I recently criticized Complementarianism for its
unwillingness to lay hold of the term “authority” and to link it directly to
the husband’s headship. I gave an example of a Complementarian writer, who
recently stated that a danger for Complementarianism was that it asserted
hierarchical and patriarchal language. I informed the reader that the article
completely avoided using the term ‘authority’. In sum, the writer’s position:
1) rejected hierarchicalism; 2) bypassed the use of “authority”. All in all, very
similar in appearance to an Evangelical Feminist approach! [1]
I
stumbled across another article by yet another scholar, another self-confessed
Complementarian, that gave cause for concern.[2]
I’ve pasted the whole- brief- article below and put into bold print those
comments that I find disconcerting:
Am I
“Lord” of my Wife? (1 Peter 3:6)
In this day and age, this is obviously a
controversial verse, but it is chock full of interesting Greek tidbits, not the
least of which is semantic range.
Peter is encouraging Christian wives to
respect their husbands, being submissive (ὑποτασσόμεναι, 3:1) to them, and
placing an emphasis on internal qualities and not external beauty. The goal is
evangelistic; their behavior may win their husbands to the faith.
As an example of submissiveness Peter refers
to Sarah, who was submissive to Abraham her husband, κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα. The
participle καλοῦσα is expressing one way in which she expressed her
relationship to Abraham. She addressed him as “lord.”
I am going to look at some of the other
grammatical issues of the verse in my new YouTube channel, Moments with Mounce, but I
want to talk about the issue of semantic range here.
BDAG gives the range of meaning for κύριος as:
- one
who is in charge by virtue of possession, owner (such as
the owner of the vineyard or the master of the house)
- one
who is in a position of authority, lord, master
a.
of earthly beings, as a designation of any pers. of high position
(which is where they place our verse)
b.
of transcendent beings
κύριος is a common example of why we need to
pay close attention to semantic range. Now before we go any further, those of
you who know me know I am not a “raving liberal.” I am a complementarian (see
my commentary on the Pastorals). But I
really do wonder how far we can, or even should, push the meaning of κύριος.
I am more than
cognizant of the fact that Abraham and Paul lived in a highly patriarchal
culture.
And I also recognize that the argument
was not based in creation as is 1 Timothy 2:13. But I find myself uncomfortable pushing the meaning of κύριος very far.
I certainly would not want my wife, Robin, to call me “lord” or “sir.” We have
a traditional marriage relationship based on love and trust and respect. But if
Robin were to call me “sir,” I would see it as a failure to lead on my part.
Under definition 2, BDAG says this. “As a
form of address to respected pers. gener.; here, as elsewhere, = our sir(as
Mod. Gk.) Mt 25:11; J 12:21; 20:15.” My
marine son addresses his superiors as, “Sir!” But given all the biblical
teaching on marriage, Robin calling me “sir,” as I said, would be a sign of my
failure to lead.
The point in 1 Peter, culture aside (if that
were possible), is that the wife is to
treat her husband with respect (according to v 1, in a “submissive” way), but I am not convinced that there is a term
in the English language that conveys that properly. I can’t think of a
specific word that Robin could use to address me that would convey respect
without violating the other aspects of our relationship such as love.
As far as translations are concerned, you can
leave it “sir” (much better than the servile “lord”) and expect people to
understand it in its ancient culture. But if a translation is trying to make an
ancient book sound totally modern, I don’t think there is a word. Better
something like, “Just as Sarah respected and submitted to Abraham, as shown
even in how she addressed him ….”
The purpose of the article was to discuss the semantic
range of kurios (“lord”) as used in 1
Peter 3:6. But it is not at all clear that there is, at first glance, anything
to discuss. Mounce himself cites BAGD’s range of meanings for kurios. Both definitions are clearly
tied to one calling the shots. If one is “in charge” of something or someone
else, the implication is that the one in charge not only has responsibilities
to his charge but has control over his charge, even authority within his
charge. And, of course, the second meaning cited by BAGD is specifically
related to being in authority over someone, something. Conclusion: kurios is inflexibly a hierarchical term
conveying the idea of one being in authority over someone, or something, else.
So, the semantic range of kurios is settled.
Yet, Mounce presses on to look at definition #2 and a
sub-category. He notes that kurios is
said to be “ “a form of address to respected peers…= our sir” ”. Why is this important to Mounce? It cannot be because of
semantic range. It turns out that the real issue is that of application of the import of kurios to a modern setting, “But I
really do wonder how far we can, or even should, push the meaning of κύριος….
But I find myself uncomfortable pushing the meaning of κύριος very far.” What
does Mounce mean? Does he mean that the idea of one being lord over another is
a problem? It would seem not, otherwise, how could he follow our “Lord” Jesus
Christ? It boils down to, it would seem, that the kurios in authority is the equivalent of a “sir” in today’s world.
Mounce cannot bring himself to call himself a “lord”, nor would he ever expect
his wife to call him “lord”. For her to call him “lord” would violate the trust
and love between them that’s been built over the years. This is not ultimately
a cultural thing, for Mounce, “culture aside (if that were possible)”. It is an
issue of respect, “The point in 1 Peter, culture aside (if that were possible),
is that the wife is to treat her husband with respect (according to v 1,
in a “submissive” way)”. How can his wife possibly show respect by calling him
“lord” when this would violate the love between them?
It is difficult to pin down Mounce, here. Why his
fear? I think the fear is there because of the implications of the semantic
range of kurios. A wife ‘submitting’
to her husband is one thing, but calling him ‘lord’ is quite another. Yet, I’m
not aware of any modern, western, Complementarian, or traditionalist, who
expects his wife to call him “lord”. Why not just say this, then? And so,
again, I say, why the fear? Mounce comemnts about kurios’ semantic range and then insists we should not push the
meaning of kurios too far. But just
how “far” should one “push” the meaning? The reader may think that I’m making
much ado about nothing. But the question I have before me is this: has Mounce
just managed to erase the contextual force of kurios in 1 Peter 3:6? Has he explained the meaning of kurios away, for the sake of a practical
matter between him and his wife?
I think he comes very close to it. How does a text
that refers to a wife’s submission
become a wrestling ground for a husband’s
dilemma concerning lordship? Doesn’t Peter deal with the husband in verse 7? It
is all too common to read Complementarians commenting upon the wife’s
submission to the husband but soon that explanation turns into a kind of eating
of humble-pie by the male speaker/writer that explains why the husband should
not be patriarchal and overbearing. What happened to allowing the text to speak
for itself?! Surely the Holy Spirit had
something in mind for women and wives to learn by using Peter to refer to
Sarah’s example in calling her husband “lord”! And in a context that is
dominated by the theme of submission to authority (1 Pet.2:13-2:6), why does
Mounce insist that what Peter is really getting at is…respect! This is a
typical Complementarian move. It is not ‘about’ respect; it is about
submission, about Sarah submitting to her husband’s authority. If we make it
about ‘respect’, then we can extend this to say that we adults should “submit”
to children because, after all, we owe them respect!
Another matter to factor in is Mounce’s theology. What
does it matter whether the use of “lord” is creational or not? Was Jesus’
command to love our enemies ‘creational’? Some commands clearly do not fit into
the pre-Fall scenario, nor could they possibly because of the existence of sin
and the need to counter it. Mounce’s fear is that if it is creational then he
feels obliged to use the term. And so his mind spins to say, ‘Because it’s not
creational, I don’t need to expect my wife to use it.’ Again, I’m not aware of
any theologian thinking this way. I do not think that the logic follows that
because Sarah called her husband “lord” that it was not a creational theme. I
am not aware of Eve calling her husband “head” before the Fall. Nor am I aware
of Eve calling God “lord” or “God” before the Fall. But if it were a creational
theme (for a wife to call her husband ‘lord’) would a wife today ‘have to’ actually
name her husband ‘lord’? I think it would depend on the culture (but more on
that soon enough). Yet, I am entirely convinced that in Genesis 3:15 God is reaffirming
the husband’s headship, rulership, and lordship over his wife as a pre-Fall
relationship. I do not think for a moment that Adam became Eve’s ‘ruler’ after
the Fall. He was her ruler before it, and it was because he failed to rule her
properly that he sunk into sin. For that reason, God reinstituted his job as
ruler and Eve’s role as child-bearer.
I would like to ask Mounce what he believes submission
to be. Does he believe that the husband is in authority ‘over’ his wife? Is
this too patriarchal for him? What does he mean by ‘patriarchal’? Is he against
hierarchicalism? Does he reject the thought of being ‘over’ someone?
Another problem arises from Mounce’s position that his
argument is not cultural. If it is not cultural, why does it sound a lot like
the modern evangelical-feminist position? Secondly, what is he going to do with
societies where it is still customary for a wife to call her husband ‘lord’ or
the like? Can a Christian couple in, say, Nigeria honor the Lord and love one
another deeply if the wife calls her husband ‘lord’? Did Abraham love his wife?
A woman would not compromise her love for her husband by calling him ‘lord’,
nor would a husband weaken his love for his wife by receiving the title. In
Nigeria, I was regularly called by females, “master”- “Master” this… “Master”
that…always “Master.” Nobody blinked at it. I did and didn’t like it. But, such
was the culture. It was not mere
respect: it was submission to authority. In South Korea, society is split into
ranks, to the point that a male of equal rank but who is younger must call his
elder (and equal in rank) hyungnim
(“older brother”). Traditional Korea society places the father as the head and
his firstborn son as his second-in-command. It is all about authority. Is this
the patriarchal society that Mounce denounces? Is this evil, wrong? I reckon
that a fair chunk of the world is likewise ‘patriarchal.’ What to do?
We also have to consider the
extent of Abraham’s lordship. Certainly, he was his wife’s “lord”, but in what
capacity? Merely as a husband over his wife? Abraham was the lord of his domain. He was lord of all of those
under him, including his children. His authority extended beyond his wife to
all his kin, servants, and property. In acknowledging her husband as “lord”,
she was submitting to her husband’s authority over the whole household. This means that her submission was not unique, for
the rest of the household submitted. Yet, his household lordship was
particularly relevant to his wife because he was one flesh with her. As one
flesh, they drew up, and pulled down, one another together. Sarah thought that she and her husband could not be blessed
in accordance with the promise for her “lord” was not able to sire children and
she was barren. Yet, in the mercy of God, they both were pulled up together. She
realized that she had her part to play in the fulfillment of God’s promise, and
her lord had his. That is why Peter soon moves to referring to the husband’s
role (1 Pet.3:7).
[1] John Harley, "Complementarianism's Achilles' Heel," Ridderbos Times (March 7th, 2018), http://ridderbostimes.blogspot.com/2018/03/complementarianisms-achiles-heel.html, accessed 4/17/18.
[2] Bill Mounce, “Am I ‘Lord’ of My Wife? (1 Peter 3:6)”, Bill Mounce (Nov.3rd, 2013), https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/am-i-%E2%80%9Clord%E2%80%9D-my-wife-1-peter-3-6,
accessed 4/16/2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment