The Apostle Paul was an impressive and influential church leader.  Interestingly, in 1 Thessalonians 2:7, Paul describes his apostolic ministry (and that of his colleagues’)  using the metaphor of a woman breastfeeding her infant children.

As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle [3] among you, as a nurse [i.e. a breast-feeding woman] cherishes her own children. 1 Thessalonians 2:7 (NIV 2011)

Few images could be more womanly than a mother breastfeeding her baby; yet Paul states here that he ministered in ways that he himself identified with womanhood.

One of the greatest leaders in the Bible was Moses.  Moses’ complaint to God in Numbers 11:12 indicates that God wanted Moses to lead in a maternal way:

Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth? Why do you tell me to carry them in my arms, as a nurse [i.e. a breast feeding woman] carries an infant, to the land you promised on oath to their ancestors? Numbers 11:12 (NIV 2011)

From Moses’ words, we can see that God does not necessarily associate  leadership with masculinity; and that God did not want his people to be led in a purely paternal or masculine fashion.[4]

After describing his ministry in maternal terms in 1 Thessalonians 2:7, Paul goes on to speak about his ministry using the metaphor of a father.

For you know that we dealt with you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God . . . 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12a (NIV 2011)

If Paul, as a man, can lead and minister in both a motherly and fatherly manner, does it seem unreasonable to suggest that some women can lead and minister in both a motherly and fatherly manner?  Is it only fatherly men who can encourage and comfort believers and urge them to live lives worthy of God?

Generally speaking, men and women are different, and they tend to have different leadership styles.  While there are many exceptions to these generalisations, women tend to be more relational, collaborative and flexible in their leadership than many male leaders.  They also tend to be more sensitive, intuitive and nurturing in their dealings with people.  These qualities are considered advantageous in leaders within post-modern society; especially when leading and mentoring people belonging to Generation Y.

Many women leaders have also demonstrated that they can be assertive and goal-oriented; qualities often associated with male leaders.  Moreover, women have shown that they can be successful, effective leaders without necessarily compromising or losing their femininity (which seems to be a concern of some.)[5]

The church needs spiritual fathers and mothers in leadership.  Just as families benefit when they are led by both a father and a mother, churches benefit when they are led by gifted and called men and women, who are able to minister according to their gifts and abilities and are not constrained by traditional gender roles.

Endnotes

[1] Complementarians are Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that only men can be leaders.  They have very narrow and rigid ideas of leadership which do not allow for feminine expressions.   Leading Complementarian, John Piper believes that all men are designed by God to be leaders; and that all women are designed by God to be submissive followers of all “worthy” men.  (John Piper and Wayne Grudems (editors), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Westchester, Il: Crossway Books, 2006.)  Yet, while insisting that leadership is a masculine trait, Complementarians do not seem to have a problem with women who lead (or teach)  women or children.

[2] Deborah is just one of several notable women leaders mentioned in the Bible.  At some point in Israel’s history, Deborah was their leader.  Judges chapters 4 and 5 records Deborah’s leadership and does not mention that there was anything peculiar about her being a leader and a woman.  In fact, her gender does not seem to have been an issue at all.  Deborah was an excellent leader.  She was a prophetess, a judge and a military leader.  In comparison with other leaders (judges) mentioned in the book of Judges, there are no negative words about Deborah; yet Complementarians still assert that leadership is for men only. (There is no hint in Judges that Deborah became a leader because there were no men capable of the task.)  [More about Deborah and other Bible women with spiritual authority here.]

[3] Some Greek manuscripts of 1 Thessalonians 2:7 have that the apostles became “infant children” nēpioi, rather than “gentle” ēpioi; however it is unlikely that Paul was saying that he and the other apostles became like children.  Epioi may be translated as gentle, mild or kind, etc. (Strong’s number: 2261)

[4] God describes himself using maternal metaphors in the Old Testament; as did Jesus in the New Testament (Mat 23:7; Luke 13:34).

[5] Because Complementarians regard leadership as a masculine domain, they are concerned that women who lead will lose their femininity.  However, women frequently engage in activities that do not enhance their femininity.  What is so feminine about vacuuming carpets, carrying baskets of wet washing, cleaning toilets, or the numerous other domestic chores which the Complementarians have no issue with?

© 7th of July, 2010; revised 17th of May, 2012; Margaret Mowczko

Related Articles

New Testament Women Church Leaders
Junia and the ESV
Did Priscilla Teach Apollos?
Refuting the Complementarian Concept of “The Created Order”
1Timothy 2:12 in Context
Towards Biblical Equality – My Story
Old Testament Priests and New Testament Ministers
The Women who Protected Moses
Leading Together in the Home

This argument is usually countered with the fact that, as well as no women, there were also no Gentiles among the Twelve; so if we genuinely want to use the Twelve as a paradigm of people suitable for church leadership we should restrict leaders to Jewish men.

I find neither of these arguments useful in discussions on church leadership because they miss a critical point: Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred before the Church was in existence.

Jesus’ ministry occurred at a vital juncture between the Old Testament and the New Covenant – between “Israel only” and the inclusive, universal Church.  The New Covenant had not yet been inaugurated when the Twelve were called.  And so, at that time, and at that place, Jesus chose twelve Jewish men to be his first disciples.

The Old Testament, Israel and Patriarchy

There are a few reasons why Jesus chose twelve Jewish men to be his chief disciples.  Jesus’ healing and teaching ministry was directed primarily to the Jewish people, within Israel, so he chose Jewish disciples.[1]  Furthermore, for Jesus to be recognised as a Rabbi he needed to have at least ten male disciples.  With twelve male disciples, Jesus’ status as a Rabbi was never questioned, even by his critics.[2]

There is an obvious symbolism with the number twelve.  Jesus himself makes a connection between the twelve disciples and the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat 19:28; Luke 22:30).  Jesus may have chosen twelve disciples as a way of showing that his message and ministry was for all of Israel.

Judas Iscariot was chosen by Jesus to be one of the original Twelve, (presumably) knowing that Judas would later betray him.  Since Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve, this makes the argument untenable that Jesus intended the Twelve to be some sort of precedent or paradigm for church leadership.  The fact that one of the Twelve later betrayed Jesus and never became a church leader is an important point to consider; but there are other factors to consider in the argument that the all-male Twelve means that women cannot be church leaders.

The Twelve assisted with Jesus’ healing and teaching ministry to the Israelites (Mat 10:5-6 cf 15:24).  It is inconceivable that the Jewish people would have accepted ministry from Gentiles. And due to the poor status of women, there would have been considerable difficulties for Jewish people to accept healing and instruction from women.  Jesus began his earthly ministry while the Old Covenant was still operative; and the curses of the Fall, which included the rule of men over women, were still in effect (cf Gen 3:16b).

Nevertheless, while there were no women among the Twelve, there may have been a few Jewish women among the seventy-two (Luke 10:1ff).  And we know that women accompanied Jesus and the Twelve on missionary trips, and supported them from their own resources (Luke 8:1-3).  Women were among the most faithful of Jesus’ followers.

The New Covenant, the Church and the Holy Spirit

Once Jesus had fulfilled all the requirements of the Old Testament with his death and resurrection, the old rules and restrictions became obsolete.  No longer were disciples to be only Jewish.  Jesus commissioned his disciples to make more disciples from every nation (Mat 28:19 cf Acts 9:36).  These other disciples included women.[3]

Gilbert Bilezikian has pointed out that:

“The great paradigm shift from old to new covenant did not occur at the beginning of Christ’s earthly ministry but at its end (1 Cor. 11:25). History turned upon itself with the death and resurrection of Christ and with the subsequent coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. The first utterance made immediately after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit concerned a radical change in ministry roles. With the apostles at his side, Peter formally proclaimed that, because of the new era inaugurated by the coming of the Spirit, ministries that had been previously restricted were now universally accessible to all believers without distinctions of gender, age, or class.”

Apostles, Pastors or Priests?

The Twelve Apostles were all male, but most of these men did not function as local pastors or local church leaders.  They were apostles – itinerant missionaries with a leadership function.  The argument that women cannot be pastors of churches because the Twelve Apostles were all male is illogical.  Being a pastor and being an apostle is not the same thing.

Having said that, we do have the example of a New Testament woman who was an apostle – Junia (Rom 16:7).  In fact, the New Testament gives us several examples of women who functioned in various leadership ministries in the early church, including being pastors and leaders of house churches.[4]

Some denominations teach that the Apostles functioned as priests and that subsequent church leaders also function as priests.  The New Testament is clear that under the New Covenant there is only one priest – Jesus Christ our High Priest and Mediator.  There is no need for any other mediator between God and his people (1 Tim 2:5).  The New Testament never refers to apostles or any other church leaders as priests.[5]

All Christians are agents of Jesus Christ by virtue of his Holy Spirit who lives within us, and as such we are all members of a royal priesthood.  As members of this priesthood we are called to collectively, and individually, proclaim the gospel to those who have not heard.[6]  I do not believe that church leaders are called to represent Christ to people who already know him.

Conclusion

Jesus ministered while the Old Testament systems and values were still in force.  But the Christian Church is a very different organisation to that of the Old Testament, Jewish, systems of worship and community.  To use the fact that Jesus’ Twelve Apostles were all male as a precedent to exclude godly and gifted women from any kind of ministry function or role in the Church is simply not valid.

Endnotes

[1] More on what it means to “follow” Jesus here.

[2] “To the present day among orthodox Jews the quorum for a synagogue congregation is ten free men; unless ten such males are present the service cannot begin.” F.F. Bruce

[3] Tabitha (Dorcas) is a woman identified as a disciple (Acts 9:36ff).
Jesus discipled women.  Mary of Bethany sat at Jesus’ feet – the posture and position of a disciple – listening to his teaching.  Jesus said that “few things are needed—or indeed only one.  Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:42.)

[4] New Testament women who were involved in leadership ministries: [17] Priscilla (with her husband Aquila) (Ac 18:26; Ro 16:3-5, etc), Chloe (1 Cor 1:11), Nympha (Col 4:15), Apphia (with Philemon and Archippus) (Phl 2), “the chosen lady” (2 Jn 1) and “the chosen sister” (2 Jn 13), were all house church leaders mentioned in the New Testament.

Philip’s daughters (Ac 21:9), Phoebe (Ro 16:1-2), Junia (Ro 16:7), Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3) and probably Lydia (Ac 16:40), plus others, were New Testament women with significant Christian ministries and which probably included house church leadership. Just as there have been good and bad male leaders, there were good and bad female leaders. Sadly, the church in Thyatira was being corrupted by the teachings and false prophecies of a wicked and immoral female leader (Rev 2:20-24), as was the church in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3-4 cf 2:12). [My series on 1 Timothy 2:12 in Context here.]

[5] There is no real evidence that Peter was the first leader (bishop) of the church at Rome; or that  the ministry of being a “priest” is passed on from minister to minister (apostolic succession) beginning with Peter.  Peter makes no mention, or hint, about apostolic succession in his letters, nor does he state that he was the first bishop of Rome.

[6] Paul refers to his ministry as “priestly” once; but he says this in the context of proclaiming Christ to the Gentiles – to those who do not know him (Romans 15:16 cf 15:20).  Christians should rely on God, and not a person, for their forgiveness, comfort and guidance, etc.

Further Reading: “Why Jesus Chose Male Apostles” from Community 101, p74-80, by Gilbert Bilezikian.

Related Articles

New Testament Women Church Leaders
Old Testament Priests and New Testament Ministers
Is it only men who can represent Jesus?
Paul’s Qualification for Church Leaders
Are Women Pastors Mentioned in the New Testament?

The Chiastic Structure of Ephesians 5:22-33

When we step back and read the whole passage in English there seems to be an overall lack of cohesion in Paul’s writing.  Paul seems to be alternating between different subjects.  Paul mentions wives, then husbands, then Jesus and the Church, then husbands, and then wives again.  This chopping and changing makes confusing reading for most readers who are used to English literary styles.  But it would not have been confusing for people in Bible times.

Paul used a common literary device found in the Scriptures.  He used a chiasm to draw people’s attention to his main point.  A chiasm is a way of arranging thoughts in sentences to form a X-shaped patterm. [1]   The thoughts are stated sequentially in one direction until a main point or climax is reached; then the thoughts are repeated in reverse order.  In a chiasm, the main point is at the centre of a passage.   Ephesians 5:22-33 is in fact beautifully structured with a vital main point at the centre.

By understanding the chiastic structure of Ephesians 5:22-33 we can see that Paul makes, not one, but two (or more) corresponding statements about wives, husbands, and Jesus and the church; and he repeats key thoughts such as sanctification, love and the head-body metaphor, etc.  It is important to consider each statement along with its corresponding statement to gain a fuller understanding of Paul’s meaning.

Here is Ephesians 5:22-33 arranged to show the chiastic structure.  I’ve underlined key words that are repeated in the corresponding statement.

A Wives, [be submissive] to your own husbands as to the Lord[1]

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

C He himself the Saviour of the body

D But as the church is subject to Christ, also the wives to their husbands in everything

E Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her

F That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word

X That he might present to himself the church in all her glory

F1 Having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless

E1 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.

D1 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the church.

C1 Because we are members of his body.

B1 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

BX This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

B2 Nevertheless, let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself

A1 And the wife is to respect her husband.

When we recognise the structure of this passage we can more clearly see Paul’s message.  Paul’s main message here is not about marriage; it is about Christ and the Church (Eph 5:27,32).  His main point is that Jesus wants to sanctify the Church and present to himself the Church in all her glory.  This glorious message is lost when we persistently focus on the obligations of wives and husbands and try to interpet this passage only through the lens of pre-supposed gender roles.

Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. Ephesians 5:25b-27

This is the main message that Paul wanted to communicate.  Paul makes this clear by adding: I am speaking with reference to Christ and the Church (BX).  This is the message we should be highlighting.

Here is an example of what happens when we miss Paul’s real intent in this passage:

This man has taken Ephesians 5:22-35 to be primarily about marriage.  It’s not.  [My brief critique of his message is in endnote 2.]  There is, however, important advice for husbands and wives in this passage.  By reading Ephesians 22-23 as chiasm we gain more understanding about what Paul meant by the wife being submissive and the husband being the head.[3]

Paul links submission with respect in the ‘A’ sentences (Eph 5:22, 33b).  So it seems that submission in marriage is akin to respect.  It is important to note that the word for “being submissive” does not appear in the older, better manuscripts containing Ephesians 5:22; it is merely inferred from the preceding verse where Paul’s calls for mutual submission among all believers, that is, among Christian brothers and sisters.  The entire passage of Ephesians 5:22-33 is introduced by a call to mutual submission: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Eph 5:21)

In the ‘B’ statements, Paul links “the husband is the head of the wife” with a verse that goes back to Genesis 2: For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (Eph 5:23, 31 cf 33a).  Many people read the word “head” and interpret it metaphorically as “leadership” or “authority”.  “Head” rarely had the metaphorical meaning of authority in the Ancient Greek.  Paul’s real implication of using the head and body metaphor is of unity.  In particular he was referring to the unity beween Jesus Christ and the Church.  Nevertheless, Paul used this example of the unity between Christ and Church to urge husbands to love their wife as they love themselves.

There is no mention of authority or leadership in this passage, either from Jesus or from husbands.[4]  Yes, Jesus is the leader and authority of the church but this is not mentioned in this passage.  Male hierarchy or leadership is not being taught or implied here.

I cannot see any implication of male hierachy in the following statements, only unity, equality, affinity and love:

•  … husbands ought even to love their own wives as their own bodies …
• … the two shall become one flesh …
• … each individual among you [should] also love his own wife even as himself.

Because many Christians have missed Paul’s main point, they believe that Paul used marriage to illustrate the close relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.  Actually, it is the other way round: The unity between Jesus Christ and his Church is a profound model for marriage.  Both husbands and wives should be building unity, nurture, love and respect in their marriages.

However, we must never lose sight of Paul’s main message here:  One day Jesus is going to present to himself a sanctified and spotless Church.  This is the glorious hope of every Christian man and woman.  (See 2 Cor 4:14; Col 1:22)

To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.  Jude 1:24-25 

Endnotes

[1] A chi (from chiasm) is the Greek letter that looks like an X.

[2]  Stephen Um says it is the husband’s role to sanctify his bride and make her presentable before Christ. If this is correct (and it’s not) that means that unmarried women cannot be sanctified.  The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Saviour and Sanctifier of men and women; and he presents the Church to himself.  This is the main point of Ephesians 5:22-33.  This passage is firstly about Jesus and the Church.  Stephen, like many Christians, has got it the other way around.

Also, he always links the word “spiritual” with the word “head”. Ephesians 5 doesn’t say “spiritual head”. That is an assumption that is read into the text.  And to say that “head” has the metaphorical meaning of “leader”, as it does in English, is simplistic and, I believe, inaccurate.

Furthermore, the idea that the husband is the final arbiter in difficult decisions has no biblical basis whatsoever. The only biblical precedent I can find for decision-making in marriage is in 1 Corinthians 7:5 where it speaks about husbands and wives making a mutual decision.  There are some other flaws in Stephen’s message, but what is worrying is that he begins by saying, “The Bible is very, very clear . . .” implying that what he is saying is biblical and that his interpretation is the obvious, correct one.  I disagree with his interpretation.

[3] Paul is not speaking about men and women in general but about husbands and wives.

[4] It is important to note that only Jesus is mentioned in verses about sanctification.  A husband cannot “cleanse” his wife.  A husband does not act as saviour or sanctifier.  A good husband acts as cherisher and nurturer.

Further Reading: I am indebted to Kristen Rosser for her three part series which points out that marriage is not an illustration or model of Christ and the church.  More on this here and here and here.

Related Articles

Kephale and “Male Headship” in Paul’s Letters
A Suitable Helper
Submission in Marriage
Submission and Respect in 1 Peter 3:1-6
Submission and Respect in 1 Peter 3:7-8

In a recent publication that arrived in our mail, I read about the modern worship experience in church.  And one of the worship leaders interviewed said that the purpose of worship is to remember that we are worms before God.

That we are worms.

Is that the story?

Our Christian vocabulary has confused two very important words and made them one.

Unworthy.  Worthless.

These do not mean the same thing.  But when we attach them to each other, we end up talking and believing that our unworthiness means our worthlessness.

A teen told me how worthless he felt.  ”I’m a sinner,” he said.  And to be a sinner meant to be worthless.  He tied the two together, thinking that a wrong choice led to a valueless soul.

“No,” I replied, “you are not worthless.  Being a sinner cannot ever make you worthless.”

What this teen heard most of his church-life is that being a sinner makes you unworthy of friendship with God, unworthy of inheriting God’s promises of peace and joy and life everlasting.  This is true.  But maybe his own worship leader shared from the stage that we are but worms.  Unworthy meant worthless.

“Unworthy” is failing to live up to requirements.  If you cheat your employer, you do not deserve a raise.  If you fail to study for a test, you do not deserve a high grade.  If you forget your child’s birthday, you do not deserve a happy child pretending it didn’t happen.

You are unworthy of reward when you fail to do what is reward-worthy.  You cannot merit the winning title of the Boston Marathon if you come in last.  You do not deserve God to reward you when, through sin, you’ve done nothing to deserve that reward.

That is what it means to be unworthy.  Your merits fall short.  You are unworthy to be honored (Rom 4:4).

To be worthless, however, is quite different.  While being unworthy is about our merits, being worthless is about our value.  If you lost the Boston Marathon, you are as full of value as the person who won.  If you forgot your child’s birthday, you are no less valuable than the parent who remembered weeks in advance and rented an elephant for the occasion.

The distance between unworthy merit and worthless value is the distance between east and west.

Jesus did not come for the worthless.  He came for the unworthy.

Jesus came for those who are valuable.  His coming did not make us valuable.

Jesus’s forgiveness does not makes us suddenly valuable, as if a worm collection was suddenly wanted.  No, Jesus forgiveness make us deserving the reward of knowing God.  His forgiveness pulled the classic car from the abandoned garage to rev the engine and slap on fresh whitewalls.    This is what the Scripture means by “grace.”  His forgiveness reminds us, again and again, that we are valuable, though our merits are short.

You are human after all.  Humans cannot give themselves value.  Humans were made valuable from the start, without our consultation, whether we like it or not (Gen 1:27).  A popular Christian writer once responded negatively at me for this.  He believed that Jesus made us valuable on the Cross.  He said we’re concerned about value today because we’re too concerned with economics.

What he overlooked is that the Scripture affirms our value long before it recognizes our merits.  Creation came before the Cross.  We were made valuable in Eden before any temptation to think otherwise.  And God makes a plan to rescue us even before the Law and Sacrifices.

I think that writer forgot the old Sunday School phrase, “I know I’m somebody, cause God don’t make no junk.”  Unworthy, for him, became worthlessness.

Jesus said, “What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?”  Jesus himself makes an economic metaphor on our value (Mark 8:36).  Our value is worth more than all our merits, worth more than all the world.

Does God then reach down to us because we’ve done good deeds, obligating God to pay attention to us?  No.  We cannot obligate God to us through anything we do.  Does God reach down to us because he loves the valuable humans he has made, obligating himself to his creation?  Absolutely.

Let me say it again, though it may sound unusual to some ears: We can never obligate God to save us.  But he obligated himself to save his valuable creation.

We are unworthy, but not worthless. We are worthwhile and loved, no matter what we do (Rom 5:8).  God loves the valuable and teaches us how to see one another beyond what we deserve.  See that homeless man or that homeowner, that divorced man or that promiscuous woman, that prideful pastor or that addicted teen?  Their deeds may be unworthy of your attention, but they are valuable enough to love, unworthy but not worthless.  They hold God’s image too.

*Dale Fincher is an outspoken introvert, apologist, and advocate for gender-equality.  He and his wife, Jonalyn, co-founded Soulation seven years ago to help people be appropriately human. He is also the co-author of Coffee Shop Conversations: Making the Most of Spiritual Small Talk, (which is available for free this week on Amazon.com.)  In his downtime, he enjoys murmurings of a fly-fishing river.  He makes his home with his wife and toddler son in an aspen forest outside Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

I recommend Dale’s article: Men are Superior?  There are some unique insights here.

Related Article

Boldness and Humility In God’s Presence

Husbands, in the same way [be considerate as you] live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.  1 Peter 3:7-8 (NIV 2011)

Many Christians believe that submission in marriage is the duty only of wives.  These Christians often make a point of saying that the Scriptures never state that husbands are to be submissive to their wives.[1]  In his instructions to Christian men, however, the apostle Peter comes very close.

In the same way . . .

In his first letter, Peter uses the Greek word homoiōs - which means “likewise” or “in the same way” – three times (1 Pet 3:1, 7; 5:5).  Each occurrence of this word is in the context of submission or, at the very least, respect.

Keeping in mind Peter’s use of homoiōs, let’s look at 1 Peter 2:13–3:8 which is the main passage where Peter gives instructions to certain groups of Christians to be submissive:

• Firstly, Peter tells all his readers to submit to every secular authority (2:13).
• Then he addresses slaves and tells them to be submissive to their masters (2:18).
• Then he says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your own husbands” (3:1).
• Then he says, “Husbands, in the same way live together with your wives . . .” (3:7).
• In 1 Peter 5:5, Peter brings up the subject of submission again and says, “In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders.” (My use of underlining.)

The NIV has added the words “be considerate” in 1 Peter 3:7a: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives”.  However in the Greek, the words “be considerate” are not there; it simply says “in the same way live together with your wives”.  Peter had not been talking about being considerate in the preceding verses; his theme was submission.  The Greek does not use the word for submit in verse 7, but it is implied by Peter’s use of the adjective homoiōs (“in the same way”) which links verse 7 with the other verses about submission.

Ephesians 5:21-22 is similar, in that the Greek word for submit is mentioned in verse 21 when addressing all the believers – “Submitting to one another” – but the word does not reappear in the better, older Greek texts of verse 22 when speaking just to wives, it is merely implied, just like in 1 Peter 3:7.[2]

The context of 1 Peter 3:1-8 is of submission and respect, not merely consideration.  Having said that, submission in marriage is very much like being considerate; although it is more akin to loyalty and cooperation.[3]  Despite the NIV choosing to include a “softer” and potentially less controversial word than “submit”, it does seem as though Peter was really saying that Christian husbands should be submissive to their wives in verse 7.

Living Together with Understanding

Peter’s instruction: “Husbands, in the same way [be submissive] as you live together with your wives . . .” is a radical statement considering the typical Greco-Roman view of women and wives.  Apollodorus[4], in his oration Against Neaera (c340BC), revealed the common sexual roles of women in the Greek world:

“We have hetaerae (mistresses/courtesans) for pleasure, pallakae (concubines/prostitutes) for the daily [sexual] service of our bodies and gynaekes (wives) to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.” Against Neaira 59.122

There are numerous references in Greco-Roman literature about the sexual freedom of men, often with no hint of censure. In his Advice to the Bride and Groom, Plutarch (b46 AD) condones husbands having sexual liaisons with other women (except married women); but then he advises husbands to not provoke (or upset) their wives with the knowledge of these affairs. Plutarch also advices women that they must accept their husband’s extra-marital affairs.

Christian morality, on the other hand, encouraged monogamy and marital fidelity.  Peter’s instruction that  Christian husbands “dwell together” (or “cohabitate”) with their wives would have been a significant statement to some of the newly-converted Greco-Roman Christian men who may not have viewed their wives as true companions and partners in life.  Peter wanted husbands and wives to truly share their lives together.  He wanted the husbands to view their legal wives as more than just the mothers of their legitimate children.

In 1 Peter 3:7, Peter also makes the point that women are weaker than men.  Women were greatly disadvantaged in Greco-Roman society.  They had considerably less privileges and rights than men.  Women are also, usually, physically weaker than men.  Peter wanted husbands to acknowledge the more vulnerable situation of their wives – their vessels – so that they would take care not to exploit them. (Cf 1 Thess 4:3-6.)[5]   Many times, people in positions of privilege are not fully aware of the disadvantages of those in weaker positions. Instead of exploitation, Peter wanted husbands to treat their wives with respect and even honour.

Respect or Honour?

Peter instructs the Christian husbands to give their Christian wives respect, or, more accurately, honour (timē).   For some in the church of Asia Minor this may have seemed an extraordinary request of Peter.  The teaching of the New Testament, however, unlike some other religious writings, show that women are to be treated with honour and respect.  Peter tells the husbands to assign honour to their wives because, in Christ, men and women are coheirs of the life of grace.  The Greek of 1 Peter 3:7 uses language which unmistakably highlights the mutuality and equality of Christian husbands and wives.[6]

The NLT captures this meaning in their translation:

. . . you husbands  must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live  together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. 1 Peter 3:7

Peter also gives a warning to husbands.  He suggests that if husbands do not give their wives honour as coheirs, or equal partners, their attitude and behaviour will hinder their prayers.

Harmony and Humility

The insistence of many Christians, that submission in marriage is the sole responsibility and duty of wives, is not biblical.  Peter strongly implies that husbands are to be submissive to their Christian wives (1 Pet 3:7).  In Ephesians 5:21, Paul urged all Christians to be mutually submissive to one another.[7]  Submission in Christian relationships is not to be understood in the military sense of subordination, but more in the sense of loyalty, deferrence, humility, support, cooperation and consideration.[3]

Peter sums up his passage on submission by saying, “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.” (1 Peter 3:8)  This is what submission between husbands and wives looks like.  Moreover, this is what Christian submission between all of God’s people, regardless of gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status – or church status – looks like.

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,  when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.  Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.  Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.  For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. 1 Peter 3:1-6

Things to think about

To who are you submissive?  How do you express this?
What are some expressions of biblical submission?
Are you more concerned with your inner self or your outer appearance?
How much time (and money?) do you spend developing your inner self compared with time spent on personal grooming?
Who are the “holy women of old” that Peter is referring to?
Name some Bible women who were submissive to their husbands?

Inner Beauty 

 In this passage, Peter speaks directly to the Christian wives and dissuades them from focussing on their outward appreance.  In the Old Testament it seems that a woman’s worth was largely determined by how she looked and appealed to men.  A beautiful woman was deemed to have more worth than a plain woman.  In the New Testament, a woman’s appearance does not seem to be nearly as important.  [More on this here.]

One of the reason Peter (and Paul) dissuaded women from focussing on their looks was because a woman’s hairstyle,  jewelry and clothes, reflected her social status and wealth; and distinctions of status and wealth were undesirable in early church communities where equality was encouraged and favouritism discouraged.  [More on this here.]  Instead of being concerned with their appearance, Peter wanted the Christian women to focus on their character. He wanted the women to live virtuous lives and have a beautiful character.  And  he wanted them to be submissive to their own husbands.

The instruction for wifely submission in 1 Peter 3:1 picks up again on the theme of submission that Peter began earlier in his letter.  Peter had first told all Christians to submit to governing authorities (1 Pet 2:13), then he used a participle in his instruction to the household servants to be submissive to their masters (1 Pet 2:18).  Peter also used a participle in his instruction to wives to be submissive to their husbands (1 Peter 3:1.   Being submissive - which includes being humble, deferential, cooperative, loyal and respectful - is a characteristic of Christ-like living

The following has been largely copied and pasted from a previous article entitled Submission and Respect in 1 Peter 3:1-6.

The Holy Women of the Past

I’ve read 1 Peter 3:5-6 countless times and have never questioned what Peter wrote.  I just accepted that there must be numerous “holy women of the past” who were examples of the kind of wifely submission that is promoted in many churches today.  I had also simply accepted that Sarah must have been a particularly good example of wifely submission.

Just recently I’ve been taking a closer look at these verses and I’ve started asking some questions about the text.  For example: Who were these “holy women of the past”?  And: In what way was Sarah  submissive to Abraham?  Here are some of my findings and thoughts.

In 1 Peter 3:1ff, Peter addressed the Christian women of Asia Minor and he urged them to be submissive to their (mostly unsaved) husbands.  He also wanted them to focus on their inner beauty rather than on their outer beauty and live their lives in purity.[1]  The purpose of Peter’s instruction was evangelistic.  Peter hoped that the virtuous behaviour and lifestyle of the Christian wives might be persuasive and “win” (a missionary term) the husbands.  These men had been unpersuaded by the Word (logos); however  Peter suggests that they may be won to the Christian faith without a word (logos) from their godly Christian wives.

Peter used the examples of the “holy women of the past” to illustrate how the women should behave.  But who exactly were these women who Peter had in mind?

As I go through the list of Bible women in my mind, apart from Sarah, I cannot find one single clear example of a  woman who submitted to her husband.  On the contrary the Bible gives us numerous examples of holy women who did not behave in (what much of the Church would consider) a submissive manner towards their husbands.[2]

Several holy women took the initiative in significant situations, without apparent permission, protection or cooperation from men.  These women include Moses’ mother (Exodus 2:1-3);  Rahab (Joshua 2:1-6); Deborah (Judges 4-5); Ruth  (Ruth 2:2-3; 3:1-6); Hannah (1 Samuel chs 1-2); and a well-to-do Shunamite woman (2 Kings 4:8-37); etc. [3]

Several holy women were the primary or first recipients of divine, angelic or prophetic visitations without the intervention or presence of a husband or male guardian. The following are just a few examples where God, an angel, or a prophet spoke directly to a woman: Rebekah (Genesis 25:22-23); Samson’s mother (Judges 13); the “Wailing Women” (Jeremiah 9:17);  Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38); Mary Magdalene (Mat 28:9-10; Mark 16:9-11; John 20:17-18), etc.  Moreover Huldah, Miriam, Deborah and Anna are themselves acknowledged as respected prophetesses in the Bible.  Philip’s daughters also seem to have been recognised as prophetesses.

Several holy women went against authority figures, disobeyed laws and disregarded the wishes of their own husbands.  Shiphrah and Puah disobeyed Pharoah’s command, and God blessed them for their disobedience (Exodus 1:15-21).  Rebekah and Abigail went against their husband’s wishes.  There is no hint of censure against Rebekah in the Bible (Genesis 27:1-28:2); and Abigail was commended for her wise and brave actions (1 Samuel 25).  Queen Esther, in order to save the Jewish people, disobeyed a law and risked her life by coming into her husband’s presence without being summoned (Esther 4:11; 5:1).

It seems that Peter may not have had any specific woman in mind (apart from Sarah) when he mentioned “the holy women of the past who submitted themselves to their husbands”.  It seems he may have been writing about godly women in general.

I am actually amazed that there are so many women mentioned in the Bible who took the initiative and acted  bravely and independently in what was a very patriarchal society.  I am equally amazed that there are almost no  women mentioned in the Bible who are obvious examples of wifely submission.   I guess women who lead nations (Judges chs 4-5) and ward off aggressive armies (1 Sam ch 25), etc, are more interesting than women who lead quiet lives in the home; and so the more interesting women and their stories have made it into the Bible.

Sarah’s Submission

Sarah is the only Bible woman who clearly submitted to her husband’s wishes (Gen 20:13b).  On two occasions Sarah complied with her husband’s request to deceive a foreign king.  (See Genesis 12:10-20 and 20:1-18.)  Abraham was worried that the kings would kill him in order to clear the way to his beautiful wife.  Sarah must have been a stunner.  Abraham asked Sarah to go along with the ruse that he was her brother and not her husband (Gen 12:11-13; 20:13b).  This was a half-truth as Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister (Gen 20:12).

Abraham’s motives appear to have been completely selfish.  His only concern was for his own safety.  He does not seem to have been concerned about his wife who was taken by foreign kings, twice (Gen 12:15; 20:2-3).  The Bible is clear that on the second occasion Sarah was spared from being sexually violated by the king, but it is seems that she actually became the first king’s wife for a short time (Gen 12:19 cf 20:4-6).[4]

Sarah did not submit because Abraham was her master; she submitted because she wanted to protect her husband.  Sarah, however, did not always go along with what Abraham wanted.  For instance, Sarah wanted to dismiss Hagar and Ishmael, but this idea distressed Abraham.  On this occasion, God said to Abraham (literally): “. . . in everything, whatever Sarah says to you, listen to her voice.” (Genesis 21:12b, translated from the Septuagint).  In Genesis 16:2 it says that Abraham (literally) obeyed Sarah’s voice.  The Greek word hupakouō used in this verse is a common word in the Septuagint (The Greek Old Testament) and the Greek New Testament and is usually translated as “obey”.  Conversely, nowhere in the Genesis narratives of Abraham and Sarah does it actually state that Sarah “obeyed” her husband. “Nevertheless, the submission of Sarah to Abraham was a long-standing element of Jewish traditions.” (Jobes 2005:205)[5]

Sarah’s Respect

Peter also mentions that Sarah called Abraham her “lord”.  The Greek word for “lord”, kurios, is common in the Septuagint and New Testament.  Kurios is usually translated into English as “lord”, “master” or “sir”.[6]

Sarah refers to Abraham as her kurios in Genesis 18:12 in the Septuagint, “. . . though she does not address him directly by that term.  This noun [kurios] is the only lexical connection between the story of Sarah and Peter’s claim.” (Jobes 2005:205) (Interestingly, Rebekah calls Abraham’s servant “sir” [kurios] in Genesis 24:18.)

In our culture it would be very odd for a wife to call her husband “lord” or “sir”.  Sarah (and Rebekah), however, was simply using a polite term of respect that was appropriate for the culture of that time.  The New Testament has clear instructions for husbands and for wives to treat their marriage partners with honour and respect.  (See 1 Peter 3:7 and Ephesians 5:33).

Sarah’s Courage

I suspect that Peter’s use of “the holy women of the past” as examples was to highlight their faithfulness and trust in God, more so than their submission to their husband.  Many Old Testament women showed great faithfulness to God and displayed considerable courage in difficult circumstances.[7]  An important part of Peter’s advice is for wives to do what is good, or what is right, and not to be afraid.

You are [Sarah’s] daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear (1 Peter 3:6b, NIV 2011.)[8]

Sarah was fearless because she trusted in God.  When she heeded Abraham’s request, she wasn’t trusting in her husband but trusting in God to take care of the situation.  Sarah was courageous and willing to mislead the kings, putting her wellbeing in jeopardy, in order to save her husband’s life.

Sarah did not always comply with her husband’s wishes.  Sarah used her own wisdom and discernment when deciding whether or not she would do what Abraham wanted.  While husbands, as well as wives, should always be seeking to support, help and accommodate their spouse, they also need to be sensible and wise, and do the right thing.  Sometimes doing the good and right thing may mean not complying with the request of your spouse.

Real Submission

The purpose of this article is not to say that women do not need to be submissive to their own husbands.  In fact, the New Testament is clear that humility and submission are Christian virtues for men and for  women (Eph 5:21).[9]  The purpose of this article is to show that women can have a humble and submissive attitude and still use their intelligence, influence, initiative and individual abilities without artificial limitations.  This becomes evident when you use real Bible women as examples of submission, rather than the idealised, romanticised or overly domesticated versions of womanhood promoted by some churches.

I actually think that the church’s view of wifely submission has been distorted by a patriarchal mindset, combined with a  misunderstanding of the Greek.  The Greek word for “submit” (hupotassō) has a military usage and meaning of “subordinate”, and a non-military usage and meaning of “cooperate”.[10]   It is tragic that the church has taken the more severe military meaning of hupotassō and applied it to the precious and intimate relationship of marriage.

The church has largely expected women to be subordinate and servile to men[11], rather than seeing men and women as true equals who are to mutually love and care for each other.  Moreover, contrary to the examples of godly women in the Bible, the church has tried to limit the parameters and opportunities for women to use their influence and abilities.  We must be very careful not to let a narrow, graceless and faulty concept of submission bind women and limit the use of their talents and skills – talents and skills that God may want use for his purposes.

Related Articles

Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry
Paul’s Instructions for “Modest Dress”
(1) Submission and Respect in 1 Peter 3:1-6
(2) Submission and Respect in 1 Peter 3:7-8
Submission
Bible Women with Spiritual Authority

1 Timothy 2:12 in Context

1 Timothy 2:12 has been used by many people to argue that women cannot be church leaders.  This article will look at some of the pitfalls of using 1 Timothy 2:12 as the proof text on this issue.  This five part series will take a close look at 1 Timothy 2:12 – what it does and doesn’t say.

Interpretations and Applications of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

In this article I present several summaries of a range of interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 proposed by well-known Bible scholars. These interpretations are examined in the light of the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 14, and in the context of the entire letter of First Corinthians. First-century Corinthian culture is also used to evaluate the validity of the various interpretations. [3000 words plus endnotes. ]

Kephalē and “Male Headship” in Paul’s Letters

Here I’ve written down some of my findings on the use of “head” (kephalē) in Paul’s letters.  This article answers the question: Does Paul’s statement that the husband is the head of the wife in Ephesians 5:23 mean that the husband has primacy, leadership or authority over his wife? [1300 words, plus lots of endnotes for those who want to fact-check.]
Part two, Kephalē and Proto-Gnosticism in Paul’s Letters, is here.

Paul’s Qualifications for Church Leaders

Can only men be church leaders?  Some people think that the moral qualifications for church leaders, recorded in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9, were written about men and apply only to men.  They believe that the implication in these passages is that only men can be church leaders (overseers and elders.) Surprisingly for many, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is actually completely free from any gender bias or preference in the Greek. Check out the endnotes! [1500 words]

“Equality” in Paul’s Letters 

Paul wanted equality for all Christians and he wrote about this in his letters.  In some verses equality was implied.  In other verses the concept of equality was clearly stated.  Equality was Paul’s goal (2 Corinthians 8:14, NIV 2011).

Paul’s Instructions for “Modest Dress”

In discussions on the roles of women, one hot topic among Christians is the subject of modesty.  While I think it is important for women not to dress in a revealing or sexually provocative way, I do not believe that this was Paul’s meaning in his instructions in 1 Timothy 2:9.

Masculine and Feminine Leadership (1 Thessalonians 2)

There are Christians who believe that being a leader is a man’s role and that it is unfeminine for women to be leaders. Does the Bible teach that leadership is masculine? Interestingly, in 1 Thessalonians chapter 2, Paul describes his apostolic ministry in both maternal and paternal terms. [1000 words]

Working Women in the New Testament

What does the Bible say about women who work outside the home? Is it God’s ideal that women stay out of the workforce and stay at home? What is the position that Complementarians, such as John Piper, take on the subject of work and working women?  (This article looks at Priscilla, Lydia and Phoebe.)

I also have articles about several New Testament women who were ministry colleagues of Paul: Junia, Priscilla, Lydia, Phoebe, Euodia and Syntyche, etc.

Related Article

A Collection of Articles on “NT Women Church Leaders”

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.  For it is commendable (grace) if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God.  But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable (grace) before God.  To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

 

 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”  For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.  1 Peter 2:18-25

Additional reading: Isaiah 53:1-12

Things to think about

Have you ever suffered because of your Christian faith?  Were you aware of God’s grace, either during your period of suffering, or afterwards?

Last week we looked at some advice that Peter gave to the Christians in Asia Minor.  He instructed all of the Christians to submit to the emperor and the governors; and he summed up with some general advice in verse 17: “Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honour the emperor.” (NIV 2011)

Suffering Servants – 1 Peter 2:18-20

In verse 18, Peter begins giving instructions to specific groups of Christians.[1] Peter didn’t begin by addressing the most prestigious group of Christians, instead he addressed the most vulnerable.  The group addressed in verses 18-25 are oiketai.  This word is often translated as “slaves” in English translations; but the Greek word used here is not the typical word for slaves – douloi.  Oiketai, used in verse 18, really refers to domestic or household servants.[2]   These people were probably slaves, but some may have been free men and women.

As mentioned previously in these studies: As much as a third of the population of the 1st century Greco-Roman world may have been slaves.  It was not unusual for slaves to be well educated and well treated.  However slaves were the property of their masters and vulnerable to exploitation and every form of abuse.

Despite their precarious situation, Peter told the household servants to submit to their masters.  The participle form of “submit” in verse 18 carries on the theme of submission introduced by the verb for “submit” in 1 Peter 2:13. Peter assures the servants that God’s grace, that is, his favour, is upon them if they put up with unjust treatment.  This unjust treatment included being beaten.[3]

This does not mean that Christians should seek opportunities for suffering so that they might experience God’s grace; in fact it is simply sensible to avoid suffering.  But if suffering is unavoidable, as it was for the Christian servants in Asia Minor, we can rely on God’s grace, favour and commendation.[4]  (The NIV translates “grace” as “commendable”.)  It is an honour, even a gift, to suffer for the sake of our faith in God. (Cf Philippians 1:29)

We can be sure of God’s grace and favour if our attitudes and behaviour are governed by our consciousness of God and our reverential fear of him (1 Pet 2:18, 19).

Jesus – The Suffering Servant – 1 Peter 2:21-24

The knowledge of God’s grace, or commendation, would have been a great source of comfort for the suffering servants.  But Peter also mentions Jesus Christ as an inspiring example for the servants to copy.  He quotes from Isaiah 53 which is a prophetic passage about Jesus as “The Suffering Servant”.  Peter is the only New Testament writer to explicitly identify Jesus with the Suffering Servant. (Jobes 2009:188)  Ironically, it was also Peter who reprimanded Jesus when he tried to tell his disciples about his coming sufferings (Mat 16:21-23).

Peter’s Jewish audience would have immediately recognised the quotes from Isaiah 53; and the Jewish servants, especially, would have understood the profound link.  They were suffering servants, suffering unjustly, not unlike their Messiah.

In verses 22, 23 and 24 Peter makes three statements about Jesus.  Each statement begins with the word hos, a relative pronoun typically translated as “who”.  Hos is used elsewhere in New Testament Scripture as the first word in sentences of poetry about Jesus (e.g. Php 2:6; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 3:16).  Are the following three lines taken from a hymn based on verses from Isaiah? [5]  Or did Peter’s scribe, Silas, arrange the verses from Isaiah to form poetry?[6]

“Who did not sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth”

 

“Who while being reviled, did not revile in return; while suffering did not make threats, but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly”

 

“Who himself bore our sins in his body on the cross (lit: wood or tree), so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness”

Peter uses these lines to show that Jesus was innocent; and that while suffering unjustly, Jesus exhibited self restraint and suffered in silence without any threats of retaliations.    Peter’s repeated theme of self restraint in his letter seems to indicate that the Christians in Asia Minor may have been thinking of resisting, or rebelling against, those who were mistreating them.

Jesus provided a precedent and an example for all who suffer unjustly.  Moreover, Christians who suffer for their faith, share in the sufferings of Jesus.  What an honour and commendation to participate with Jesus in this calling!

Jesus’ example of silence remains applicable for Christians today.  Even if we aren’t persecuted because of our faith, some of us will be slandered or swindled, or treated unjustly in some other way.  Using wisdom, we can choose to remain silent and trust in God to vindicate us. (Cf 1 Corinthians 6:7.)

By his Wounds we are Healed – 1 Peter 2:24

“By his wounds (or stripes) we are healed.”  This phrase comes from Isaiah 53:5.  The Greek word used in this phrase for “wounds” is mōlōps.  It means a bruise, scar or  welt left by a lash.  It describes a physical condition with which the slaves and servants would have been very familiar with. (Stibbs 1983:121)

Some Christians have no problem with taking the phrase, “by his wounds we are healed” literally. They believe that this verse is referring to physical healing.   Others suggest that this verse is referring more generally to salvation.  The Greek word used here (iathēte from iaomai), however, is always used in the New Testament to mean healing from a disease or disability.  Jesus’ suffering and death has made it possible for us to be redeemed and saved, and to be healed and made whole.

Jesus - The Shepherd and Overseer 1 Peter 2:25

Peter continues alluding to Isaiah 53 and quotes from Isaiah 53:6 which says: “All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way.”  Peter describes Jesus as the Shepherd (or Pastor) and Overseer of our souls.

Jobes (2009:198) notes that,

“The joining of shepherding and overseeing in the context of the Diaspora is also found In Ezek. 34:11-13 LXX, where God promises:

I will seek out my sheep and will oversee . . . them.  As the shepherd seeks his sheep in the day on which there is darkness and cloud . . .  so I will seek my sheep, and I will bring them back from every place where they are scattered . . . And I will bring them out from the Gentiles.

Elements of this passage from Ezekiel correlate so well with elements of 1 Peter that it is tempting to conclude that Peter deliberately alludes to Ezekiel her and elsewhere in his letter.”

For the Christians who were experiencing their own diaspora (scattering), the knowledge that Jesus was caring for them and watching over them as a pastor and overseer would have been a great comfort (1 Pet 1:1).

Later in his letter, Peter instructed church leaders to function as pastors and overseers (1 Pet 5:2). Church leaders have a responsibility to care for and watch over the people in their church community, but Jesus is our ultimate Pastor and Overseer (John 10:11;14).[7]  Jesus is our guide and our guardian. He is also our goal.  Jesus is our ultimate example.  He is the one we are to imitate.  He is the one in whose foot steps we are to follow.

Yesterday I posted a link on my facebook page to an article that I had written a while ago.  The article is about whether we should, or can, place our sins, problems or burdens at “the foot of the cross”.  Some people had a problem with the article.  One person responded with a beautifully written but, I believe, theologically flawed comment which follows:

“God is beyond time and space and if we are to believe that he did not leave his divinity behind when He became man in the form of our beloved Jesus the Christ then He brought His timelessness (or if you prefer timefullness) to earth with Him. So just as he is eternally the fresh babe in Mary’s arms and eternally one with the Father he is also eternally on the cross. Our silly human minds can’t really handle timeless concepts – look at what it did to Einstein’s hair – but the reality is that God is neither here nor there, now or then. But always and everywhere. So whether you prefer to pray at the foot of the cross, kneeling in the straw of the stable or with your face turned up to His glory at the right hand of the Father is of no consequence for wherever your heart seeks Him, He will be found.” Shan Thiel (Used with permission.)

My reply, which is not nearly so eloquent (and has been edited slightly) was this:

I absolutely get that God is beyond space and time, and that many things about our faith and spirituality are beyond space and time. This makes Jesus’ willingness to condescend and become a human being – temporarily limited by space and time (as we are) – truly remarkable.[1]  However, I simply cannot find anything in the Bible that suggests that Jesus is eternally a newborn baby or eternally suffering on a cross.[2]

I do not pray to a baby or to a man nailed to a cross.  I pray to the risen, triumphant and victorious Saviour and King who is seated at the right hand of God in heavenly realms and who has successfully accomplished so much for our sakes.

As well as being our Lord and King, Jesus lives in us through his Spirit and is our closest, most generous, faithful and compassionate friend.  This relationship is only possible because of Jesus’ finished – completed – work on the cross.  When Jesus had shed his innocent life blood on our behalf, he said with his final breath, “It is finished” (John 19:30).  The writer of Hebrews said that Jesus died “once, for all” (Heb 7:27; 9:11-12, 25-26; 10:12).  The penalty for our sin has been paid in full for all time.   There is no further need for a redemptive sacrifice.  Jesus is no longer on the cross.

But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.  Hebrews 10:12.

I suggest that it takes imagination for us who are outside of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and living 2000 years after the events, to pray at “the foot of Jesus’ Cross” (which would be decayed by now) or at “his manger” (which cannot be found with certainty.)[3]  Jesus, however, is not imaginary; he is real.

The fact that Jesus successfully conquered sin and death is real.  His resurrection and ascension were real events (in the past). The fact that he lives to be our intercessor and mediator is a present and powerful reality (Heb 7:25).  These are things the Apostles wrote about – truths that have been preserved in Holy Scripture.

These wonderful truths are beyond our imagination – much greater than our imagination.  If we seek God using our own imagination we may end up praying to an imaginary “god”.  I prefer to be led by God’s Spirit when I pray and not use my imagination which is limited, flawed and can be misleading (Eph 3:20).

One more verse:

“For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.  The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.”  Romans 6:9-10

Endnotes

[1] I believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God while on earth but that he temporarily laid aside his divine privileges and powers and relied completely on the Holy Spirit’s power during his ministry (Php 2:6-8).  I believe that Jesus remains fully human and fully God.

[2] I am actually disturbed by this thinking.  What is the point of Jesus being a newborn baby eternally?  And do people really think that Jesus is eternally suffering on the cross for our, already forgiven, sins?  If we take this further: Is Jesus eternally a 6 year old or a 16 year old?  Apart from being unbiblical, these thoughts seem illogical and pointless.

[3] I cannot see the purpose or benefit of praying “at the foot of the cross” or to “the baby Jesus”.

Related Article

At the Foot of the Cross?
The Creed of Philippians 2:6-11

Paul taught a modification of the relationship between master and slave, based on Christian love and a sense that we are all slaves for Christ.  He admonished Philemon to greet his slave no longer as a slave, but as a brother (Philem.1:15-16).  Following Paul’s teaching, the early Church recognized no status difference between slave and master.  All persons were to be seated together.  The word slave, although extremely common among the grave of non-Christians is never used in inscriptions in the Christian burials in the catacombs.  Slaves were permitted to hold office, even that of bishop and pope.[1]

 

According to Ignatius, a second-century bishop, church funds were used to buy freedom for a number of slave (Apostolic Constitutions 4,9).  Some Christians even surrendered their freedom to ransom others from slavery (1 Clement 55). Marriage among slaves was protected, and non-Christians were urged to free their slaves or allow them to purchase their own freedom.

 

Clement wrote, “Slaves are men like ourselves,” and Lactantius added, “Slaves are not slaves to us; we deem them brothers after the spirit, in religion, fellow-servants.” Ambrose argued that a slave might be superior to his master in character and Augustine believed that God does not approve of slavery (as opposed to Aristotle’s view that slavery is natural). John T. Bristow, from What Paul really said about Women?  (Dr. John Temple Bristow is a Disciples of Christ Pastor in Seattle, Washington.)

Almost one-third of people living in 1^st century Greco-Roman society were slaves.  Slavery was a deeply entrenched cultural institution.[2]  Yet many of the earliest Christian congregations took seriously the Apostles’ teachings on equality and their warnings against favouritism; and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, they applied these principles even though it went very much against the prevailing culture.[3]

Why has the rest of the church been so abysmally slow in accepting and realising that all people are essentially equal – regardless of whether these people are of a different race or ethnic group, or are slaves or from a poorer socio-economic group, or are female?  The church should be at the forefront of promoting the equality and liberty of all humankind.  And we should be promoting a truly casteless Christianity?

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,  for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  Galatians 3:26-28 (NIV 2011)

Endnotes 

[1] As mentioned in my previous article it seems that Onesimus, a slave who belonged to Philemon, may have become a bishop (church overseer) of Ephesus.  Ignatius mentions a bishop of Ephesus named Onesimus.

In his letter to the emperor Trajan in around 111-113AD, Pliny (governor of the province of Pontus and Bithynia in Asia Minor) wrote that he had tortured and interrogated two Christian slave women.  He writes that these women were called “ministers” (Latin: ministrae).  (Pliny the Younger, Epistle to Trajan, 10:96)  These slave women may even have been leaders in their Christian community.

[2] Slavery in 1st century Greco-Roman culture was very different to Anglo-American slavery in the 17th-19th centuries.

[3] A much less positive view of the Early Church’s treatment of slaves here.

Related Articles

“Equality” In Paul’s Letters
New Testament Women Church Leaders
Race and Gender Discrimination in the Church
Complementarians Divide the Church
Peace on Earth