• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Egalitarian? Or Patriarchy?

steve

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Does the NT really teach equality in the marriage “partnership”, or does the OT standard of patriarchy still apply?

Numbers 30 tells us that if a man makes a vow, he is held to that vow and must perform it.
But if his wife or daughter that lives in his house makes a vow, he has the right and the responsibility to vet that vow and veto it if he sees fit.
Where in the NT does it teach that his wife is equal with him and can now veto his vows? Or that she is equal with him and he no longer has veto authority?
And what about a daughter’s vows, does he still have authority over them?

Another question that I have is why are we given an organizational chart in both 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 that the husband is the head of the wife and Yeshuah is the head of the husband if the marriage is to be equal?
And why is the husband instructed to wash his wife with the water of the Word, but not vice versa?

Two things I have seen mistakenly used to support equality.
One is Galatians 3:28 , there is neither male nor female? How so?
Obviously it doesn’t mean that there is no difference, only females can bear children and only males can impregnate them.
It simply means that both have salvation available to them equally. Unlike religions where women do not enter the afterlife without the permission/invitation of a husband.

The other is in Ephesians 5 where we are told to submit ourselves one to another.
Does this mean that we are equal and must obey each other equally? No, in fact that isn’t even possible, if you think about it a little bit.
No, it means to consider each other and work together. Yet the next three verses exhort wives to submit to their husbands (but not to males in general) and be subject to them as the church is subject to Yeshuah.
Completely different commands are given to the husbands as to their duties towards their wives.

The point is that people want to see “equal but different” in the NT, but there are just too many teachings that point in the opposite direction.
 
The Biblical standard is patriarchal from beginning to end. All things must be brought into submission to Christ, and the order that God has established is fundamentally patriarchal.

The egalitarians are wrong. They twist and stretch Galatians 3:28 far beyond what is meant.

The "complementarian" position also has serious problems since it has compromised with feminism and egalitarianism.
 
The Biblical standard is patriarchal from beginning to end. All things must be brought into submission to Christ, and the order that God has established is fundamentally patriarchal.

The egalitarians are wrong. They twist and stretch Galatians 3:28 far beyond what is meant.

The "complementarian" position also has serious problems since it has compromised with feminism and egalitarianism.
Right, I was providing some proof for what has been argued.
 
Does the NT really teach equality in the marriage “partnership”, or does the OT standard of patriarchy still apply?

Numbers 30 tells us that if a man makes a vow, he is held to that vow and must perform it.
But if his wife or daughter that lives in his house makes a vow, he has the right and the responsibility to vet that vow and veto it if he sees fit.
Where in the NT does it teach that his wife is equal with him and can now veto his vows? Or that she is equal with him and he no longer has veto authority?
And what about a daughter’s vows, does he still have authority over them?

Another question that I have is why are we given an organizational chart in both 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 that the husband is the head of the wife and Yeshuah is the head of the husband if the marriage is to be equal?
And why is the husband instructed to wash his wife with the water of the Word, but not vice versa?

Two things I have seen mistakenly used to support equality.
One is Galatians 3:28 , there is neither male nor female? How so?
Obviously it doesn’t mean that there is no difference, only females can bear children and only males can impregnate them.
It simply means that both have salvation available to them equally. Unlike religions where women do not enter the afterlife without the permission/invitation of a husband.

The other is in Ephesians 5 where we are told to submit ourselves one to another.
Does this mean that we are equal and must obey each other equally? No, in fact that isn’t even possible, if you think about it a little bit.
No, it means to consider each other and work together. Yet the next three verses exhort wives to submit to their husbands (but not to males in general) and be subject to them as the church is subject to Yeshuah.
Completely different commands are given to the husbands as to their duties towards their wives.

The point is that people want to see “equal but different” in the NT, but there are just too many teachings that point in the opposite direction.
Yes Context is KING! Anybody can voice a quote to support their position.
 
The other is in Ephesians 5 where we are told to submit ourselves one to another.
This is one of the most frustrating portions of scripture twisted and abused by moderns.

Submitting ourselves to another is the end of the general thought (we are all to be thinking about abasing ourselves as necessary, and consistently within Jesus’ teaching).

What follows after is a specific list of examples of how we see submission in action according to hierarchy.

Are parents to mutually submit to their children? I think some moderns (far too many) would think so, but it’s not practical.

Telling your boss (master/slave/servant relationship) that he must mutually submit to you is a hilarious thought.

Proper exegesis is not popular when a social axe must be ground.
 
In most of scripture the MEN are addressed with expectation that the men share with the family. The early church had not gotten to(evolved) the point of equality of the genders. Unfortunately we look at first century society through twenty-first century lenses and define it accordingly.
Unfortunately, we also will re-interpret the vileness of idolatry(and the practice of child sacrifice) through our sensible lenses and dismiss the gravity of sin.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, we also will re-interpret the vileness of idolatry(and the practice of child sacrifice) through our sensible lenses and dismiss the gravity of sin.
Like referring to the murder of babies as T.o.P (Termination of Pregnancy)? Maybe M.o.B wouldn't go down so well with some expectant mothers(?)
 
Back
Top