Because I can't seem to close this can of worms, here are links to two papers that survey different views of Genesis 3:16 and the scope of marital submission. Both are written by evangelical, non-egalitarians.
Genesis 3:16 - The Pronouncement on Eve by Les Galicinski, M.Div. (ht: A Cry for Justice)
This paper has a helpful diagram that lists the theologian and his/her interpretation of Genesis 3:16. Of note, the author does not agree with Susan Foh's recent interpretation but believes that desire is a desire for her husband. He also cites John Piper and Wayne Grudem as differing from the Foh view, which I find surprising as I was under the impression that CBMW promotes her interpretation. But I may be wrong.
What Does "Submit in Everything" Mean? The Nature and Scope of Marital Submission by Steven Tracy, Ph.D., Professor of Theology and Ethics at Phoenix Seminary. Published: Trinity Journal (TrinJ) 29 (2008) pp. 285-312
Dr. Tracy discusses the different views on the scope of marital submission through a literature survey of non-egalitarian sources. He is also the founder of Mending the Soul ministry which provides training and resources to help victims of all forms of abuse. Thus, his paper highlights attitudes about submission that could potentially further abusive situations. The author does not believe the Ephesians 5 context supports a "military chain of command" in the relationship between a husband and wife. He also cites Andreas Kostenberger as rejecting the military model in marriage. As a side note, in Two Views on Women in Ministry (pp. 302-303), Thomas Schreiner writes that the "militaristic conception of marriage is foreign to the biblical perspective..."
For the record, I agree with John Calvin's Genesis 3:16 interpretation as loss of personhood for the woman, although I think Mr. Galicinski did not describe it very clearly. I would also agree with Drs. Tracy, Kostenberger, and Schriener regarding submission. Even though the root of hupotasso may have a military connotation, I would be very interested to learn its chronological history. Like other Greek words, meanings fell out of use over time. If the military overtone was not in use at the time of Paul's writing, could this possibly be an etymological fallacy?
Addendum:
Or another fallacy such as "illegitimate totality transfer"? Where a "word's entire semantic range is improperly considered to be part of the term's meaning in a specific context when, in fact, only one of the several possible meanings obtain in that particular instance." Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, Kostenberger & Patterson, Kregel, 2011, pg. 646.
Genesis 3:16 - The Pronouncement on Eve by Les Galicinski, M.Div. (ht: A Cry for Justice)
This paper has a helpful diagram that lists the theologian and his/her interpretation of Genesis 3:16. Of note, the author does not agree with Susan Foh's recent interpretation but believes that desire is a desire for her husband. He also cites John Piper and Wayne Grudem as differing from the Foh view, which I find surprising as I was under the impression that CBMW promotes her interpretation. But I may be wrong.
What Does "Submit in Everything" Mean? The Nature and Scope of Marital Submission by Steven Tracy, Ph.D., Professor of Theology and Ethics at Phoenix Seminary. Published: Trinity Journal (TrinJ) 29 (2008) pp. 285-312
Dr. Tracy discusses the different views on the scope of marital submission through a literature survey of non-egalitarian sources. He is also the founder of Mending the Soul ministry which provides training and resources to help victims of all forms of abuse. Thus, his paper highlights attitudes about submission that could potentially further abusive situations. The author does not believe the Ephesians 5 context supports a "military chain of command" in the relationship between a husband and wife. He also cites Andreas Kostenberger as rejecting the military model in marriage. As a side note, in Two Views on Women in Ministry (pp. 302-303), Thomas Schreiner writes that the "militaristic conception of marriage is foreign to the biblical perspective..."
For the record, I agree with John Calvin's Genesis 3:16 interpretation as loss of personhood for the woman, although I think Mr. Galicinski did not describe it very clearly. I would also agree with Drs. Tracy, Kostenberger, and Schriener regarding submission. Even though the root of hupotasso may have a military connotation, I would be very interested to learn its chronological history. Like other Greek words, meanings fell out of use over time. If the military overtone was not in use at the time of Paul's writing, could this possibly be an etymological fallacy?
Addendum:
Or another fallacy such as "illegitimate totality transfer"? Where a "word's entire semantic range is improperly considered to be part of the term's meaning in a specific context when, in fact, only one of the several possible meanings obtain in that particular instance." Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, Kostenberger & Patterson, Kregel, 2011, pg. 646.
Comments
Post a Comment
Civil and pertinent comments are appreciated. Trolling will be deleted. Thanks.