The Last Tests of Gideon

Audio file

41d98f8783ac40518de1847829d8951f.mp3

Transcript

OK. Well, as I mentioned this morning tonight, we're not going to be continuing in judges because there just frankly was a lot more I could have and wanted to say about submission. And yet it gets a little. Bit in the weeds. And so I thought it might be better as a more interactive time, which fortunately evening. Christ gives that opportunity, but if you're a little bit lost this morning, we came to the text in Ephesians Chapter 5 that reads this way. And maybe if you weren't here this morning, you'll maybe see why I think it warrants a little bit more. Operation Ephesians 522 through 24 reads wives submit to your own husbands as. To the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior. Now, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything. To their husbands. Now these are. Contentious words in the 21st century American mind in the Western world, in in general, and yet we have some questions then. Does this still relate to us or was this just sort of a Paul thing or early church thing? Have questions about when is it? When do women submit and when do they not submit? What does it mean the the husband is the head of the church and we covered some of those things and really I'll just say to sum up, this morning's. Then this says what it says like the way you read it and understand it like you're probably your first impulse about how it reads. That's pretty much it. It's only that it so rubs against our I will say our independent maybe slightly rebellious spirit that would see any problem with this. But in Paul's mind, he's not trying to be controversial. He's not trying to reinforce the patriarchy. He's not trying to. To just, hey, look, the Romans do it this way. The Greeks do it this way. Just don't. Just keep going along with it and we can make it redeemable. We'll talk about that in a minute, but really, truly, it sort of says what it says and it's not the only place where he says it, but I do want to leave room for discussion. So even as I'm talking. If you want to ask a question or interject, feel free to, but the very premise of this sermon is that submission in and of itself is never a bad word in the Bible. In fact. The word submission is only negative. When you are not submitting correctly now I find this interesting that uhm, the religion of Islam, the word Islam itself and the word Muslim has to do with utter submission to Allah. That's what the words Islam and Muslim mean and. I mean, I'm obviously not promoting Islam or Muslim, but that seems to be a very noble sentiment, at least as far as us totally submitting to Yahweh, the God of the Bible, not to Allah, but to Yahweh, the God of the Bible. And you might think that that's the virtue that the Bible talks about when we talk about. The mission. And yet, as we said last week, almost all of the commands and mentions of the word submit. In the New Testament, especially the commands that are not about you submitting to God except for one place in James 46. Where it says submit to God. Every almost every other command has to do with us submitting. To other people, whether that's women submitting to their husbands or kids their to their parents or slaves to their masters or or churches to the government, or us to each other. The primary concern of the word submission and the New Testament is of people. To other authority figures, other people not to God. It's very surprising cause you would think. Ohh no, the Bible must say all over the place. Submit to God submit to God. Well yes that is true. But in a way. Submitting to God shows up. Here on earth. In our submitting to others and you could even say that our lives here on Earth is characterized by submit. Action and submitting to those to whom we ought to submit so submission is not a bad word. OK, what I wanted to do, I have a couple of categories. We'll try to hit up. We'll get far. As far as we can, but I wanted to 1st address other passages that talk about this. Like I said this morning, it's not just like one time, Paul says. Hey, women need to submit to their husbands. It is in fact all over the New Testament, so if you want to, you can turn to Colossians, which is Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, go to Colossians 3. And 19. Here it said much more tersely. All right, Colossians 318 wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Of course, the the complementary command. Husbands, love your wives. Do not be harsh with them. All right, first Peter Chapter 3. First Peter Chapter 3. Likewise, verse one. Wives be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they're not Christians. They may be one without a word by the conduct their wives, in other words, Peter is even reiterating that even if your husband is not a Christian, you still ought to submit or be subjected to them. Titus chapter 2. Verse 5. Paul, writing to Titus. Who is church planting? Establishing churches? Pastoring Titus 25. We'll start in verse three, actually. Titus, you need to instruct the older women. Older women likewise, are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves. Too much wine. They are to teach what is good and to train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self controlled, pure working at home, kind and submissive. To their own husbands that the word of God may not be reviled, so there it's not a command per se. It's a command for the older women to teach the younger women to learn to submit to their own husbands. First Corinthians 11. Here it's not stated in the form of the verb uh submit or hubitat ISO, which we've we've talked about before, but. In the terms of headship. First Corinthians 11/3, I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. This is not uhm, just a one off thing. I would even say this is not just a cultural context sort of thing, but it's stated in many ways in really very different context. When you look at first Corinthians 11, it's actually the subject of head cover. Things and the whole thing about head coverings is about authority structures, so it's very hard to escape this idea. Uhm, I didn't go to Genesis because in Genesis 316, which is another place where we're often those who believe that there are distinct roles for men and women in marriage 316, it's it's familiar, it says. In the curse to Eve. God says I will surely multiply your pain and childbearing in pain. You shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you. And so some would say that even there a part of the curse is that you're going to want to over or supersede the authority or the headship of your. I'm not getting bring that up in the context of like passages commanding, say, a woman to be submissive to their husband because there's a lot of possible it. It's not as clear or cut and dried that that's what's happening in that text, but some might use that text to say that even from the beginning, there was that natural order. To even to. Before the fall, the woman, being submissive to the husband you might consider Genesis 218 where EVE is created as a helper suitable for Adam, that that might also have something to do with authority. Your headship, but even there certainly that there is a point to the fact that Adam was created 1st and then EVE in the order of things that that might be an argument for the authority or the headship of Adam. But that passage is is more like in the context. That when Adam was alone, God had all the animals come before him, and when Adam considered all the animals, there's nothing that was. Equal to him. There's nothing out there that was like him. And so that's why to demonstrate that Adam needed someone equal to him to come alongside him. He made Eve from his rib, so I think Genesis two I think could kind of go the other way as well. If you wanted to talk about equality of of minimum so. I just bring those up to say that those passages in the beginning, they might go either way as far as it. But the New Testament is crystal clear, and that should inform how we understand the Old Testament. So those are the all. Most of the passage about. Women and wives submitting to their husbands, so any any questions about those passages? Yes, Sir. For singles, so you should still have that mentality. So when you think of marriage, you should think of marriage biblically right, huh? Not not necessarily. To who, but just when you think of. Marriage in general, the concept of marriage. You want to have a concept of marriage in your mind that has gods. Right, like you still want to think of biblical definitions of marriage, and so you should still. When you are looking for a spouse, a single person be hopefully looking for someone who has the same idea about marriage. So it's very important for single people to have a right theology of marriage. Before you get into marriage, cause if you're trying to figure that out while you're married, you might run into additional complications if you find that your wife is not on the same page about the very definition of marriage, right? So it's good to sort that out beforehand. I'll also say that. Like right now in the culture, the kids are really screwed up about marriage and sexuality. And I think I told you this story. If I had a friend whose daughter goes to jujitsu, you know, and one of the girls, she's like 7 or 8 introduces herself and says I'm pansexual right now. She is hearing, certainly. Or somehow somewhere, whether it's on a tablet or a parent, talking phrases like pansexual and it's informing her worldview about how things. Are right and so I think it's important for young people to have people speaking a biblical worldview to you, but also for you yourself to be cultivating, even if you're single. A biblical worldview of marriage, because it's it's constantly under assault, and so it still behooves you if you're single, to. We care about these issues. Is that kind of makes sense of that? Yes, rich. First Peter 3. So I read that one. It's about wives be submissive to your husbands so that if they do not obey the word, they may be one without a word. So that's that passage here. So in particular that it's talking about like non Christian husbands even are to be submitted to, which might come across as shocking. Yes, Debbie. You mean you you actually submitted to your husband that saying OK?

I said.

Yeah, right.

OK. What was the? Paul's talking about spiritual things. He's not talking about.

I said.

It it says in everything. Yeah, yeah. Well, and and we said this morning how tricky it is that when it says submitting everything like. What is that? Mean and and Paul is in a way intentionally vague about it because he's just going to. I will say this one of the criticisms I'm going to have of the arguments people make against what what our church and my understanding is of the role of men and women is to say that, oh, like, let's just spiritualize it. You know it's it's it's really complicated or it's really vague and so as long as you're just sort of keeping the gospel 1st and keeping these first things sort themselves out, well, that is sort of true. But I don't think. I think it's OK if your attitude is well, as far as I can tell, my conviction is it says in everything. It means in everything and I'm going to try to do that. I mean, obviously, again we said this morning, if someone tells me to do something ungodly unbiblical, no, I'm not going to do that, but we we can talk about it in in. Just a second, but like what if? You know what? If your husband prefers you to wear a certain kind of sneaker all the time, something really like silly or certain color of of sock, you know, and it's just very, very heavy-handed. But it's really in a way inconsequential. Like, it's not hurting you to wear socks. All the time or something like that, but just something silly. That's what people say. Also, during COVID, it's like, what if the state told you that you could only preach, you know, standing on one foot and you know they make all these, like, ridiculous things? Would you submit to that as well, I mean. I think that. The burden of in everything is as much as your conscience will bear. And it's different, likely in different circumstances. So perhaps in Paul's wisdom, he's saying it has to be maximal in your heart. Your heart has to be so willing to submit, but what that actually is going to read like you know for for Debbie and Eric might be different for another couple and another couple. So I I don't know that I could. I wouldn't say I wouldn't agree with, say, Eric and saying, let's just spiritual things. I think it's in very practical, like how much of your marriage is spiritual things and how much of it is like, OK, the dishes need to get done or, you know, the the, the, the washing machines exploded or who's going to give the kids, like, if it's just spiritual. Things I mean, yes, I have a very spiritual relationship with Catherine, but there's a lot of little like practical things going on where someone needs to, like, do something and take the leadership. So it would be hard to imagine, like, just the spiritual things I don't know about that, yes. Oh yeah, it's. A terrifying thought. Yeah, for sure. It should make every man tremble in his boots. When you read this, a man, a God fearing man reading this should not think. Ohh all of the things that I. Can make my wife do like you should. Really, Trump? I hate telling people this stuff to do. I don't like telling you guys what to do. I don't like hearing your excuses. Why you don't want to do it. I'm like fighting with you about it. I don't like trying to figure out how to trick you into doing it. Anyway, I hate that whole thing. Like I'd. Much rather, just take care of. Stuff on my own, so the idea. That to be. Accountable even for my kids. Like very scary thought actually. So yes.

We have our own. And we decided that we both believed in marriage and that we both wanted to get great together. Now neither of us were.

Yeah, right. Right. Yeah, yeah.

In that day in 90. Bible because of our background. Saved us.

Yeah, there is a sense in which. Like when you think of like. In everything. Uh. It's very easy to like craft hypothetical situations that perfectly make your point or perfectly go against someone else's point, but we we have to sort of like like the like marriage. You know, there's 8 billion people on the face of the planet, and many, many, many of them are married. I'm sure that you could probably list out like the top five. Things that married couples fight about or that they interact about, you know, and they're going to be sort of the same. You know, I I don't think people have changed very much from Paul's day to now human nature wise. I don't think marriage or a man and woman being together like we're so significantly different about the things that we. We argue about or fight about or enjoy. It's not really that much different than back then, so whatever, I will say that whatever Paul had in mind when he said in everything, it's not like it's some a. Different kind of in everything as. This is now. It's probably the same issue you know, finances or you know, intimacy or child rearing or it's going to be. The same stuff. And I can't help but think like. You know, those are the things we're saying the women ought to take the lead of, you know, the. The husband and, you know, we'll talk maybe more about what the healthy dynamic is, but it's not as if there's no contribution that a wife makes to that relationship. It'd be like saying that my body makes no contribution to the decision my head makes. Well, if my if I smash my hand with a hat. I don't. The head doesn't just say, well, I'm getting really good pain sensors going off on my hand, but I'm just going to ignore that and keep pressing on. That's how you get more and more injured. I mean, it behooves the head to be like, oh, the the body is really saying something right now about this is not right. This is wrong. The head should respond responsibly to that, and that's why it's the nogy of like a head in the body, it's. They are together. It would be foolish for the head not to acknowledge the signals and the communication the body is making about that. There's something wrong. So yes, Virginia.

I was just almost.

That he had to love me as.

Whether or not.

Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah.

Basically not being selfish.

Yeah, it's submit should be kind of a scary word or one that irks you. You know, kind of rubs you wrong, but so should every command of the Bible, every command. The Bible should really be like Oh no God, you want me to do that? You want me to live like that? You want to be forgiving or generous or hospitable. You want me to? Love my enemies. You want me? To, you know, sacrifice all. Of those commands should rub you the wrong way in that sense. So why? Why this one? More than others I don't know. And maybe I'm overplaying how awful this word seems to be. Hopefully for you, it's not, but certainly in the culture. Just the idea of like submitting to anyone or anything is like is out is outlandish, at least as an individual. Everyone wants someone else to submit to me. Of course, it's not a bad word. And it's used submitting to what I think is right, but it is in terms of us submitting to anyone else that's such like a, you know, you're an authoritarian, you know you're a dictator and that's just not how the Bible presents the word. Yeah, Nikki. So it. It was typically the man who could divorce a wife, but I don't remember enough of. I know I've taught on it before, but I I want to say that there was some latitude for for women being able to divorce their their husbands because. Well, well, if if, if I mean if you got if if there was a warranted divorce, no. You know, like, you know, there's biblical grounds for divorce course if biblical grounds for divorce are met and and a a woman divorces her her husband then obviously she doesn't need to submit. To him after that. You know that's. That's true, but. No, I do think the biblical world view is that if like a husband cheats on his wife that she could seek or pursue divorce, I think that's warranted in Scripture. If that answers your, if that's the heart of the question. OK.

Verse 25.

Of the church.

Yeah, it is. There's a dynamic here that when so here's the story. I'll just tell the story now because I'm remembering it. I sort of mentioned it this morning about Pastor Dennis and Terry, and if you, if you hear the story, you're going to hear it again. But when the young marrieds we used to. Meet at Uhm older couples homes, and so Rick was mentioning that we'd met with him and Cindy. Well, the group met with Uhm Pastor Dennis and Terry. And so we were talking about like, how do you deal with conflict and what do you do when when there's issues and, you know, Pastor Dennis. Most of you know who Pastor Dennis and Terry are, but if there was ever any a couple where you thought, I don't know if they ever like, argue really or have any issues. So really interested, you know, everyone's, like really paying attention. Ohh, you know, you know, they made it sound like they had a doozy of. A story, right? And what had happened was, and they don't think they'd mind me sharing because they shared it to like a group. Young marries. Terry had gotten an inheritance. And and what Terry wanted to do was use it to get a treadmill. Now you know, Pastor Dennis did not think that was a good idea. And so he sort of opposed to it. And this led to, like, a conflict. But from what I can tell, it was not like a conflict. I've ever like. It's not like they're yelling. I just can't even imagine either of them like yelling or getting upset. So whatever that looked like, it probably, you know. They looked very mild, but they were upset in their own hearts. They knew they're upset at the other person for not seeing it their way right. And so they, you know. Went off after that. After that this agreement not coming to really an agreement about it and you know that Terry went to the Lord and she realized, you know, I'm not having a. Submissive attitude towards my. Uhm, towards my husband. This is our money. It's not just my money, it's our money. And so I should, you know, respect what he is saying. Well, you know, Dennis goes to the Lord and he starts feeling convicted. This is her inheritance. You know I love her. She should do whatever she wants so they come back together, you know, and and and they're apologizing to other. Here Terry is like you know what? Whatever you want to do with money, I'll. Do it and Tasha Dennis. Is saying no, no, it's. Americans, you do whatever you want. So she buys the treadmill and pass her dentist loves it and he's like, it's his favorite. It was his favorite thing to get on the treadmill and read a book or read an audio book. And as they tell this story, which is like a perfect story where everyone just did what the Bible said and everyone you know sought the Lord and then. You know Terry got the treadmill, but then Pastor Dennis is the one blessed by it. And you think this does not sound real. Now you're saying that when you just obey the Lord do things his way. Things turn out great and everyone is blessed. Is that what you're saying? Everyone gets what they. Want and they. Didn't say that this is what everyone I'll see. Everyone's sitting there is listening to the story and it's. Like that wasn't helpful we. Wanted to hear about you guys getting really upset. Angry, you know. The next day, you're still fuming and you're bitter, but really it was just like this perfect story of. You know, Terry submitted. Passion is love. She got the treadmill. I don't know if it's her plan the whole time that Dennis would use it, but he ends up being the one that really loves and enjoys it. And not realizing he would love it and enjoy it so much. And it was just like this picture. Perfect example of all these things that said there it almost seems surreal. But you know, we're such gossip. We wanted to know some kind of. Like what? Does it look? Like when Dennis or Terry is really upset. And so I just remember like, like we were almost like disappointed, even though. You know, this is for. I just remember some of the looks on some of the couples faces like that wasn't helpful, but it is it is because it tells you. Will you have the faith and trust to do it God's way? I mean, is it possible that things can work out well if you do it? God's way. Well, well, yeah. And sometimes you. Need that example. I know we love hearing Horror Story. I thought people didn't do it God's way and then it spiraled them into destruction and doom, and we kind of like the cautionary tale because we sort of like the spectacle of, like, a marriage going down in flames and like, oh, we like the judgment of saying, you know, my marriage is not that bad. You know, I thought mine was bad, but there's as much worse. And we like feeling better about our marriages because it doesn't seem as bad. And maybe you learn something. From the terrible choices, someone made another marriage, but maybe the culture. What it needs more of is like good marriages. That not perfect because obviously there was still a conflict there between, you know, Dennis and Terry. But the world maybe needs some more examples or people being willing to share some more of the positive ways that something to load words or maybe we just need to actually work at doing things God's way and experiencing that he can bless. Through obedience to him. But I just. It was such a funny story because no one was happy with it, even though it was like a perfect story, because we all just wanted, ooh, we get to, you know, some of the spicy, you know, relationship drama between Dennis and Terry. And like, that, wasn't it? That wasn't. Yeah, Gary.

What I wanted to say. Before she got married, was having trouble. That is.

Compatible and the true life can follow.

You're in that. Then submission just becomes. Not an inflammatory loop.

So so to that point, I think the reason that submission seems like such a bad word, it's not we it's not like the women that we should blame, actually it's the men because they have not LED in a way that women see the blessing, the protection, the prosperity. Of submitting to it and to me it's a male problem, not a female problem. The issue is not that women just aren't submissive these days. They need to do better about. I think it's the collapse. Of manhood. And I'm I'm on. I'm in that category. I mean, I did not. Necessarily see the greatest pictures of. Of uhm of headship and leadership? But it's even worse now than it was when I was a kid. I mean, there's an almost complete collapse of family structures. So many people raised in single parent homes, you know, don't even know who their dad is. And all these things like that's the problem is the kind of the, the, the, the the men have. Just attack and assault on on men. Linda, do you have? A comment or.

Well, I have a comment.

Your question.

Her husband.

Their wives, it's just.

There's a general attitude should be there. Yeah, Nikki. Yeah, I think in some cases churches were wrong to defy the government. In some cases that they were probably right too. It kind of depended like, you know, there's different, there's different. Laws that were being enacted in different places, even within the country, huh? So, uh, so some places you couldn't meet at all, indoors or outdoors, right? And so, like, a total like abolition of Christian gathering, I think you can't do that here. We were able to gather outside, so that's what we we did and we didn't say push it as far as saying no this building, we should have the right to be in the building and and we had different. The rationale for that, but at least for us, it seemed. In our context, reasonable to submit to that, but there are some things maybe that we did not submit to because I think they said, like, no singing or some kind of limitation on singing like, well, there we have a clear biblical command in Ephesians 5 that you're just saying. And so we were not going to, like, say, abide that. And so there were some things where we did obey some things where we maybe. Tried to as best we can, but hey, like, you know, uh, I can't control like every molecule of air that comes out of people's mouths. And if that's the burden, that's not reasonable. They didn't ask me to stand on one foot, but that you know to, to preach or anything. But if they had what I have. Submitted to that well, I I can see how. In fact, uh could be hindrance to the gospel because some people have leg issues and now you're just saying only able bodied people. That's discriminatory, you know, like, I'm not going to say only able bodied healthy legged individuals can preach the gospel. So if there was something ludicrous like that, I probably wouldn't submit. But I I think there can be room for saying that some churches. Made the judgment they did in their conscience in an attitude of submitting and everything and still said we're not going to abide what the government is saying and some who did say, well, we can do that, we can make that work and. I think in general the attitude needs to be not looking for ways to escape submitting, that is the wrong attitude. We should always be trying to submit and reluctantly not versus any chance I get. I'm looking for a way out. That's the way. Like kids act? That's childish. That's immature to always be looking for the the loophole. You know, like my. Dad didn't say exactly that. I couldn't do this. You know, while I'm not. Well, you know that your dad doesn't want you to, like, blow up the house. Even if he didn't like describe. Every single way you could do it so. I think it's a there's. A little bit of conscience to that, but yeah.

Necessary character.

Uhm, what do you mean? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. Like, yeah, that's sort. Of the premise of the baby, you're right. Cindy, do you have a comment? Yeah, yeah. Thank you. So uhm real yes. Yeah, yeah.

Am I right?

I mean, I I would say first Peter 3. You know it, it is saying. You know, be subject or submit to your own husbands that even if some do not obey the word, they may be one without a word, by the conduct of their wives when they see your respectful and pure conduct. So I mean, if you're, you know, if your husband's asking for your opinion on something or is open to pushback, I mean, that's not. Inherently unsubmissive again, like if it would be foolish of me not to respond to my body sending signals to my head, something's not right. Right. So I don't think it's wrong to like notify your husband if things don't seem right. Now what he does with that. Might cause you to not submit. If you then his response is well, if my hands saying there's a pain here and the brain is telling you we should is go grab that hammer and just keep pounding it until it stops hurting. Well, I don't think you know the the hand needs to obey that command from the head, so to speak. I know we're kind of making a illustration here. But I. Like what is he asking you to do if he's saying well, oh, you only need to submit to me in spiritual matters where he's not making any spiritual choices for you. Generally speaking, right. So yeah. So if if you know, is he saying, like, go ahead, it's, you know, do whatever you want. I mean, OK, if he wants to give you the latitude, then you you do what you want. But in this case he seems. To have a preference. So is he asking you not to have that preference? Is he saying like I don't understand? Yeah, sorry.

They didn't ask us. Do anything.

Yeah, yeah. No, just to your own husband, you know. So, I mean, you know, you're. Is he asking? I mean, it sounds like it sounds like he thinks you're saying don't have like. That you think that being submissive means not having an opinion and he's trying to tell you no, no. You can have an opinion. Well, yeah, like. I think that's not unsubmissive to have an opinion. So and you have an opinion you told. Them and go from there. Yeah, yeah.

Asking you not to leave alone.

No, no.

It's a it's a relatively small like minor issue in in a way you know, so at least at. Least the one. That you you brought up to me. I mean, I like. I don't know what kind of relationship you guys have with your your spouses, but if they're really just like, 24/7, you were just talking about theology and how that applies because it's again, it's like, you know, even if you're talking about spirits, things all the time. You know. At the point where it involves action. You know how much spiritual action am I trying to get like Catherine to do? Not a whole lot, to be honest. I mean, maybe once I get big decisions of like we going on the mission field or are we not or are we gonna, you know, church plan here or are we not? And those come up. But you know so much of. The day-to-day of of marriage and life is. You know, relatively mundane, but I think that's what's really here in the and everything. OK, let me. There was plenty of passages about the mutual Equal Partnership of Ministry that women have. I won't go through all them because I've done this before, but we've talked about Jesus female disciples who seem very much a part of what he did, acts Luke. I think 11 talks about that. You know uniformly Jesus female disciples were shown to be supportive. Always a good example as opposed to Peter. They never betrayed him. Like Judas. They're the first witnesses of the resurrection. You get no sense at all that in Jesus Ministry the female disciples were somehow. Lesser or more diminished in terms of ministry worth or value? No idea, but is that mutually exclusive to a wife still being called to submit? Like can I hold in my head that women have an equal kind of, you know, worthiness in the eyes of God while still saying there's some roles that they are in that men are in and it's different? Different, so I don't see that as contradictory because someone who thinks that the roles are interchangeable between men and women would see these passages about like, say, Priscilla and Aquila. How she seemed to have the more talkative role in Discipling Apollos in Acts 18 is that somehow contradictory to wives submit to your house? No, it's just in the role in that. Household role. Well, wife can submit to husband and not diminish her ability to serve or or share the gospel or anything. You also have prophetesses and and so on it just there's no. It doesn't have to follow the women being just as valuable to ministry and just as much a partner in ministry to say that. Well then, how can that possibly coexist with the wife also being submissive to her husband? It's just they're different categories. They're just not. You know there's no correlation, and it's egalitarians who said this morning, who say no. No, there's got to be a necessary correlation. If they're equal in this, then they must be equal in everything. It just the Bible doesn't seem to present it that way. That won't go too deep into that. I want to talk about just a few of the biblical. Arguments and hermeneutics that are used often to, again like call for this egalitarian position where men and women. The roles in marriage are relatively interchangeable, so the woman can be the head or there is no such thing as the head. It's just like an arrangement or agreement. I'm just going to. Talk about 3:00. 3 hermeneutics that are employed to argue for the Galician position, and I'll I'll say, why I think they are concerning. To use them, so the first is Gordon fee, he writes concerning these passages, he spends a lot of time talking about the context. The Roman Greco context. He mentions that the household was where the church met, right, and so within the household there should be an order to it because of of the fact that the churches are meeting there and he would argue that if the the father of a household. Became a Christian that he might. Call the whole household to also come to faith as well, and then you have a church being there. And so because of that you need to have these relationships of of husband and wife and and kids and slaves. You gotta address those things because the church is happening in your home and these are relationships very obvious in the home. So it draws that out. There and. He says this OK. This I would urge is how these texts finally apply to us into our homes. So after giving a lot of context of Greco-roman culture and the the paterfamilias and all these Latin words and ideas and all the practices that Philo talks about, all these philosophers, he basically in a way. Muddies the water of our understanding of the time. You'll even say, like you can't possibly really place yourself as a 20th century. He wrote this in the 20th century, 20th century, 21st century American. You can't really get yourself into the the real attitude and headspace of Paul. And the believers of the early church, you don't really know what it was like, uh, because here are the different factors that could be influencing. And so I say this, I would urge is how these texts finally apply to us into our homes. In the end, the structures are immaterial. That means husband and wife. Children parents master slave since their predicated altogether on cultural Givens that are simply not ours. So they're understanding of husband and wife, children, parent master, slave is so different than our understandings. Of the same institutions here in America. Indeed, in light of this text, the structures are ultimately irrelevant, except that some structures must be in place or the household will fall apart. But these depend largely on the people involved, their own giftings personalities, and how they relate to each other. In other words, since it is so culturally removed. Since you can't really possibly fathom it, you can't really get. An application. From a text like Ephesians 5, because you don't know all of the cultural baggage. That, that, that, that. Could be informing it. So you can't even really look at these words and apply them to yourself, except in like, the broadest spiritual. It's almost like saying, let's just focus on how Jesus transforms relationships. Since everything is so culturally contextual, different than our circumstances. Let's just look at these passages and rather than finding it like a specific command like Debbie, you need to submit to your husband and everything. Just say you know Debbie, like just. Put Jesus first. Believe the gospel and you know things will kind of sort themselves out. He wouldn't say it exactly like that, but in this paper that he writes, the danger I find in that is if you say. You couldn't possibly understand the cultural context that this is happening in, and since we can't really figure that out, let's just take a very broad spiritual approach. What happens if you start applying that to the rest of the Bible? It starts just to become a mushy, like sort of spiritual mess where it just let's not focus on like any particular commands. We know that in general, the context is Holy Spirit, full living. So just live by the holy. We know the context is church unity, so just be united as a church. But you start to smooth out all of the sharp edges of Christianity. And The thing is like you need a sharp edge if you want to shape something, define something so you don't use necessarily like a sanding block to make a sculpture, you need chisels. You need things with fine points on them to really make a sculpture. If you just have like a sanding block. I mean you can make. Maybe a nice ball. More like, you know, really general thing, but if we're to be molded in the shape of. Sometimes you you need to be hit with the scalpel or an axe or something sharp. But this seems to diminish the ability of the text to say anything specific. It even, maybe more dangerously, this is my biggest concern is. If we are using the way we use cultural contexts here at ICC is to inform us better how to apply the text right? We do literal grammatical history. That's how we interpret the historical part. Is that cultural context? We always use literal, grammatical, historical to help us understand the passage better, to apply it better, and it sounds like I know few wouldn't agree with this, but my take away reading his paper is like he is using cultural and background context to wipe away.

OK.

Any application and it's the opposite. He wouldn't agree with that, but that's the way it comes off and that's how. People end up applying it. Now think of doing that. Texts about homosexuality. You can do the same exact thing and. Guess what they have? They take that same approach. You know you can, you know, when it says. Homosexuality and that God condemns it. You don't really understand the cultural context of Roman pederasty and all of these things, and it really it's very involved. There's very specific power dynamics and things and the cultural context is is a little bit muddied and confused. It really has nothing to do with what modern ideas of homosexuality, so those passages. You don't really apply them. You can't really apply them. You don't. Even know really what they mean? Well, you can start washing away all kinds of applications when you use context to take away a burden to apply it, and that would be my concern about that kind of hermeneutic hermeneutical mentality. Another thing that is sometimes done is to, and this is most predominantly. Seen in that word head what it talked about this morning is taking specific terms and words and finding kind of. Not obscure. That's not entirely fair, but novel. Ways of approaching certain words. Critical words in a text. Now the big one is the word head. I can't I I'm literally telling you, they write papers and papers and papers about the single word head and what it means. Does it mean the source? Or does it mean? The authority. We said that this morning. And the incentive to have that debate again is to remove. The idea of a. Head from authority or or being in charge. David Cotter at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, he writes. I once hooked up over 2300 examples of the word head, which is keep falling in ancient Greek and these texts the word kefali is applied to many people in authority, but to none without. Governing authority, so they. Try to say you know that again, if the head means like the source, it's not necessarily authoritative, it just, you know source or origin. And so you have the king of Egypt. It's called the head of a nation, general of an army. It's called the head of the Army, Roman Empire. Head of the people God Zeus is the head of all things. David is the. King of Israel. Is called the head of the people, so on and so on. So there's, he says no one in a non leadership position is called head ever. So the egalitarian position or assertion that a person who is called the kefali can be the source without governing authority is is false. This is a hermeneutical trick, again, also, and again like, of course, people who disagree with and say no, you're not representing it fairly, but it it it does. The papers that I read about this. It it always reads like this way, a word when you look it up in the dictionary typically can have what you know. 345 different meanings in Hebrew because the language is so economical, you could have very diverse meanings even. For a single word, if you ever took like, you know, a bobs Greek class or something, you know, like a single word can mean almost like opposite things because we start to use words metaphorically, we start to use words. You know, as illustration or allegory and meanings of words changes. It is fair to say that a word like head if you look it up in the dictionary can have even in English. Many different meanings. Right, like your physical head or. The head of state. That's totally fair. But a harmonical principle literal grammatical historical is the grammar. The meaning, in other words, the context is what dictates the meaning. Well, I think you'd be really interesting if I go to the lexicon, I look up this. Any word submit even and say. Oh, that's kind of a weird that's kind of a weird, esoteric usage of the word, but. What if that's what Paul meant? And that's what. With that is, they kind of pick and choose. From the list. What might support their position more, or what sounds interesting? This is what a lot of liberal scholars do. They need to write a paper, and they, you know, flip to a lexicon. Let's take an obscure, you know, use of this word, and let's see if I can justify that this is what he meant and he can all come up with. Mild things I mentioned this morning. I read someone that because Summit is a military word, was trying to make the. Argument that actually the wife. It's like, you know, is to like, almost like, militarily support her husband. It's actually the husband that needs the protection of of of his wife because she's the one that's militarily coming alongside, you know, general has an army that that does his bidding, but he's kind of himself relatively powerless, you know, he's got to have other people. And it was wild, and it's because she looked at the definitions for the word submit. And, you know, in a lexicon. And here it's like in military usage, blah blah blah. Oh military usage you say, and you come up with this weird understanding of it. It's not fair to do that. If you are sticking to a literal grammatical, historical interpretation. Of the Bible. Context determines definition, not cherry picking definitions we like because. What will happen? I could get the Bible to say all kinds of crazy stuff if I am allowed to cherry pick the most weird and esoteric meanings for for a word. And obscure uses of it.

Some people. Educated beyond intelligence.

Yeah, Nikki. Yeah, and they can be prophetesses and. So, you know, let's get the next point is actually kind of we'll speak to that. All right. So the third, the third, I think strategy hermeneutical strategy, I see oftentimes those who don't agree with our position or you know typically called egalitarian is to. To pit a passage. Against another passage, or to say that there are some passages that are, again, this is not the way they would put it, but like more have more sway than other passages, or even that other passages might come underneath this passage. For example, for example Galatians 328. What does it say? Glaciers 320 and anyone have it memorized? For there is neither Jew nor Greek. There is neither slave nor free. There's no male or female. For you are all. One in Christ Jesus. So there's a statement of egalitarianism even like philosophical, political egalitarianism, everyone is equal. So what you might do is say, well, that passage is kind of more important than these passages about household codes and rules. And so those passages should be read as subordinate to this passage. And so whatever these things mean, we might have to adjust. What they mean because they need to be sort of submitted ironically to this other passage. This is more important principle to preserve this egalitarianism is more important to preserve. So whatever submit there means it must be very cultural, it must. To be temporary, it must be something that is not contrary to this verse, right? Or another strategy could be to take versus and if there seems to be a contradiction between them to use again like a third more. Controlling verse to interpret them right. Now that seems sort of OK. It sounds almost like a hermeneutical principle that we call the analogy of the faith an analogy of the faith simply means that if you believe the Bible is 1 text from the mind of God, it's perfect and inerrant. Is there any contradictions within it? No, right. If there's any seeming contradictions, where's the problem? People, it's me. It's not the text, it's me. And not being able to reconcile the contradictions analogy the facing all scripture is harmonious and whole, non contradictory to each other. So you can use Scripture to interpret or understand other scripture. And we should compare. Scripture to other scripture you're going to be safe to compare Scripture to scripture rather than comparing scripture to the Constitution or to some song lyrics or something. So we. We should have this idea if we really believe the Bible is what it says it is of using Scripture to compare to scripture, to balance other scripture that is a valid principle, but. What is happening when sometimes I don't know if it's popular without egalitarians anymore, when you kind of make one passage stand out, what does that do? It creates levels of scripture. Right, so who gets to determine which of those passages are like more controlling? Of the other ones. Does the Bible give any indication that? Some are more important, some are more subordinate. Who gets to choose that? If I get to choose that, it's so subtle. But what does it mean if I get to start to say, you know, some passages are a little bit like Super Scripture. And other scripture needs subordinate to it. If I start cherry picking what those controlling verses are, you can get into a dangerous place. You can start twisting things around. Very subtle, but if you're not putting them ironically egalitarian all even with each other, then you are going to start making preferences. And orders of what script? The higher ones and the hierarchical ones. Very ironic again, because we're saying egalitarian view of Scripture. We'll demonstrate there's a non egalitarian you. Know order submission but. You know, if you are willing to make a hierarchy of scripture, you can come to egalitarianism. You know, in, in relationships, sort of ironic. But does that make sense what I'm saying there? So Nikki yeah.

That doesn't mean that.

Well, I mean in a like so, So what you would do by analogy of the faith rather than saying one is. Like kind of controls or reinterprets the others. It's just say, well, how do we make? Sure they. All are even with with each other and and there's many ways to do that frankly like. The Bible, the New Testament absolutely still makes distinctions about Jews and gentiles like even in Ephesians. Paul very clearly says these are two different categories, but in salvation there's but one body of Christ. So I mean, he's admitting distinctions but saying when it comes to salvation. Everyone is a Sinner. OK, so there's neither Jew nor Greek in that sense in Christ's body. It's not like. Uhm one is uh. Better than the other. But they are different than the other. Jews had a different privilege and advantage and therefore more accountability. The Greeks had something else. Slaves and masters. Those are all categories that are still meaningful in the Bible, even when Paul says that when it comes to salvation in the body of Christ, that all evil so. But it's better to make say. A separate category of what Paul is talking about then to say this is actually over and now we've got to reorient to how we view all these other passages. In light of this one being like more, you know, Super Scripture, it's better to say, well, no, we're talking about something different or that. Theologically, that having different identities. And roles is no barrier to salvation. I'm Korean. There's being a Christian suddenly mean I'm not Korean anymore. No, that distinction still exists slave. If you're a Christian. Are you suddenly not a slave anymore? No, you got. A whole bunch of fight Lehman talking about. You know, you shouldn't have ran away from your masters. Obviously, those distinctions still existed. So Paul must be talking about something else rather than trying to say. Well, now we got to reinterpret. This is more important we got. To include everything. Else it's just no, we're maybe talking about something different. So that's truly analogy of the faith. Does that make sense?

No kidding.

Clear as mud, as they say. So allowing one passage to control or contextualize or or stand over other scriptures ironically results in egalitarianism, but it itself is not egalitarian. To do that, it's sort of ironic, having said all that. The real assault then, right. We're going to do. I know we're getting. OK. But one last theological word, I think what this debate about complementarian and egalitarian does. It's really assault, an assault on a doctrine called perspicuity. OK. I think that. You can hold like an egalitarian position and say. I have a high view. Of Scripture, I want to take it all very seriously. And I'm and. And you know, I believe it's inerrant. And the word of God and. All those things you can have a high. View of scripture but. I think what egalitarian anism does is have a low view of perspicuity. The irony of the word perspicuity it means perspicuity means being able to understand. It's ironic because the word perspicuity does not sound like a word you easily understand, right? So they pick like the worst word to represent. Things being understandable. So that's how you can remember the word now. It's like the worst word to pick to say understandable. This is a doctrine of the Bible being understandable. That's what perspicuity is. The doctrine of the Bible is intended to be read and understood by. Average people like you and me and that God's intent is for his word not to be mysterious or or hidden. Not that it doesn't take some work to mind the goal, but God's desire is to reveal it to you, not to hide it from you and not to say if you pay the right guy. He can tell you what it is. I fully believe everything I've told you are things you can figure out and look into yourself. And I want you to and if you think I'm wrong, to tell me that's what persecution means, is that it's so understandable that I can preach to you a sermon. You go and look it into yourself and you can come back and say I don't know if I see. Yeah, well, that's the point of perspicuity is that we God intends for his words to be understood, because how can you obey without understanding? And I think what egalitarianism does, because they mess with the rules of hermeneutics is it makes it harder for you to understand the Bible because you're clouding the meaning cause by saying the cultural context. You can't get it. It just no one can it clouds the meaning to say, well, you can just pick and choose which definition. In the lexicon. To to to derive the meaning of the word from. So just pick one of the random ones. It clouds the meaning to say you know there's some scriptures that are like. Super scriptures that really kind of control the other ones that makes the Bible unclear. Not clear because who gets to determine that the Bible doesn't give you the really, really Bible passages and the ones that are lesser? Well, doesn't do that. So I think in those three examples you can see I think you can see how they're kind of an assault. Being able to understand what the Bible says and instead. They cloud it. It's an assault on Perspicuity. Now, that's totally a me thing. I've never heard anyone else say that before. I could be wrong about it, but that's what I felt at any time I read. Anytime I read egalitarian literature, I just felt like I'm getting further away from understanding the text, not closer to understanding it that these were the things intended to cloud it, and maybe in clouding it to slip something in that was man's thoughts and not God's thoughts. Now I'm not trying to say. My gallitan brothers and sisters are all like, you know, quirks and swindlers that can't trust any of them, only that I I would challenge them to be consistent in the way they are approaching understanding the Bible, because I think that if what you're doing can cloud the meeting instead of clarify the meaning, take away the ability to apply rather than. Bring a burden to apply. You don't want to base a church in the ministry or your life on that. So does that kind of makes sense? The angle I'm going there with perspicuity. It's it's sort of the same word as like perspective, you know, understanding it just means understanding the doctrine of God wanting us to understand the Bible. And I think egalitarianism. Egalitarian hermeneutics doesn't help that, so any last questions are we going to talk over dinner? We can talk over dinner. OK, let me pray. Heavenly Father, I do thank you that you want your word to be understood and not that I want to talk badly or poorly of of theologians and great men and and pastors and women who are earnestly trying to understand your word for what it says. But Lord, help us to not. Not be LED astray in wanting. Maybe what we want. But rather letting the text say what it is we should want and desire Lord, if we buck against what your word says to have the honesty to say I understand it. But I don't like it, and that's fine, Lord, you can work with that. But, Lord, if we what we don't want to do is undermine the scriptures and our understanding. So help us sort. I know we all need that. I know the word submission. Can be a little bit tastes bitter in our mouth, but Lord, it was not bitter in the mouth of Jesus when he said nevertheless not my will but yours be done if it wasn't bitter in his mouth, but rather a sweet trust that he exhibited. May we have a different. One view than the world does on that idea. So thank you, Lord, for all the relationships represented in this room. Help us to live out the gospel in all of those different relationships we have with others. Bless this time together and the food. Jesus, name you, Frank layman. All right. Thank you. All plan to stick around and continue to fellowship and talk with each other.

Thank you.

And this site all right.

Makes sense? So I think.

It's not just.

I know it's the fourth question. Do you have any answers?