatment of the whole concept based on an article of more limited purpose and focus than that of a book necessary to fairly treat the whole topic. Obviously, an article of maybe a half dozen pages is hardly going to cover every detail of a topic she spends 300+ pages in a book to cover. It would be quite like me lambasting a certain one page devotional by one Ed Dickerson published in the Adventist Review about Revelation as being shallow exegesis that misses so much of the vital details of the prophecies of Revelation. (As I would hope you recall, that was far from my opinion as I expressed it directly to you.) Do you see my point?

Indeed Dr. Sumner does not omit your cited text from her discussion of the topic and actually comes back to that specific text several times throughout the book. Here is one of her thoughts on that specific text:

Quote:

---

What does

head

mean here? Since he is the head of the body, it seems that

head

means "the top of the body." And yet, this same passage also says he is the beginning. This could thus imply that

head

means "the source, the beginning." The climax of the passage, however, says that he will come to have the "first place in everything." In that sense, it appears that

head

means "a position of honor, or first importance."

Which is the right definition? It all depends on the usage of the word.

---

In reality Dr. Sumner's range of consideration of meanings of the head/body metaphor is broader and more comprehensive than you think.

Tom

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It would be quite like me lambasting a certain one page devotional by one Ed Dickerson published in the Adventist Review about Revelation as being shallow exegesis that misses so much of the vital details of the prophecies of Revelation.

---

Actually, no. In that short devotional, I had one point, and one point only, which I covered completely. Whenever the saints are pictured in Revelation, they are pictured worshiping the Lamb; they do not focus on the activities of Satan. I did not pretend to take up any other issue. More to the point, I did not cut a passage in half and propound an interpretation which would be contradicted by the other half.

The problem with Dr. Sumner's article, and that is what you asked us to read, is that she fudges the main point of her article, the question of headship. The other reference you cite, simply repeats that unnecessary obfuscation.

Quote:

---

What does head mean here? Since he is the head of the body, it seems that head means "the top of the body."

---

The "top" of the body? So if the church was a fish he'd be the dorsal fin? After all, the dorsal fin is the "top" of most fish. I say again, this is simplly an elaborate effort to avoid an obvious conclusion--as obvious in the first century as it is in the 21st.

The problem with that approach is that it makes no sense when applied to any other text.

So when he's referred to as "the cornerstone" in another passage, that just means "the bottom of the wall?"

The NIV renders the Colossians passage as follows:

"17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy" emphasis supplied.

But worst of all is the final fudge:

Quote:

---

Which is the right definition? It all depends on the usage of the word.

---

But it has a meaning in this passage, not many meanings in this passage. So what does it mean as it is used here? That's her real job, which she seems unwilling to do.

Of course, the ordinary, obvious meaning in this paasage would take all three parallel expressions into consideration. But, in this passage, as in Ephesisans, she treats them as though they are speparate and unrelated expressions.

I'm really quite sorry to say this, but the more you reveal of Dr. Sumner's method, the more my original analysis stands. Instead of putting the pieces of the puzzle together, she takes them apart, and declares the picture too hard to figure out.

Yes, Dr. Sumner's discussion of the head is broad. It's not just broad, it's diffuse. When it should be focused.

But, Dr. Sumner aside, I ask again:

And, do you or do you not think that Christ as head of the church in this passage involves the ideas of authority or leadership? Do you propose that the 1st Century Christian reading this passage did not see authority and leadership in the position of "head?"

Are you proposing that when 1st Century Jewish Christians read the head/body metaphor, they saw only unity, without any hint of leadership or authority?

[Tom Wetmore]

Ed,

I take from the implied tone of you repeated and seemingly inquisitorial question that you must demand of me an affirmation of Christ's authority and leadership of His church. The negative implication is that if I don't derive that conclusion from Paul's use of this head/body metaphor that I am somehow denying the Lordship of Christ and his divine authority. I have to say I resent that insinuation and am quite resistant to that tactic. (By implication there seems to be an equal insistence that I must accept that my wife's relationship to me must be comparable to mine to Christ in the same terms.)

Nevertheless, I will answer it. If you are asking if I accept Christ as Lord (leader, King, Sovereign, Master of the Universe, or whatever title of authority you wish) and the ultimate authority for my life and for all who are His followers, I say, "Absolutely! Of course!" But if you are asking if I derive that firmly held belief from Paul's use of a head/body metaphor, I must say, "Not really, since I gain that by direct and easily taken as literal declarations of Scripture of that very specific fact about Christ. There is no lack of evidence in many places and many ways to support that belief."

The problem as I see it is that your seeming insistence that one must see leadership and authority in this metaphor primarily, if not to the exclusion of all other meaning, is based on a faulty logic of complete and comprehensive parity among the objects of the metaphor and a logical reversal of the application of the metaphor. By that I mean that one deduces the meaning of the comparison in reverse order. Rather than letting the whole and various aspect of the nature of the head/body relationship tell us something in common about each of the relationships to which it is applied, it is looking at each of the varied and differing object relationships to ascribe meaning to the head/body relationship and concluding that all differing ascribed attributes must thus be common to all.

Paul says that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man and that a husband is the head of his wife. If you are going to insist on parity of all aspects of the identified relationships, Christ as my head (and that of the church) means that since he is my Lord and Savior and the source of my salvation that also must be an attributed meaning of being a head, so therefore as husband/head I am Lord and savior and the source of salvation for my wife. Do you see my point?

(And I haven't even touched the possible implications of the God as head of Christ parallels to my relationship to my wife. Or how about considering how exactly God is the leader and authority over Christ, especially in light of Jesus' declaration that he and the Father were one and in complete unity, the one single attribute he earnestly prayed for on behalf of us his followers...)

I do not question that the word "head" can and does mean, leader, one in charge, chief, if the context calls for it, just as in the right context the word "run" means to be in charge, to control and operate (as in, I run this business). But I cannot ascribe that meaning to "run" in all of the other numerous contexts that give the word "run" a different meaning. So if I am attempting to illustrate a spiritual idea by saying I have run a good race, should that bring to mind a picture of putting physical effort into rapid forward motion on foot or organizing and putting on a great competition of others doing a foot race? Even though each is linguistically a possible meaning does the context tend to direct us toward what spiritual concept most resembles the discipline and effort of being in an Olympic foot race?

I'll just throw your question back at you. Do you or do you not think that Christ as head of the church in this passage involves the ideas of oneness and unity? Do you propose that the 1st Century Christian reading this passage did not see unity/one flesh/oneness in the head/body metaphor?"

But beyond that, does it have to be an either/or situation? Can you open your mind to embrace the possibility that the metaphor may encompass all of the possibilities, and more, and that these variations can all work together to inform and temper the others? Or is that too close to a harmonious and unifying concept that goes against a need to endlessly dissect, argue and debate?

At the very least, let's agree to disagree and call it a day.

Tom

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I take from the implied tone of you repeated and seemingly inquisitorial question that you must demand of me an affirmation of Christ's authority and leadership of His church.

---

Wow, you read a lot into my question. No, I'm not interested in a creedal statement of that type. I don't doubt, nor did I imply anything about your belief in Christ's aurhtority over the church.

I seek, as I have from the beginning, an answer about the meaning of this text. My question is simply, when reading this passage about the husband being the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, did you propose that a 1st Century Christian would not see leadership and authority in that usage?

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, I will answer it. If you are asking if I accept Christ as Lord (leader, King, Sovereign, Master of the Universe, or whatever title of authority you wish) and the ultimate authority for my life and for all who are His followers, I say, "Absolutely! Of course!

---

Sorry, I wasn't asking that question. I assume your bona fides. I don't know how to make it clearer that my question is about the usage of the metaphor in this passage.

I have no speculations about your relationship to Christ or to your wife.

We are discussing the meaning of a text, period.

Quote:

---

The problem as I see it is that your seeming insistence that one must see leadership and authority in this metaphor primarily, if not to the exclusion of all other meaning, is based on a faulty logic of complete and comprehensive parity among the objects of the metaphor and a logical reversal of the application of the metaphor.

---

Once again, that's amazing. I have granted that unity is a part of this. I have talked about progression and parallism, not "complete and comprehensive parity."

I know how to say precisely that, if that's what I meant. I have repeatedly stated that the relationships are not identical.

What Sumner is arguing is that the elements of leadership and authority are absent from this metaphor. That is what I find untenable.

Quote:

---

I do not question that the word "head" can and does mean, leader, one in charge, chief, if the context calls for it, just as in the right context

---

That's why I keep asking about what it means in this passage.

Quote:

---

But beyond that, does it have to be an either/or situation? Can you open your mind to embrace the possibility that the metaphor may encompass all of the possibilities,

---

Who ever claimed it was either/or? Something like 75% of this post concerns things I never thought, let alone posted.

Quote:

---

I'll just throw your question back at you. Do you or do you not think that Christ as head of the church in this passage involves the ideas of oneness and unity? Do you propose that the 1st Century Christian reading this passage did not see unity/one flesh/oneness in the head/body metaphor?"

---

Since I've already granted this at least twice, I'll gladly comply. Certainly, unity is one of the components here.

But you still have not answered whether leadership and authority are part of the mix.

And I'd be quite happy to see where in my posts I have indicated that:

1. Unity was excluded as a meaning.

2. That there was exact parity in the relationships mentioned

3. That leadership and authority are the only meanings of "head" in this passage.

4. That I doubt your belief in Christ's authority over the church.

All four of those are news to me.

On the contrary, you have speculated about my motivations "hung up on defending tradition" etc.

It will be easier to agree if you stop assuming things beyond what I write. That's not good exegesis.

[Tom Wetmore]

OK, there seems no value in trying to give you a clue to how I and perhaps others may perceive what you say and how you go about saying it. So, setting aside my apparent lack of comprehension of what you have said and apparent mis-perception of any bias in the way you have said it, let's dive right back into the text and its meaning.

If as you say, "We are discussing the meaning of a text, period", then what do you see is the meaning of the key terms in the text? (Actually, we started out discussing Dr. Sumner's perspective of its meaning, digressed into sparing/defensiveness and neither of us has actually devoted all that many words to actually discussing the passage itself... but I digress yet again... )

What does Ephesians 5 tell you about the husband/wife relationship? What does it tell us through the use of the head/body metaphor, specifically as it applies to a husband/wife relationship? And since you did see some value in Dr. Sumner's treatment of the several couplets, how do you understand those to shed light on the application of the head/body metaphor to the husband/wife relationship?

If I understand your concern correctly, that man as head and Christ as head must include ideas of leadership and authority, what do you understand those terms to mean specifically in the context of Ephesians 5? How does leadership and authority in the headship of a husband play itself out in the relationship with his wife? How does Christ's headship of the church shed light on a husband's headship of his wife? How does a husband exercise/demonstrate such leadership/authority as head of his wife? And how does the wife's "body-ship" relate/respond/interact with that headship of her husband?

Tom

[there buster]

Quote:

---

there seems no value in trying to give you a clue to how I and perhaps others may perceive what you say and how you go about saying it.

---

Your perceptions are your own. I have asked for evidence of some of the things you have projected onto what I wrote. If I wrote such things, show me. If I didn't, then take responsibility for your assumptions.

Now, as to your lengthy questions.

I have already answered your question about unity.

Now it's your turn.

Do you propose that the 1st Century Christian reading this passage did not see authority and leadership in the position of "head?"

Are you proposing that when 1st Century Jewish Christians read the head/body metaphor, they saw only unity, without any hint of leadership or authority?

Rather than assuming what you believe, I ask. I could assume that you deny it, since you still haven't answered it, but I do my best not to assume what others mean. So, I ask again.

I ask the question again because

1. You have not answered it and

2. There's no point in exploring the meaning of leadership and authority in this passage if you claim it is absent from this passage.

Quote:

---

If I understand your concern correctly,

---

My concern, as I have repeatedly stated, is for the meaning of the text.

This includes a three step process.

1. Exegesis--- what did the author say?

2. Biblical theology -- what does that tell us about what he believed?

3. Systematic theology -- what does that tell us about God's will for today?

Everybody's in such a hurry to get to step three, that most often they start there, then go back and look for evidence for their position.

Because of that approach, many people at CA assume I'm trying to "build a case" for one or another applications (another name for step 3) whenever I approach a text.

Well, that's not the way I work.

I start with the text, in context. As one of my friends at the Seminary says, I study the Bible as if I might learn something from it.

That's my approach here.

All this discussion of "traditional interpretations" and biases, and all that, is of no interest to me. I haven't ever asked what a majority of men think headship means, nor what women think, nor even what Ellen White thought. All I ever asked was what would a 1st Century audience have thought. Because that's who this passage was aimed at. Be even more specific, what would a 1st Century Christian in Ephesus have thought?

Faithfulness to the text is one of the best single safeguards we have against bias and tradition.

[Tom Wetmore]

Ed,

I did in fact answer your question already. Despite your oft repeated assertion that you are only interested in what the text says, your stuck in a rut question seems to indicate more of an interest in what I think it means. What does it matter what my bone-headed thoughts are on the matter if your purpose is to let the text speak for itself?

So please, enlighten us with your understanding of the text.

Tom