Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Theology. History. Psychology.
As you can clearly tell, this is a different format than we usually do because for the first time ever, we're in the same place.
Orlando:We're both here.
Nick:That's right. So we decided, hey, let's take advantage of the situation and record a podcast while Orlando's visiting. So what we wanted to talk about today is we were really curious about the topic of gender roles. We wanted to get to the bottom of where this idea came from Because in our experience, a lot of Christians that have this view of gender roles and how men and women should relate to one another that's pretty oppressive to women. So it's like these ideas don't exist in a vacuum.
Nick:Like, they had to come from somewhere. Like, somebody had to start thinking this way for the church to think this way in modern times. Right? So we really did a lot of digging and found some juicy things that we wanna share with you because we took a look at the context of world history and how these ideas first originated in world history, how the early, early church fathers adopted that philosophy, then they just passed it down really from generation to generation to generation until it created this lens by which people viewed scripture. So then when we talk about the theological component of this belief, they're looking at a text that, as you'll see, does not actually say what they say they're saying.
Nick:But because of this context, because of this lens that they're viewing scripture with, they're going to interpret it in that particular way. So we've got a lot of good stuff that we wanted to share, but I'll let Orlando kick it off by talking about what we found about when these ideas first started being disseminated in a historical context.
Orlando:These ideas have existed for a very long time, and it's impossible to pinpoint the first person who started it. But what we can do is we can highlight individuals that were influential, whose ideas were taken seriously and subsequently spread all throughout the known world. So I want to start with Aristotle who ultimately was influenced by Plato. So Aristotle was reacting toward Plato's radicalism and was much closer to conventional fifth century Athenian thought. And so for Aristotle women were inferior beings in every sense of the word.
Orlando:This is what Aristotle believed. Plato believed that women were only physically inferior. But Aristotle believed that this sense of inferiority spread to every single facet of the existence of women.
Nick:And just to give you some context on this, Aristotle was alive, you know, between he was born like between three and four hundred years before Christ. So what we're trying to dig in, of course, we'll take a look at the actual scripture, right, and when the bible was around and how they interpreted these things these this way. But the ideas are so old, just to put into perspective, we're gonna be quoting some Greek philosophers. But, yeah, this this idea that women were inferior in every sense of the word, not just physically, but also in their levels of intelligence or mental faculties was around like centuries before Christ. So this is in no way a new philosophy or new belief.
Orlando:Yeah. So let's check out another quote, from Aristotle. Man more easily moved to tears and at the same time is more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike. She is furthermore more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of more retentive memory. Yikes.
Orlando:I want to cite another one. Women were doomed to be subservient to men because that they were unable to control themselves physically and psychologically through the exercise of reason the way men can.
Nick:Doctor. So basically what Aristotle is trying to posit is this superiority versus inferiority between men and women. As early as, I mean I'm sure the thought existed prior to Aristotle, but this idea of women being inferior to men was around, you know, that long ago. But then as Orlando will show us, it didn't stop at Aristotle. Right?
Nick:I think Orlando had told me that like, what was it that he said that like Aristotle, like if he hadn't existed he would like the world would be a much better place.
Orlando:Yes, I totally believe that. Yeah, just because of his ideas, not just in regard to gender, but the ideas that he inherited from Plato, such as a platonic and subsequently neoplatonic worldview, that really screwed Christianity up in in more ways than we can talk about in this episode. So I wanna read one more quote from Aristotle before we move on to the next philosopher. Again, the same holds good between men and the other animals. Tame animals are superior in their nature to wild animals.
Orlando:Yet for all the former it is advantageous to be ruled by man, since this gives them security. Again, as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior. The male ruler and the female subject.
Nick:Well there you have it folks. Straight from Aristotle himself. So then what Orlando's gonna talk about next is Philo of Alexandria. Now Philo of Alexandria was this Jewish philosopher that lived in Alexandria, Egypt, and he was around twenty five BC. So this so we looked on Aristotle, now we're fast forwarding three hundred years later.
Nick:Right? So even three centuries after Aristotle, Christ had not been born yet, we have yet another philosopher perpetuating the same concept. So I'll let Orlando share a little bit more about that too.
Orlando:Yeah. Philo was absolutely enamored by the ideas of Plato, and Aristotle. And he wanted to bring this platonic framework to Judaism because there is this idea that all, you know, there's, you know, truth in all frameworks. And if we can just appropriate these frameworks, can end up being closer to the truth. And so I wanna read a quote from Philo.
Orlando:Just as Eve surrendered to the snake, a symbol of pleasure, and led Adam into transgression and lawlessness, so also sense and perception is the primary means whereby sinful pleasures ensnare the mind through the body. Both failures can be attributed to the subversion of the proper order of being. Since women in the senses are irrational, passive, and prone to deception, men and mind must rule over them.
Nick:Oh gosh.
Orlando:If a man is conquered by womenly opinions and their passions, he will surely be unhappy. Just as in the garden, failure to control the senses and the woman leads to death, both literally and figuratively, the latter represented as a death of the soul in which the soul has become entombed in passions, in wickedness.
Nick:Looking at that quote, just as in the garden, failure to control the senses and what he really means by failure to control the census is failure to control women leads to death, both literally and figuratively. The latter represented as a death of the soul. So, man, not only is he bringing this, like, inferiority and superiority into the mix, but he's saying, like, man, this has this has, like, eternal implications. Like, you'll be you will not be saved unless you can rein in the women. So this is what, like, a Jewish philosopher three hundred years after Aristotle is saying.
Nick:So you can kind of see the similarities of those philosophies are continuing on centuries later.
Orlando:So why don't we fast forward a little bit to, some of the church fathers. And when we use the phrase church fathers, we are referring to influential Christian thinkers and philosophers from anywhere between AD one hundred to like AD five hundred.
Nick:So really early on. This is now after Christ's birth. Right? This is like a couple centuries after Jesus, but still a long time ago in the great scheme of things. Augustine was around in 354-430.
Nick:So this is a lot later than Aristotle. This is what, like six hundred years after Aristotle? Something like that. But, and the ideas are, but now we, we do see a shift here that I think it's really important to note. We see a shift from philosophers employing these ideas, right?
Nick:Christian philosophers. Non Christian philosophers, Greek philosophers, then you have like a Jewish philosopher, and now you have a early Christian church father. So these these concepts, these philosophies are now moving into the Christian realm. That's like a really important point in time to note.
Orlando:Yeah. And these early church fathers held Philo in high regard. And I think it's important to keep that in mind because it was the ideas of Philo, the ideas of Aristotle and Plato that served as the philosophical foundation for what the church fathers believed about, about the world, about the cosmos, as well as the relations between men and women. So why don't we read a little bit about what Augustine believed? Augustine speculates as to how Adam, being already spiritual in mind, could have been led astray.
Orlando:He concludes that this was one of the reasons women was given to man. Woman, who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by the superior reason, that through her the man became guilty of transgression. And assuming woman's natural inferiority, Augustine asks, Is this why the Apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her? End quote.
Nick:And what's interesting about this quote is that let's compare the nature of the quotes from Greek philosophers and now Augustine. Right? So you see that Aristotle, for example, on the Greek philosophy side of things, he's saying things like commenting on the intellect. Right? He's he's focusing on the intellect and saying like and and the physical too, saying that women are inferior in both regards.
Nick:Right? However, when Augustine brings in the same ideas of superiority inferiority, what does he do? He says he talks about the creation account, saying Adam and Eve and she was inferior. Right? So why this is a huge problem?
Nick:And, you know, depending on who you ask, I don't think it's that subtle, but you can see it being inserted here is now we have a spiritual context for these ideas. It's no longer let's focus on the physical component of this dichotomy. Right? Or let's focus on the intellectual component. But now we're saying Adam and Eve in the creation account.
Nick:The reason why men fell is because of Eve. So we have this spiritual connotation, this concept being applied to one's interpretation of scripture, which we'll come back later in this episode.
Orlando:I also wanted to note that Plato, he came up with a creation narrative. You can read it in the, in the Timaeus. And in this, it posits that the gods created man first, right? And when men proved themselves to be cowardly, then the gods created animals and then women. And women were essentially considered defective versions of males.
Orlando:Women, by their biology, are inherently defective, right? And because they're defective, because their minds are defective, their bodies are defective as well. And so it's so fascinating that you kind of see some parallels with, you know, Plato's account versus how Augustine understood, the creation account.
Nick:Yeah. And I think that the end of that last quote that you just read from Augustine when he asked, is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to women? You go a little and talk to us a little bit more about that? Because I and that's that's pretty heavy stuff.
Orlando:Let's talk about that. And why don't we let Augustine explain himself?
Nick:Not that it's going to help him any!
Orlando:let's see if he can help his case. Women does not possess the image of God in herself, but only when taken together with the male, who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God, just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one.
Nick:Yeah.
Orlando:I don't think this helps Augustine's case.
Nick:I don't think there's much we can do for him. But I do want to point out that first part of that quote says that women do not possess the image of God in in and of themselves, but only when they're taken together with male. Men and women together form the image of God. Women by themselves cannot do it. Right?
Nick:But then he says, with the male who is her head. And that's a really, really good, transition point to how they applied this philosophy in their interpretation of scripture. Because this is by no means the only occurrences in Earth's history about misogynists basically saying that men are like the superior creatures. Like, it's been through the dawn of creation. This has happened.
Nick:Right? But this was a quick little crash course on six hundred years of history from philosophers, Greek philosophers, Jewish philosophers, and then Christian early Christian church fathers, and that all, like, continue to share this idea. Right? Continue to propagate these philosophies. But now we're gonna take a deeper look at scripture.
Nick:Because one thing that people could argue is when we share what we just shared is they're like, oh, we're not taking this stuff from the philosophers. Right? Like, that's not where the idea of hierarchy came from, where this view of gender roles came from. The Bible gives us this information. Like, the Bible supports this oppression of women.
Nick:And it's right here. So let's take a look at those at those proof texts that people will use to say, hey, the bible supports this inferior view of women. And I think that one of the one of the ones that we wanted to cover first was in 1 Corinthians 11:3,10. That's because Augustine just said, you know, the male is the head of the female, and the both of them together make the image of God. So let's go into it and talk a little bit more about what we find in first Corinthians 11.
Orlando:Okay. So let's let's start off with verse three. Alright. So this is how the verse is usually, translated. But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man and the man is the head of the woman and God is the head of Christ.
Nick:So when we read that in modern times, you're right, in the English language we might attribute the definition of the word head to also mean authority. Right? So, like, if we say, like, head of state, the head of state is the person with the highest level of authority in that particular country. Right? Like, they're the head of state.
Nick:So when we do like a plain reading of scripture and we just look at it in like the translation in English, we might think, oh, like, so men is the head of the wife, or they're the authority over the wife. That's, what they meant here right? Because I'm sure they were using the same language back then when they originally wrote it.
Orlando:So let's take a look at the Greek word for head. So the Greek word being used here is pronounced kephalei which can mean your literal head but it can also mean source. Now what if we were to replace the word head here with source? Let's see what it would sound like. But I want you to know that Christ is the source of every man, and man is the source of the woman, and God is the source of Christ.
Orlando:Now if you try to understand that hierarchically, that kind of sounds weird, mainly because this verse isn't written in hierarchical order. If Paul wanted to list the subjects in hierarchical order, it would sound like God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman.
Nick:Assuming that understanding of hierarchy, right?
Orlando:Exactly. But that's not the order. So, instead of understanding this within the lens of hierarchy, what if we understood it through the lens of time or chronology? Right? And let's, use this translation of head again.
Orlando:But I want you to know that Christ is the source of every man. Right? So chronologically speaking, this takes us back to creation. Right? Christ is the source of man.
Orlando:Jesus created man. And then what comes next? Man is the source of woman. You have to remember, woman or Eve was taken from man with the rib. So now we have the creation narrative.
Orlando:And then we get to the last part. And God is the source of Christ. So now we have the incarnation. We have Jesus being sent from heaven down to earth in order to complete his ministry here on earth.
Nick:And it's interesting because that makes so much more sense, right? If we look at the verse, and we're not even talking about the Greek necessarily, right? Like if we looked at the verse in English and just said like, Hey, let's look at this from a chronological order versus a hierarchical order, it still makes way more sense. But when you match that up with it meaning source, right, instead of authority, when we match up the chronological aspect plus the Greek, it makes a whole lot of sense. Okay.
Nick:So you might think, are these two guys on this podcast in 2023 applying their view on the Greek word? So like, is there any other instance where this Greek word for head was used in scripture and what was the context of that? Right? So what, what else did we find?
Orlando:So we looked at Greek literature outside of the Bible to see how the word head or kephale was being used because you'll have more conservative, scholars who will say there's not one instance of the word kephale that's being used as source, not just in the Bible but within all of Greek literature. Right? And as we're about to see, that is not the case.
Nick:And that's what's difficult, right? Because let's say you're a theology major, right? I mean, I'm not saying that the everyday person finds it fascinating to be digging into ancient Greek, right? But let's say you're a theology major and you're being shown these things for the first time and you're learning Greek one, right, basic Greek. You're going to be using some sort of tool.
Nick:Right? Whether it be like a Greek or New Testament lexicon or dictionary or something like that. Right? And what's dangerous about that is what is the worldview or lens of the author of that lexicon, of that tool that you're then teaching a generation of pastors or church leaders how to read the original languages. Right?
Nick:Because if the worldview is this inferior versus superior worldview. Right? And they get to this word in the Greek dictionary, they get to the word forehead, are they going to say source in their dictionary? Like, absolutely not. They're gonna say authority.
Nick:Like, the head means authority, and that's how the ancient Greeks meant it. So then you have all of these theology majors reading this tool. This dictionary. And it's disseminating this philosophy, but you see how it's like this perpetual loop of these ideas continue on through time, right?
Orlando:And to be specific, the New Testament dictionary that we're referring to, the abbreviation for it is known as the BDAG, right? And when you look at the entry for Kefalet, you will see two entries. You'll see an entry for head, like literal head, and you'll also see an entry for superior rank. But you will not see anything for a source. And I think it's important to note that a lot of the resources, a lot of the theological resources that were compiled in the, really the 1960s until the 1990s were really influenced by evangelical theologians and scholars who were reacting against the advancements that were being made by second wave feminism.
Orlando:And this was quite threatening to these individuals. So much so that when the NIV was published in, I think it was 1980, about a decade later, Wayne Grunham, a leading evangelical scholar, helped to spearhead a new bible translation that went against this idea of gender equality influencing the translation of certain words in the Bible, such as anthropos. Anthropos means people, right? But in the Greek context it can refer to men. It's very similar to the Spanish language with the word ellos.
Orlando:Now this isn't something that everyone knows, but ellos can refer to men, but it can also refer to men and women. It's a plural word, right? And Wayne Grudham was like, It cannot refer to men and women. It's just men, Right? And so he went on to lead the translation team that created the ESV.
Orlando:And the ESV was essentially a reaction to translators trying to be a bit more fair to the biblical text.
Nick:And we're not saying this to scare you. You're saying like, man, nothing is trustworthy. But I think that we need to come to the table with a certain level of of skepticism. Or maybe skepticism is not the right word, but with a certain level of curiosity. Right?
Nick:To see like, hey, was the source of what I'm reading? Right? Who originated these ideas? What are they perpetuating here? Because it's not just like Orlando just said, it's not just a dictionary.
Nick:It's not just a Greek lexicon, but even the translations of the Bible itself were put together by teams of people with their own biases. Right? So you, they could be inserting words that weren't even there before, which we'll get to later, but I don't want to get ahead of, the topics we wanna cover.
Orlando:So let's, circle back to seeing the word kephale in, the the greater body of Greek literature.
Orlando:So I want to read a few examples. Desire is the head of every sin. And this is from the book Apocalypse of Moses. So desire is the head of sin of every sin. That makes a lot of sense, because desire is the source of every sin.
Orlando:Right? As as as James tells us, in his epistle, that sin is born when desire, you know, gives way. Because if you aren't governing your desires well, they will control you, which will lead to sin. I wanna read another example. This is from Cyril of Alexandria.
Orlando:This is another church father. For the head, which is the source of all things, is the Son, and the head, which is the source of Christ, is God. For thus we reverently lift up all things to the one without beginning, the source of everything that exists through the Son.
Nick:Man, And when we first came across that quote, I was dumbfounded because it kind of parallels one Corinthians, right? It kind of parallels what we read in 1 Corinthians 11 about, you know, Christ being the head of the church or whatever it was. But in this case, not only did he say for the head of all things is the son, but he was, like, very specific in what he meant. Right? He said for the head, which is the source of all things.
Nick:So basically, this Greek church father is using his native tongue saying, hey. I'm using the word kephale to mean source. And this is in Greek literature outside of scripture.
Orlando:For me, it's pretty clear that kephale can also mean source.
Nick:And why we started finding these quotes, right, from Cyril of Alexandria is because we wanted to really dig and try to find the origin of all this because we had seen some resources online or some other commentators saying, yeah, another interpretation of ped could be source. Right? But we're like, okay. Let's not just take this commentator's word for it.
Nick:Let's try to find these this ancient Greek literature and see for ourselves. Hey. Is this really used this way? And sure enough, there's a Greek church father using kephale to mean source.
Orlando:And I just wanna end this section by saying that if a person uses the superior rank interpretation for kephale, it, that is really difficult to reconcile with Paul's understanding, of the role of Christ. And it also conflicts with an orthodox understanding, of the Trinity. Because this invokes the idea that Jesus has always been subservient to the father. It's like, not only is Jesus lower than the father, but Jesus always has to do the father's bidding. Like he doesn't have a choice.
Nick:So basically, what you're saying is interpreting the text in this hierarchical order not only impacts men and women, right, and has been used as a tool to oppress women, but also could impact our understanding of the view of Christ and the Trinity, these like tenants of Protestantism, right?
Orlando:Absolutely. And it's really risky when you read it that way, because if you choose to read it that way, you can end up getting some really weird ideas about the Trinity, which has happened to a lot of people. End up believing that, Oh yeah, Jesus is ontologically God's Son, you know, by His very nature, and He's always been subservient. It's almost as if Jesus is an employee of God the father. Scary stuff.
Nick:So we're gonna kinda move away from from this verse. There's two more that we wanted to look at because now that we talked about the word head, there's one in Ephesians 5, which is a little bit more overt or at least we think so. Right? At least it's used in that way. And it's Ephesians 5 verse 22.
Nick:So if we pull that up right now, there's this whole section, Ephesians 5:22-33. The subheading is marriage, Christ and the church, which is funny because the original text, you know, the Bible didn't have verses and chapters and certainly didn't have all these subheaders and subsections. Right? But specifically, verse 22 of Ephesians five. It goes a little something like this.
Nick:Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife. So there we go again with the word head. Right? And also Christ is the head of the church, and he is the savior of the body.
Nick:Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. So you read this at face value and it's like, that's all she wrote. Wives submit to your husbands. Your the inferior gender, you have to fit within this box. They are the leader of the home, the spiritual leader.
Nick:You have to follow their lead because the bible says so right here. Right? Wives submit to your husband. If we take this as face value, it's pretty striking. We're like, man, what do we do with this?
Nick:Right? What's interesting though is I remember when I was, we were both theology majors for undergrad, and I remember one of our classes, I think it was like Christian ethics, the class that looked into this verse, or the lecture that I can remember right now. And they were talking about how, yes, this is true what the Bible says here. Wives should be submitting to their husbands.
Nick:However, if you look at verse 25, it'll say, husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. And then it goes on and on in the following verses. So the interpretation that I received in my undergrad was, yes, this is correct. Wives should be submitting to their husbands, but there's there are stipulations here as to which type of husband wives should be subservient to.
Nick:And so it it never questioned the submission or the subservience. It just said, okay, what type of person do we need to submit to? Right? So the type is somebody that's loving, that loves the wife like Christ loved the church and it goes on to describe the type of man that the wife should submit to. But that was kind of the end of the story.
Orlando:Yeah, and with that framework that we were taught, the submission only went one way. It's wives submit to husbands, but you are submitting to a husband that is worth submitting to. Now the husband doesn't have to submit back to you. It's just as long as you have a husband that is worth submitting to, you must submit
Nick:to What we decided to do here is we're like, okay, we need to get to the bottom of this and reading it in at face value in English, it it's not gonna do the trick for us. So we wanted to find Ephesians 5 in the Greek, Just like we found first Corinthians 11 in Greek, and we were able to extrapolate extrapolate the meaning of head as source, we're like, okay. What does the Bible say in the original language here? And, man, what we found was mind blowing because we were honestly not expecting to find what we found. I think we were expecting to find, like, the Greek word there and say, like, okay.
Nick:What did they mean in the original Greek? Right? We were expecting to do, like, a, basic word study, and then our minds were blown. Because I have this like, it's a physical interlinear bible. So an interlinear bible has you like, the original language in Greek or Hebrew, and then right below it, it'll have, like, the English version.
Nick:So interlinear, it's got different lines of different languages so that you can kind of see, okay, this is a Greek word. This is the English translation. So you can see how how we got to this point. Right? So in the interlinear bible that I had, the physical copy, it said there was, wives submit to your husbands, Ephesians 5:22.
Nick:There was a Greek word there for submit. So in the Greek, there was a word for wives and a word for submit and a word for husbands. Right? But then I was using this online tool because I was like, let me figure out what the definition of the word submit is. So I typed in, you know, Ephesians five twenty two, thinking it's gonna be the same thing, and the word submit in Greek is not there in Ephesians 5:22
Nick:So this is when we went down this rabbit hole, and our minds were blown because we started thinking like, why is it that in this physical copy that I have of this interlinear bible, the word for submit in the Greek is there? But then when I look at another interlinear bible made by other people, the word submit is not there. There is no word there. What Orlando was trying to explain to me was that there's these different compilations of ancient biblical texts. And depending on which version you might use, some people use different versions for different bible translations.
Nick:Right? So for example, Orlando, if you want to talk a little bit about the Textus Receptus. I know you had mentioned that the Textus Receptus is, there's a lot of copies of this particular compilation because it's fairly new. So a lot of Bible like translators or people who are compiling versions of scripture, they'll usually go to the Textus Receptus because it's got, there's more versions of it. So they'll think it's more reliable because of that, right?
Nick:So tell us a little bit about that.
Orlando:Yeah, so the Textus Receptus was a, was a compilation of Greek manuscripts, you know, for the New Testament that were, that were older. They were known as the Byzantine Text. And they were compiled by a, I think it was a monk by the name of Erasmus of Rotterdam in the 1500s.
Nick:In the 1500s.
Orlando:And so these manuscripts that he had compiled would have been any, would have been from anywhere between the eighth century to like the twelfth century, roughly speaking. Now these are definitely newer texts, right, in comparison to texts that were written closer to the time of the apostles, the church fathers, right? You have
Nick:Yeah 1,500 is relatively new compared to that.
Orlando:Right. And so you're going to have a lot of copy. So Erasmus believed that because there were so many of these documents, later documents that had the Greek text that, oh, it's a good idea to really include all these. And so this, what's what we know as the Textus Receptus, formed the basis of the New Testament for the King James translation. Now, there are older manuscripts out there that weren't discovered until, I want to say like the 1800s, right?
Orlando:And it's these older manuscripts that don't always line up with the newer manuscripts.
Nick:Yeah. And that's something that we wanted to look into because the Textus Receptus 1,500 is relatively new. So we're like, okay, where do these interlinear Bibles get there? Like, why didn't one of them not have it and the other one have it if the 1,500 text had it? So we figured, okay.
Nick:Let's try to find something older to see if older, more ancient texts did not have the Greek word for submit. Right? So we found the Codex Vaticanus, which is a compilation that is the Vatican's archives. I really wish I could show it to you right now, but due to copyright laws, I can't do that. But what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna put a URL, the link to the Codex Vaticanus because it is fascinating.
Nick:It is a compilation that happened in the fourth century. So this is like, you know, AD four hundred ish. Right? So this was a thousand years older than the Textus Receptus. Right?
Nick:So it's way older than the one that we were just talking about. And in the Codex Vaticanus, the Vatican was apparently doing this effort to digitize their archives. So it's really fascinating because it's this, like, yellow, old looking piece of paper, like ancient looking piece of paper, all in Greek, but it's been digitized. You can even download it on PDF. I just can't share it with you due to copyright, but you can use the link and even download these for yourself or for personal use or personal study is what the Vatican allows it to be used for.
Nick:So that led to this rabbit hole of, I don't know how many hours we must have spent trying to track it down. Because like I said before, the original language did not have bible chapters, right, or bible verses or subheadings. So it was way harder to find. What I was not expecting, because I've looked at other ancient Greek texts before, obviously not this ancient, and there's some structure to, like you know, there's some structure to how the Greek is shown in that text. But in the Codex Vaticanus, not only is there no chapters, not only is there no verses, there is no spaces between words.
Nick:So imagine, like, reading this whole paragraph in Ephesians five, this whole chapter, but there's no spaces between. It's like one eternal scroll of just Greek letters. Yep. Three columns. Of just no spacing.
Nick:So we it took us a while to find where the heck Ephesians five was to begin with. And then once we found Ephesians five, it took us a much longer time to figure out where the heck Ephesians five verse 22 was. But what we found in this A.D. 400 Codex Vaticanus, once again, it's 1,000 years older than the Textus Receptus, which is what the New King James version is based off of, the Greek word for submit is not there. There is no word for submit there in verse 22.
Nick:So we're like, okay. We found this version from the 1500s that did have it. We found this version from a thousand years prior that did not have it. What are modern, more modern scholars saying about this now, right?
Orlando:Yeah, so most modern scholars, and these are scholars that have helped to compile, the Greek New Testament that is used for pretty much all major Bible translations. And many of them believe that that word submit is not original to the text. It was probably inserted by a scribe, either potentially in the fifth or sixth century. And this was probably the case because there is a literary device that Paul was using where, if we look in verse 21 of Ephesians chapter five, we see submitting to one another in the fear of Christ. And so in the next verse, verse 22, because that word submit isn't there, it ought to be read, Wives, to your husbands as to the Lord.
Orlando:Now that's a funny sounding, sentence because there's no verb.
Nick:And that's how it looks like in the Codex Vaticanus. It'll say, Wives, you know, to your husbands as to the Lord. Yes.
Orlando:But when we, when you examine the Greek grammar, Paul is using a literary device where the verb that is in the preceding sentence, submitting to one another in the fear of Christ, that same verb is to be applied in the next sentence that doesn't have the verb. Right? And so that would have it say, Wives submit to your husband, says to the Lord. But the thing is, the context of the verb submit is verse 21. And that context is submitting to one another in the fear of Christ, which means that verse 22 indicates that submission goes both ways.
Orlando:It isn't just wives submitting to the husbands. Husbands also must submit.
Nick:Because what's crazy is just like we did with the other texts about trying to reframe it, let's do the same thing here in Ephesians five. Right? So when we first looked at this verse, and it just said, wives, submit to your husbands. We took it at face value. We're like, okay.
Nick:This is what this is what the bible is telling us to do. Right? And then when it goes on to explain in the following verses, it just means this is a type of husband you should submit to. Right? But if we look at it in its proper context according to what the older Greek ancient Greek manuscripts say, let's it says verse 21 says, submitting to one another in the fear of God.
Nick:So it's setting up the context for the for the following verses saying that the context of this submission is a mutual submission. So we go from talking about wives submitting to their husbands, and this is the type of husband, to this mutual submission. This is what marriage is about. And there's, you know, using the very common biblical device of comparing marriage to Christ and the church. But basically this joint mutual submission, and then instead of saying this is a type of husband that the wife should be submitting to, it's simply extrapolating.
Nick:Here's how the husband can submit to the wife. Here's how the wife can submit to the husband. He's just extrapolating on the main concept of mutual submission, mutual respect. So what's interesting is the original language here is actually meaning the exact opposite of how this text is applied. This text is applied in but to say that women are inferior and should allow the husbands to lead them when the real application is you are equals.
Nick:You should submit to each other as equals, both the husband submitting to the wife and the wife submitting to the husband. And that just that's mind blowing when we look at the because for me, I think that a lot of the issues that we have, I'm not even talking about as a denomination, but as Christendom. And a lot of the this picture that we put out of God, that's not who God really is. That's not what the scripture is really saying, but it's this erroneous picture of God because we use this lens, this patriarchal superior lens to view this original text. Right?
Nick:What's interesting is that we found the Novum Testamentum Graece this apparently, it's like the on the twenty eighth edition now or something like that. This new Greek testament, the the new testament in Greek. And we printed out the user's guide for it because there's little, like, symbols when you're reading the new testament, little footnotes and things like that. And when we got to Ephesians five, there's this little T there. So the guide says that the T shows an insertion.
Nick:In other words, there is a text inserted at this point. So like we said, when we saw the word submit there, a scribe at some point saw the need to insert that word that was not previously there. And, you know, you might say, okay. Like, come on guys, they're kind of reaching here. Yeah.
Nick:They're borrowing from the previous one. So what's wrong with inserting the word submit here? And I think it fundamentally changes the context of of what the freaking verse is saying to begin with. Absolutely.
Orlando:Because the context for submit is mutual submission. And if you insert the word in there again, you can mess with the intended meaning that Paul was trying to convey to the Corinthians.
Nick:Yeah. Absolutely. Then there's another I'm not gonna spend too much time on it because it's just driving home the same exact point, but I just want you to know that there's multiple sources where we're getting it from. But the Nestle Greek New Testament that they put out in 1904. So we've talked about 1,500 texts, AD four hundred, now nineteen o four, doesn't have it either.
Nick:So in this 1904 version of the Greek New Testament, the word for submit is not there. And I'm gonna put that in the in the video description so that you can go there for yourself. And this is a little bit way well, not a little, but this is way easier to understand than the Codex Vaticanus because it has chapter headings and and it has verses. So you'll be able to find the verse and see and see the original Greek there. But yeah, Orlando, I know that you wanted to share another fascinating thing you found in 1 Peter, but that's the last verse we wanted to look at today was in 1 Peter 3.
Orlando:Yeah, so let's jump into that. So 1 Peter 3. And so I think it'll be helpful to lay out the context for this letter. So Peter was writing to Christian exiles who were living among non Christians, who were subject to non Christian authorities, to encourage them during their suffering. So these were individuals who most likely had converted to Christianity, But nevertheless, we're still living in a Gentile context, which I imagine was very difficult because the Christian lifestyle was at odds with the Roman way of living, the Roman way of governing.
Orlando:And Peter writes to these individuals who were scattered in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, where he tells them, in all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. Later on in chapter four verses twelve and thirteen he writes: Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. So Peter is writing to a few different groups of individuals and invites them to submit in various ways. And so I'm gonna lay out, these groups that he's writing to.
Orlando:So he says in chapter two verse 13, Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority. So this is instruction to everyone in the audience of his letter. Then he writes, Slaves, in reverend fear of God, submit yourselves to your masters. And then he writes, Wives, in the same way, submit yourselves to your own husbands. Right?
Orlando:And so we're having Peter mentioning for different groups to submit. Right? And I wanna give a little bit of context, especially for the slaves one, because this is often seen as like a slam dunk against Christianity. You see, you have one of the apostles saying slaves need to obey their masters.
Nick:Man, you know for a fact slave masters used these Bible verses.
Orlando:Oh absolutely. And it's such a distortion of the text because it doesn't take into consideration the context. The context here was that these were slaves who really didn't have any other options. They were stuck, right? Now if they were, if Peter were to tell them to run away, I mean, would they run away to?
Orlando:Right? And so these slaves were told, hey, like Peter was like, hey, I get it. Like, you're in this really difficult situation. Like, Peter is writing this letter because the Christians that were living in these areas were not living under ideal conditions. They again, he writes about their suffering.
Orlando:And so with that suffering in mind, with that, depredation, please tell them, hey, submit yourselves to your masters. Right? Because later on he says, By your conduct, by your Christlike conduct, you might win over your master. And if you win over your master, there's a chance that you might be free. Your master may also conduct themselves with a Christ like character.
Orlando:Right? And so he's not telling slaves, Hey, just, you know, bow down and that's it. It's like the reason why you submit yourself is because you could potentially lead to the conversion of your master, and you might be set free. Your conditions could improve.
Nick:Because they're definitely not implying that this perpetual slavery is what you have to kind of like put up with. Right. And that like the true biblical definition is once you're a Christian, you cannot stand for slavery. Right. If the master is converted, you're gonna be set free.
Nick:That's just not a it's not a Christ like philosophy to to believe in perpetual slavery even though so called professed Christians were slave owners.
Orlando:Slavery is the absolute antithesis of the spirit of Christianity. And so I wanted to go further here. And I want to focus on chapter three verse one, where it says, wives, in the same way, submit yourselves to your own husbands. And again, there is a similar idea here in the sense that Peter was telling them, wives, you can win over your non Christian husbands by showing your Christ like character. There weren't a lot of options for women who wanted to leave a marriage.
Orlando:If a woman were to leave marriage, especially back then, because if you, leaving marriage was essentially leaving your only means of, you know, sustenance in survival. If you're out on your own, there really weren't many options for you. Really the only option would have been either slave labor or prostitution. And so Peter is telling these women, submit yourselves. And and again, we have to stop and define what a submission even means.
Orlando:Submission just means putting others first before yourself. Right? In the same way that Christ put others first before himself.
Nick:Yeah. I think it's fair to note that the Greek word for submit is found here in first Peter three. So it was not found in Ephesians five verse 22, but it is found here, and it is also found in the Codex Vaticanus. So it is found in the in the, you know, AD 400 text. Like Orlando said, what's important here is, and I mentioned this at the last episode when we were talking about the SDA Health message, is that a lot of the times we like to pretend that the Bible is like in this bubble, like outside of space time and it exists with like as this separate entity.
Nick:Right? But these things were very much written in a real time period. Right? And within earth's history. So what is the context of one Peter in comparison to Ephesians five, right?
Nick:It's not just, oh, the word means this, you know, blank submission, but the context of 1 Peter was Peter is talking to people in obviously, terrible situations. Right? And how do we navigate these situations instead as to those particular groups of people that he was addressing in this letter versus a universal application of this text in 2023 saying, oh look, first Peter three. He's saying, wife submit to your husbands. So there you go.
Nick:You know what I mean?
Orlando:So why don't we read the next group of individuals that Peter addresses. And so this is 1 Peter 3:7. Husbands, in the same way, live with your wives according to knowledge. Notice that phrase in the same way? Because
Nick:In the same way as what?
Orlando:In the same way as what? Exactly. Well, the last time that that phrase was used in First Peter, right before his advice to husbands was to wives. Wives, in the same way, submit yourselves to your own husbands. And so that is the verb that is essentially assumed.
Orlando:And so Peter is advocating for a mutual submission for wives to submit themselves to their husbands and husbands to submit themselves to their wives. The only command supplied by the context is submit. And
Nick:that's a more overt use of the same Greek literary device that we saw in Ephesians five. Right? Because in Ephesians five, we saw that the word submit was in the previous verse and not in the next verse. But because of the Greek literary device, that following verse was borrowing the verb, right, which is common use as we show it in extra biblical sources. So in this case, he's just being more overt with it and saying in the same way.
Nick:So it's like in the same way as I just said in the previous sentence, apply it here in the same way Right? So he's still using that literary device of referencing what he had just said, but he's just more overt with it in his language in this particular verse.
Orlando:And I think that is just so fascinating when you take into account the literary devices that these authors used, both Paul and Peter. I mean, this was a common literary device. So let's look at the modern impact of these various ideologies regarding gender roles.
Nick:That we have shown is not a, it's not a biblical ideology. Might I add? Modern
Orlando:day impacts include the idea of the father being the priest of the home, priest of the household. Is that an idea that that you've heard before?
Nick:Oh, yeah. Absolutely. It's that idea of like the father needs to lead the family and worship. It's their responsibility to do like, you know, family night Bible studies or take, get their family to church. Know, it's, it's their responsibility to- Just the father's responsibility.
Nick:Exactly.
Orlando:And I think a more biblical model is seeing both, mother and father as spiritual leaders of the home, that they are working together. It's not, you know, the man's on top and the woman's at the bottom and then you have the children even beneath that.
Nick:And from a psychological perspective, I do want you to share what your comments on this, like, as a therapist, right? Because from a psychological perspective, this idea of, like, superiority could also impact, you know, relationships and marriage. Because I know you were mentioning about, Oh, yeah.
Nick:How, like the word helper. Hate the word helper. Talk a little bit about that.
Orlando:Let's dive into that. So let's talk about the word helper. So I'm sure you all have heard this idea of like, you know, the wife is doing something in the kitchen and the husband kind of comes along and it's like, Is there anything I can help with? What I think is interesting is that phrase, Is there anything I can help you with? It infers the idea that it is the primary responsibility of the wife to be doing things in the kitchen.
Orlando:And the husband kind of just comes along and is like 'is there anything I can help you with?' Which tells us that for him, he doesn't see himself as having a primary role within that. Just, Is there anything I can assist you with?
Nick:Or even with like child rearing. Right. If you have a kid.
Orlando:It's like, Oh, you know, I'll go take the kid. I'll help you out. As if that's not your role, responsibility.
Nick:It's like, the dad have no role to play in creating this child? Like, is it not your child also? Absolutely.
Orlando:And another thing I want to add is, you know, going back to the relationship between husband and wife. Because in a more conservative sense, let's suppose that a husband and a wife are arguing, right? Nothing heated or anything like that. Under this idea of male headship theology, if a husband and wife are arguing, and, you know, they both have, like, different points, the husband, by virtue of his maleness, he is the tiebreaker.
Nick:But people legit think that.
Orlando:Yeah. People absolutely. It's like husband is, has one opinion, the wife has another. With male headship theology, the woman just kind of has to say, yeah, I have a different opinion, but you're the tiebreaker, so I have to go with whatever it is that you want. Which is absolutely disastrous to know that in the back of your mind.
Orlando:If I really have any big disagreements, I kinda just have to put them to the side and just do whatever my husband wants.
Nick:Yeah. And I think that what we wanted to end this episode with, and that's a good segue into, like, really the dark side of this theology. And to be honest, like, I feel like it's unjust to say theology. I I'm gonna say the the dark side of this philosophy is it impacts a woman's agency. Because like Orlando just described, when you have to, like, put yourself aside and say, like, my thoughts, rank, my authority, my opinions are secondary, then you're losing your sense of self at that point.
Nick:You're not really, you're losing your agency. You're not your own person anymore. You're like in the shadow of this superior being.
Orlando:Just by virtue of you existing as a woman, your opinions, although they may be taken into consideration by your husband, ultimately at the end of the day, the husband can override and say, hey, I understand you see it this way, but I see it another way. And because I see it another way, we are going to go with my way.
Nick:And what's the end byproduct of all this, right? When we have this philosophy of male superiority? Then it bleeds over into our interpretation of scripture into theology. Then it bleeds over into how we relate to women and as like our spouses and partners, relationships, how it affects their relationship at home with their children. Right?
Nick:When it starts to remove their agency, the final bus stop is the objectification of women. Because if they if they lose their agency, if they lose their sense of self, right, they're not their own individual, but they're this inferior creature, then it lee you can objectify them, and you can feel like you have this biblical support for treating them like trash.
Orlando:And it's really unfortunate that there are many cultures that exist within Christianity that already resonate with these ideas by virtue of their culture, right? So we could talk about the chauvinistic cultures within certain parts of like Central And Latin America, where the husband is the head of the household. There's no arguing with that.
Nick:By head, we mean the authority, the not The highest authority, source. Ranking officer.
Orlando:Yeah. And that's a cultural idea. And so you have individuals who, by existing in that culture, already have this idea. And so when they get introduced to Christianity, a more conservative kind of Christianity, and they're presented with these ideas, that serves as a double reinforcement of this way of viewing the world, of viewing relationships and viewing oneself.
Nick:Yeah. Absolutely. It's devastating. Well, we're gonna leave all of these sources in the in the episode notes and we encourage you to look at this for yourself because when we dug into it, it was just so fascinating to see. But the main takeaway from this episode that we would be remiss to to end it here without saying is there is no biblical support for the objectification of women.
Nick:If you want God or the bible to give you a pat on the back and say that God wants wives to submit to their husbands and this is one-sided submission due to you know, as a result of their inferiority, you're not going to find it in scripture. You're not following a Christian philosophy. You are following a Greek philosopher. This you're following ancient, you know, male superiority philosophy. That is not the proper lens to view scripture.
Nick:Absolutely. So thanks for tuning in, and let us know what you thought about this episode. Hopefully, we can kind of engage in discussion more offline about this too. I wanna hear your thoughts on it, but we'll see you at the next one!