tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post6146160962029374797..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Michele Bachmann and Submission to HusbandKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-57393484960475264662011-08-29T13:43:01.125-07:002011-08-29T13:43:01.125-07:00Hi Joshua,
I almost forgot about this, sorry. Y...Hi Joshua, <br /><br />I almost forgot about this, sorry. You are correct. The Greek word, translated submit, means submit, not respect. If I was going to explain it, I would say, "to place one's self under." Bachmann was obviously attempting to separate respect from submission, not have someone think they meant the same thing.<br /><br />Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86062231461044793732011-08-26T14:29:25.775-07:002011-08-26T14:29:25.775-07:00Pastor Brandenburg,
You know Greek. Is there any ...Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />You know Greek. Is there any rule of language that I'm missing that forces the word "submit" in Ephesians 5 to take on the meaning and limitations of the word "reverence" in Koine Greek? Is there something in the sentence structure that makes or even suggests that.<br /><br />Like if Paul had used the word "obey" instead of submit throughout that passage, but still kept reverence in v33, does that mean that obey now has to be interpreted within the constraints of reverence?<br /><br />Maybe it's a Greek thing I don't understand, but here is an example from English. If I gave my students the following command:<br /><br />"Everyone needs to stand up and run to the oval. Do not stay in the building. Let every student see that they stand and move rapidly to the oval"<br /><br />That would be clearly understood that I wanted them to run, even if I used the word rapidly in the third sentence. "Run" is specific and defined, and could even be seen as a subset of the possible meanings of "rapidly". Thus we have the following interpretations:<br /><br />1. Teacher wants me to move rapidly. Correct.<br />2. Teacher wants me to run. Correct.<br />3. Teacher wants me to move rapidly but not necessarily run. False.<br />4. Teacher wants me to run but not move rapidly. Incorrect and impossible.<br />5. Teacher does not want me to run or move rapidly. Both false.<br /><br />By Mike's linguistic logic, 3 could be correct because run has its meaning strictly regulated by "rapidly". Thus, I could say that my command wasn't to run but rather move rapidly.<br /><br />Actually, after typing that out it seems that if that is the case, then the reader/hearer/interpreter gets to decide which definition suits their purpose the most. In this case, for the disobedient student the more general descriptor gives them more wiggle room to do what they want. Which I think is precisely the game Bachmann is trying.<br /><br />At least from a non-Greek speaker, that's how this looks. I'll bow to any superior understandings of Greek thought construction.Joshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18607104585661738112011-08-26T13:45:20.522-07:002011-08-26T13:45:20.522-07:00Mike,
You're obviously a well educated man, b...Mike,<br /><br />You're obviously a well educated man, but you're currently leveraging that intellect to resist the truth.<br /><br />Ephesians isn't the only teaching on submission. If her argument is built around just focusing on Ephesians, and then on a dodgy attempt to equate submission with respect, it's still flawed.<br /><br />Verses have a context within the book they are written, but also within the teachings of the New Testament. Square up what she's saying with 1 Peter 3:1-6. Submit means submit. You know the Greek sir - what does that word literally mean?<br /><br />I hate to quote Remonstrans, but you are proving his point:<br /><br />"We saw how the Bible can say almost anything we want it to say. If God told us he was hot, we would find people telling us God was cold, tepid, sweet, heavy, sticky, slippery, rough, smooth, serrated, burnished, waxy, polished, soapy, dented, shellacked, non-stick, non-glare, non-ferrous, translucent, glazed, opaque, gold-plated, nickel-plated, silver-lined, flammable, combustible, galvanized, glossy, soggy, garrulous, parched, reticent, chalky, oily...anything but hot.<br /><br />The one thing the Bible will never say is what we don't want to hear."Joshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-41583310839420837272011-08-26T11:24:15.420-07:002011-08-26T11:24:15.420-07:00Hi Gary,
I know the Greek. I generally don't ...Hi Gary,<br /><br />I know the Greek. I generally don't use English bibles at all. You would do well to spend some time in a quality lexicon rather than counting how many times the word appears in the NT and how and when its translated a certain way. The reality is that Ephesians 5:33 says neither respect nor reverence. It *only* says φοβέω. Last time I checked there were no English words in the New Testament at all--mainly Greek ones with a few Aramaic ones thrown in for good measure.<br /><br />Hi Kent,<br /><br />I'm with you. I'm not much for standard evangelical hermeneutics myself--I used the phrase mainly because that's what Bachmann claims to be.<br /><br />I'm not entirely sure, though, why you're talking about love and submission and love and respect being different. I said nothing about that. That the two words are in complementary distribution is rather indisputable. My point was only Paul replaces ὑποτάσσομαι with φοβέω. And on that note, I disagree with Joshua about taking a verse out of context. If anything, Bachmann is keeping the verse *in* context--the context of verses 21-33. Any problem I have with the interpretation isn't about context, but about semantics.Mike Aubreyhttp://evepheso.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-66380597912014346202011-08-23T19:48:53.051-07:002011-08-23T19:48:53.051-07:00I would say that the current trend of having women...I would say that the current trend of having women in positions of authority is Biblical - in that it is exactly what the Bible should have us believe would happen in a nation that is turning itself away from God as fast as it possibly can.<br /><br />I understand the context is Israel, but Isaiah 3:1-12 summarises perfectly what has happened in the US and elsewhere. <br /><br />I also agree with Mike, that Bachman is giving a standard evangelical interpretation - a re-examination of a clear teaching of the Bible for political expediency and conformity to the world, carried out by divorcing a verse from the context of the NT and the whole of Scripture itself. That such disobedience and abuse of Scripture is now standard for evangelicals says much.Joshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-76528166111301913142011-08-23T18:01:47.954-07:002011-08-23T18:01:47.954-07:00Bro. B,
I agree wholeheartedly. Keep up the good ...Bro. B,<br /><br />I agree wholeheartedly. Keep up the good writing. You are a blessing to many.Steve Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920334627083544106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26962866962456101812011-08-23T17:43:56.047-07:002011-08-23T17:43:56.047-07:00Hi Steve,
Good to see you again. I think you'...Hi Steve,<br /><br />Good to see you again. I think you're right on all counts. It was a good opportunity to think about biblical complementarianism again, however.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-19029617745136100482011-08-23T17:34:12.327-07:002011-08-23T17:34:12.327-07:00As for my people, children are their oppressors, a...As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. (Isaiah 3:12)<br /><br />Perhaps there is a broader principle to be discussed. Should women be in such an authoritative position as president? I'm sure this is politically correct but is it Biblically correct?<br /><br />The other point I'd like to make is that too much hope is placed in electing a Christian to the White House in order to bring our nation back to revival or whatever. I read that only Israel is dealt with on a national spiritual level. Trying to make America a Christian city set on a hill is what led to religious persecution of our Baptist forefathers before the establishment clause was added. It is a Protestant view of government. Our hope is planting churches and winning fellow voters to Christ instead of trusting in a Christian politician. If Christians were as outspoken about the Gospel as they are about their politics more voters would be pulling the lever led by the HS and not their pocketbooks. Any thoughts?Steve Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920334627083544106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-51796159340894745412011-08-23T09:00:11.305-07:002011-08-23T09:00:11.305-07:00Hi Mike,
Thanks for coming by. I can't trust...Hi Mike,<br /><br />Thanks for coming by. I can't trust "standard evangelical," which very often has a gumby-like approach to meaning.<br /><br />Paul distinguishes the husband's responsibility from the wife's, the parent's from the child's, and the master's from the slave's. In each of these cases, you have an authority. The husband, the parent, and the master---those are the authorities---and the Spirit-controlled wife, child, and slave will submit to that authority.<br /><br />Submitting, placing one's self under higher human authority, does not make one lesser. Human authorities and their subjects are equal in essence but the former is greater in position. We see the same in 1 Corinthians 11:3.<br /><br />Human authority is also how God operates. Even during the millennial kingdom, human authority will rule with Jesus.<br /><br />"Love" (actually in v. 25) and submission or subjection (in vv. 22-24) are distinguished from each other and complementary. They are not the same. The same goes for v. 33.<br /><br />We should decry the 2011 Bachmann spin on her 2006 statement.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43359119060204999752011-08-23T05:49:48.051-07:002011-08-23T05:49:48.051-07:00Mike Aubrey,
Ephesians 5:33 doesn't say "...Mike Aubrey,<br />Ephesians 5:33 doesn't say "respect"; it says "reverence". The Greek is phobew, which is translated with the English word "fear" 90 out of 93 times in the NT. One time it is translated "reverence", in Ephesians 5:33. It is certainly more than respect and has to do with reverential obedience or the same type of relationship that a Christian shows toward his Savior (Ephesians 5:22-24).<br />As to Mrs. Bachmann's explanation, I certainly understood her to be giving an answer that she new would make her relationship with her husband acceptable to the world.Gary Webbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-10591499218393061722011-08-22T15:01:30.903-07:002011-08-22T15:01:30.903-07:00Well, regardless of what a good reliable exegesis ...Well, regardless of what a good reliable exegesis of the text, I have to admit that her explanation of submission is rather reasonable considering the context and standard evangelical hermeneutical approaches:<br /><br />Paul says in verses 22-24: wives [submit] to your husbands and husbands love your wives.<br /><br />And then in verse 33 Paul changes it up and says: husbands love your wives and wives respect your husbands.<br /><br />The fact that verses 22-24 and then verse 33 frame the whole section, it's definitely not an unreasonable interpretation. Paul clearly sees a relationship between respect and submission so much that he was comfortable with replacing one with the other ten verses later in the same pericope.Mike Aubreyhttp://evepheso.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com