The change of Genesis 3:16, ESS, the colonial code of relationship, and a call to bystanders


In a recent article, “The Meaning of Hebrew תשׁוקה,” Journal of Semitic Studies 61 (2016):365-387, Andrew A. Macintosh did a thorough study of the word תְּשׁוּקָה (teshûqâ) and came to an interesting conclusion. He said (red emphasis added by me) —

In summary, I conclude that ‘desire’ is not a proper rendering of the Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָה in the Hebrew Bible or in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather, on the evidence of comparative philology and of the ancient versions, ‘concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion, focus’, appears to be more likely. (2016:385).

We’ve written before about how some leaders of the complementarian movement claim that the Son is eternally submitted to the Father (ESS/ERAS). We’ve written about how they use this notion to subtly oppress and coerce women into submission to abusive men (here,  here and here).

We now know that these people and their associates recently changed Genesis 3:16 in the Permanent Text of the ESV Bible.

[UPDATE — on 28 Sept 2016, Crossway pulled that article so the above link now takes you to a 404 message. But the article was saved at the webarchive. Here it is:

At the same time as they pulled the article, Crossway issued a statement announcing that they have reversed the decision to make the ESV text permanent.
“We have become convinced that this decision was a mistake. We apologize for this and for any concern this has caused for readers of the ESV, and we want to explain what we now believe to be the way forward.” [Lane T Dennis, President of Crossway]

Verse 16b used to say, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”.
It now says, “Your desire will be contrary to your husband but he will rule over you.”

And Genesis 4:7 used to say, “[Sin’s] desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
It now says, “[Sin’s] desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”

The online ESV has the new Permanent Text version and the older version can no longer be accessed online. Talk about a fait accompli! And with more and more people giving up books and only reading on digital devices, the previous version of the ESV will tend to be forgotten…

Christianity Today describes these changes as “a slightly more complementarian reading.” I think that is an understatement. I think the change ratchets up CBMW’s complementarian dogma giving it even more power to oppress women, and more excuse for men who abuse women.

In my opinion, the ESV’s change of this verse is very much related to the Eternal Submission of the Son doctrine which has been so controversial recently. I think they are two sides of the same coin, the coin being an agenda to keep women (and especially wives) down and keep husbands in authority. I’ll talk about this more below, but first let me introduce a concept which I think will help us understand it.

The colonial code of relationship

Allan Wade* articulated the colonial code of relationship like this:

  1. I am proficient
  2. You are deficient
  3. Therefore I have the right to fix you, diagnose you, change you, intern you
  4. For your own good.

In evangelical circles, it goes like this:

You are deficient — you lack sense, your understanding is distorted, your desire is contrary to your husband’s, your desire is contrary to your pastor’s, you are afraid, you are angry, you are helpless, you are passive, you are rebellious, you are acting in a manner inappropriate for your gender, you don’t have the theological training that I have, you are sinful, you are foolish, you are crazy.

And because I am proficient, I have the right, the duty, the sacred obligation and the authority to perform certain operations upon you. I can prescribe, educate, assess, correct, pray over and counsel you, and I can legislate what you can and can’t do, for your own good.

Source: Webinar: Response based Practice with Aboriginal Children & Youth

People who see themselves as proficient Christians are using the colonial code to perform certain operations upon women.

Their change of Genesis 3:16 emphasizes the ‘deficiency’ of women and affirms men’s right to assess, correct and direct women…for their own good.

ESS is an acronym for Eternal Subordination of the Son – the idea that in eternity the Son is subordinate to the Father. It is a false doctrine: it is not Scriptural and it contradicts  the Nicene Creed.

Who suffers the most harm from ESS? Women, and particularly wives who are married to abusive husbands.

If the ESV’s change of Genesis 3:16 is wrong (which I believe it is) who will suffer the most harm from it? The very same group: wives married to abusive husbands.

In his post Genesis 3:16 Ps Sam Powell analyses the Hebrew of Genesis 3:16 and discusses whether is right to use Genesis 4:7 to interpret Genesis 3:16. He also confesses that he used to teach that 3:16 meant that the woman’s longing would “be directed towards domineering, manipulating, and refusing to be truly loved” — but he has NOW CHANGED HIS MIND. (Yay! Thank you Sam!)

And in his post Odds and Ends, Ps Sam Powell says:

I only just recently heard that Genesis 3:16 is being used to justify domestic abuse. The thinking is: “She was trying to dominate me, so I had to rule over her.” I have a hard time fathoming the Satanic influence of this line of reasoning.

Bad exegesis ALWAYS has bad consequences. …

Some ideas are so entrenched that they can’t be blasted out with any kind of reasoning.

“This must be right because celebrity pastor … says so” is horrible hermeneutics. Even John Calvin was wrong at times.

Something is desperately wrong with the state of the church when the phrase, “Your desire shall be toward your husband, but he shall rule over you” is interpreted to mean, “If my wife tries to manipulate me, I have the right to smack her down.”

… all of that talk about the “others” coming to persecute us – the state, the gay lobby, the feminists (gasp) – is wrong. Persecution comes out of the house of God. It wasn’t Rome that Jesus warned his disciples of. It was the synagogue. When I hear the stories of what the powerful celebrity preachers do to those who question them, I become agitated and sad and angry. And it makes me feel helpless.

To every faithful pastor – don’t be intimidated by their threats; do your own exegesis; don’t be mesmerized by their “expert exegesis”. It really isn’t that good.

In his post The Permanent Text of the ESV, Dr Claude Mariottini says:

By translating the preposition ’el  in Genesis 3:16 as “contrary to,” the ESV interjects a radical tension in the relationship between man and woman. The expression “contrary to” communicates the idea that everything the woman desires is contrary to what the man desires. …

It is no secret that many Christians use Genesis 3:16 as a proof-text to defend and justify the subordination of women. The revision proposed by the ESV, in a sense, requires a woman to be submissive to an all-wise man, since her desire is contrary to man’s desire. This means that only the man’s desire is correct and the woman must follow his desire because all her desires are “contrary to” her husband’s desire.

[update 28 Sept 2016:  In the interests of this post being read and heeded by those who have influence with Crossway Publishers and the ESV translators, I have removed the photo which was originally at this point in the post.]

We victims are asking the bystanders to no longer stand by and do nothing

To all conservative Christians who’ve been silent or unconscious while these ‘proficient leaders’ have been re-writing the doctrine of God and empowering the oppression of women and have now clinched their position by slam dunking their Permanent ESV Bible  — we ask you to share the burden of pain. We ask you to act. To engage. To wake up. To remember.  To be brave enough to denounce the wrong that these ‘proficient leaders’ have been doing.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  • Allan Wade, “A persistent spirit. Towards understanding Aboriginal health in British Columbia” Canadian Western Geographical Series, 31. Victoria, BC: Western Geographical Press, 1995 — cited by Cathy Richardson in “Islands of Safety and the Social Geography of Human Dignity: A Child and Mother Safety Planning Initiative for Cases of Paternal Violence in Child Welfare” (link).

 * * * * * * *

Related posts

Complementarity without subordination : what does it look like? by Barbara Roberts

The New Stealth Translation: ESV by Scot McKnight (NB: we do not endorse all of Scot McKnight’s theology; he promotes the New Perspective on Paul)

What is the woman’s desire? How Susan Foh’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16 fed steroids to abusers by Barbara Roberts

Truth and lies, light and darkness, cannot co-exist by Jeff Crippen

Headship is not Hierarchy by Sam Powell

On the New ESV Translation of Genesis 3:16 from the blog Neuroscience, Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew.

[added 13 April 2017] Quite Contrary by Janie Cheaney, World Magazine

[added 3 Aug 2017]  Authority: Is It Really the Biblical Counterpart to Marital Submission? by Rachel Shubin.  THIS ARTICLE IS BRILLIANT.

60 thoughts on “The change of Genesis 3:16, ESS, the colonial code of relationship, and a call to bystanders”

  1. The Colonial Code is a new concept for me, but it makes perfect sense, Barbara. It reminds of this post by Dave Orrison on responsibility overload:

    When we become responsible for everything, we find success and peace to be impossible. Responsibility overload makes us feel incapable of almost all responsibility. All we want is for someone to take care of us. All we want is for someone to fix things.

    And along comes the narcissist with promises. (Responsibility Overload [Internet Archive link])

    So if a woman is told she is deficient by her nature, if she will be held responsible for everything wrong in a marriage because she is assumed to be the contrary one, and if she has been brainwashed to believe this, then this makes her vulnerable to abuse. The abuser justifies controlling her because it is for her own “good”, and now there is a Bible translation to back up the false idea that she is the one always at fault.

    This is pernicious.

  2. What is to be done about this? I don’t have a paper copy of the ESV, but I think I have an electronic version. I could delete it, if they replace with the ‘perm’ text! Maybe an Amazon review? I can’t think what else. These men will not listen to criticism. Money is the only thing that talks.

  3. This is absolutely terrifying. I’m so happy I read this. I was considering getting an ESV Bible because I had heard that they were becoming popular in Christian circles. Apparently the general idea is that the NIV is too liberal. I’m just going to stick with my NIV. How dare they change the Bible? Do they not believe that God is going to have consequences for their actions? I mean how arrogant can they be?

    1. Hi Nutmeg,
      Each of us have our own preferred versions, but you might like to try the HCSB. Both the HCSB and the 2011 NIV get the translation of Malachi 2:16 right.

      And what do they have for Genesis 3:16b?
      HCSB — Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will dominate you.
      2011 NIV — Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

      1. Thank you! I never understood that verse before. I find it confusing in the NIV but that’s what I was raised on. I’ll go buy a copy of the HCSB.

  4. In truth it can also go to any relationship. A pastor could also say the same to one of his congregation. I am the Pastor, I’ve received this education from X university and have studied the Bible for years. You don’t know what this means / says but I wouldn’t steer you wrong. You need to follow my counsel. A youth leader to a young woman or man and we’d have more of the same Abuse and scandal we already see.

    1. Yes Brother Maynard, I agree it can also go to any relationship. I believe that women (and esp abused wives) suffer from it most, but that is not to say that children, teens and men in the congregation don’t suffer from it.

      ALL true sheep suffer when the leaders of the church are Pharisees who pride themselves on how ‘proficient’ they are and treat everyone else as ‘deficient’ when it suits them to do so.

    2. That’s one of the reasons why this is so terrifying. It’s the end of all questions to authority in relationships in the church. It’s hard enough keeping the pastor under checks and balances now without him throwing a tantrum and using his pastoral status to guilt people into submission. Now the pastor has a twisted verse to throw at people whenever they dare question him. I can’t believe things have gotten so bad.

    3. I agree, Brother Maynard. Authoritarian leadership has been the trend in churches for awhile now. Increasingly, church leaders consider themselves to be inerrant experts on spiritual truth, believing themselves to be the very oracle of God; but it is the Holy Spirit who delegates authority, not mere men. It is the Holy Spirit that reveals the mind of God (1 Cor 2:11); therefore, a person with lesser education but more humility may be the real authority on Scripture. In my opinion, this is a very dangerous trend, victimizing both men and women. It has the effect of pushing true Christians out of the established church.

  5. Denny Burk, President of CBMW, published a post today about the ESV’s change of Genesis 3:16. He is pushing back against Scot McKnight’s post.

    Denny does not seem to be aware of me… or he has chosen to mute me on his Twitter feed. I keep tweeting him but get zero reply. And of course, like all the men at CBMW and T4G and Reformation21, he does not allow comments on his blog posts.

    Hmmm….. maybe he thinks he is too proficient to need to have any conversation with the laity.

    His post is here, for those who are interested: Five quick points on the ESV’s rendering of Genesis 3:16 [Internet Archive link]

    In his third point he says:

    I prefer the translation “for” rather than “contrary to,” even though I agree with the ESV’s interpretation. So I view the ESV’s translation as an entirely reasonable rendering, even though it is not the one I would have chosen.

    In his fifth point he says:

    I happen to agree with Susan Foh’s interpretation of “desire,” which defines the term in connection with its appearance in Genesis 4:8. I think it is a compelling connection and of course would be consistent with the new ESV interpretation.

    1. For the record, I emailed Denny Burk using the web-email form at his website Contact [Internet Archive link]

      I said:

      Hello Denny
      Here is another contribution to the debate: [This URL was corrected to reflect the change from .com to .blog. Editors.]

      In that post there are links to a few more posts on the ESV change of Gen.3:16. I especially recommend you read the posts by Ps Sam Powell.

      Yours sincerely,
      Barbara Roberts

    2. Did Denny Burk actually just admit that he was taught by a woman named Susan Foh? GASP!!!! Maybe he should review CBMW’s materials on why women can’t teach men. 🙂

      1. I think you are a little inaccurate there, Avid Reader. CBMW say that women should not be church leaders or preach from the pulpit. But they say it is okay for women to write books and journal articles about doctrine. Foh’s article was published in the Westminster Seminary Journal.

        But of course, I doubt that Burk would be willing to be taught by me, because the point of view I present is so at odds with his fixed presuppositions, and if he were to be persuaded by me, he would have to repent of a lot of what he has previously said and done. That pride thing gets in the way…

        I doubt that Burk would even be persuaded by Ps Sam Powell. Sam is a man, so he doesn’t have the hurdle to overcome that I have, but Sam’s view of Genesis 3:16 is so different from Burk’s view that I don’t think Burk will accept it. I am not at all confident that Burk will even read Sam’s posts. But I pray that he does.

      2. Exactly! Just having some fun here. What we study here at ACFJ can get really heavy sometimes so I like to keep it light hearted as much as possible.

        By the way, one thing I really appreciate about ACFJ is that you work really hard to research everything, keeping everyone honest so I can totally understand when you’d even correct my joke to make sure that no one got confused. That’s a good thing in this day and age when truth is so often distorted. 🙂

  6. Is this really much different than the other translations though? NET–supposed to be the most accurate Bible we have–says, “you will want to control your husband but he will dominate you.”

    1. I would take issue with the NET Bible’s translation too.
      And I don’t know why you think the NET is the most accurate translation we have. Pretty much every Bible translation will claim that about itself.

      I suggest you read the posts by Sam Powell which I have linked to.

    2. I have a New American Standard Bible. I was studying for a Sunday school class one day when I noticed that the word authority had been inserted in an OT text. It was very obviously inserted and not part of the original text. It changed the meaning of the verse, indicating male authority where it wasn’t intended. I can’t even remember the reference, but at the time, I was shocked. I completely trusted the translators up to that point. It changed the way I looked at translations and even commentaries. I recently bought a Message Bible because I want to read the Bible as story, but I want to buy a study Bible. Maybe I will buy an HCSB.

      1. I’ve been following many articles on the ESV’s changes in the #ESVpermanenenttranslation and I’ve noticed that quite a few commenters say they are using (or going back to) the NASB (NASB1995).

  7. Isn’t this also what the Catholic Church in Europe had done for centuries. We have the holy scriptures, we will translate the word of God for you and you have no right to own your own copy or to read it for yourself. The priest will tell you what scripture says, mass was done in Latin and the average household did not have the Bible and the average church attendee did not even understand what was being said in the mass.
    Religion, devoid of meaning and was just a ritual of boring motions with no understanding. This is the way my mom describes her experience with religion before emigrating to North America from Europe in the 1960s.
    Having come out, been set free with the truth of God’s word, why would we anyone now send women back to the dark ages with this poor exegesis of scripture! It is about the age old battle of good vs evil and the desire of evil to set itself up to usurp God and our freedom in him and to use God’s word to oppress and dominate!!

  8. Why so many changes to the ESV?? When it first came out, it was promoted at the most accurate word for word “readable” version of the Word, different from the New American Standard which has difficult sentence structure at places to keep it literal. The NAS has had a few updates in its many years, but it seems ESV being updated every few years. Why? Are they continuously finding more original manuscripts or an agenda driven reason for this? I find this very unsettling.
    Do you have a version you recommend? Thank you for your work on this controversial issue!

    1. I don’t want to say I have a version that I recommend above others. I suggest you use several versions and check the differences at the many online Bible sites (e.g. here [Internet Archive link]). Earlier in this thread I suggested the HCSB, but that doesn’t mean I think it is the BEST version. Each version has some problems, IMO. And each of us can make our own judgement about which we prefer to use. The politics of Bible translation is a massive subject in and of itself!

      I notice that Ps Sam Powell usually quotes from the KJV. I respect that; but I know that like all translations, the KJV has a few problems.

      They are not continually finding more original manuscripts. Publishers are simply putting out new translations or updates of existing translations for a variety of other reasons. One reason is that the English language changes gradually over time, so what was ‘normal English’ for people in past centuries, or even fifty years ago, is not the common way of speaking these days — and many people don’t want to read a Bible in archaic English. Another reason is that people have different views on how important it is to do gender-neutral translations. Another reason is that translators always have to make decisions about whether they translate ‘word for word’ or ‘thought for thought’… and of course quite often they employ a bit of both methods. No translation can be perfect.

      Translating idioms from one language to another can be very tricky: you have to have a good idea of what WAS idiomatic in the original language – which means you need to be across all the extra-biblical literature from the period. One example of an idiom is ‘the husband of one wife’. For years this was translated word for word… and people thought it meant that an elder must not be a man who had divorced and remarried, some even thought it ruled out a man who had remarried after being widowed. But now the scholars have realised that ‘husband of one wife’ was an idiom that meant more or less the same as our idiom ‘he only has eyes for one woman’. In other words: it means a man who is not sexually promiscuous, if he is married he is not unfaithful to his wife, he doesn’t ogle women, doesn’t fool round with women.

      It is not possible to translate one language perfectly into another language. Some things will always be lost in the process. For example, there is much poetry in the Hebrew OT which cannot be fully conveyed in English: rhymes, word-plays, acrostic structures. These things cannot be transposed fully into another language.

  9. That’s funny (odd, telling) that they prefer Susan Foh’s interpretation since it fits their views but aren’t they taking instruction and teaching from a woman and aren’t we supposed to be easily deceived? -sarcasm.

      1. Wayne Grudem says he thinks Adam was deceived too

        What?? Doesn’t the Bible specifically say Adam was NOT deceived??

  10. Sorry, I just got back from reading Denny’s blog and didn’t read Avid’s comment before posting. I have a Reformation Study Bible in ESV and an NIV Life Application Study Bible which both translate it desire for in Gen. 3:16.

    1. Hi PEARL, the reason your Reformation Study Bible in ESV has ‘desire for’ is because it is the original ESV translation. This change the ESV made only happened in the northern hemisphere summer of this year, 2016. It is now the only ESV you can read online. But the hard copy printed ESVs from before then will all say ‘desire for’.

      1. Actually, I have a 2010 ESV study Bible that translates Gen. 3:16 as “your desire shall be for…” but “for” has a footnote that then states that “for” actually means “against.” Because to say that a preposition really means its antonym makes perfect sense (rolls eyes).
        This is, however, the study Bible edited (and written in parts) by Grudem that I would advise everyone to stay very far from. I am assuming any ESV published pre-2010 would be a safer bet.
        Oh, and my ESV on my iBooks app has the same footnote as the 2010 study ESV, but it has not been completely changed to “contrary to”, thankfully.

      2. Ah, that’s interesting that your ESV on iBooks has not updated to the Permanent Text. Thanks for letting us know.

        Regarding the ESV Study Bible, Rachel Miller has published an excellent post pointing out where ESS / ERAS appears in the study notes of that Bible. Eternal Subordination of the Son and the ESV Study Bible [Internet Archive link]

        I personally think that many of the study notes in the ESV Study Bible are good, but the notes that deal with gender issues and topics like divorce are NOT good. Read them to find out what the ESV editors believe, but don’t rely on them as being correct interpretations. Make your own judgements!

  11. Thank you so much for this, Barbara! I really appreciated Sam Powell’s “Odds and Ends” as well. Over the last few years I have been growing increasingly appalled at power and influence that celebrity pastors have been gaining and misusing, and just how pervasive their influence really is. I am continuously praying that they will wake up to their errors and then truly and publicly repent.

  12. I keep thinking about Psalm 110:1:

    The lord says to my LORD,

    This Psalm was referenced by Jesus Himself in Matthew 22:41-46, b/c the Pharisees had falsely accused Him of blasphemy:

    (41) While the Pharisees were assembled, Jesus asked them a question:
    (42) “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said, “The son of David.”
    (43) He said to them, “How then does David by the Spirit call him ‘Lord,’ saying,
    (44) ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”‘?
    (45) If David then calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
    (46) No one was able to answer him a word, and from that day on no one dared to question him any longer.

    Christ Himself says here that He is equal to God the Father (LORD). Grudem, however, dares to question that which even Pharisees did not.

    Grudem & Co need to be reminded to take the “whole counsel of God” rather than build a theological superstructure that becomes a god, & thus idolatrous.

    Grudem sounds exactly like the Pharisees, whom Jesus accused of “tying up heavy loads on people’s backs & not lifting a finger to help.” (Matthew 23:4)

    1. Christ Himself says here that He is equal to God the Father (LORD). Grudem, however, dares to question that which even Pharisees did not.

      2 Peter 2:10: “Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties”

  13. Thank you, Barbara, for speaking the truth.
    I want to disagree with you on one thing only. This will not only hurt women with abusive husbands. Even if a woman has the kindest husband on earth, to hear her very soul slandered continually, to be accused unfairly and have no voice to speak up, this does damage. This supposed “contrary desire” assumes that her desire is always wrong for the only reason that she was born a woman, and the man’s is always right, for the only reason that he was born a man. A girl growing up with this self image will be damaged by it, even if her father is a kind and good man. A wife or woman hearing these words will be wounded by them. These are cruel words! And I agree with you, that this is not a faithful translation.

    1. Yes I agree!

      At the same time, I’m not sure how I conveyed the idea that it will only hurt women with abusive husbands. In the post I talked about “an agenda to keep women (and especially wives) down and keep husbands in authority.”

      Can you tell me what I said that gave you the idea I was only saying it would hurt women with abusive husbands? I can tweak my post if need be, to remove that impression.

      Thanks Shy1. 🙂

      1. Hi Barbara and Jeff, Forgive me, I didn’t word my comment very well. When you asked “who will suffer the most harm from it? The very same group: wives married to abusive husbands.” You are correct, women with abusive husbands will be the most hurt, I just wanted to express that it hurts all women very badly. I also believe it will lead to more abuse.

        I must say this translation has really offended me. These men have shown they will even distort the word of God to express their bias against women. I’d like to tell them, “a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city,” goes for sisters, too! (Proverbs 18:19) The whole group of those involved with this translation have lost every amount of my trust and they will not be regaining it.

  14. At Sam Powell’s blog P Duggie said [Internet Archive link]

    “… Genesis 3:16 is being used to justify domestic abuse. ”

    Really? Who is doing that? [who is using Genesis 3:16 to justify domestic abuse?] Does anyone know of any abusers who actually use Genesis 3:16 as the thing that makes their abuse right?

    That seems like a stretch to me. Maybe its happening. Is it happening a lot? In confessional circles or more loose circles?

    Seeing the Light replied [Internet Archive link] to P Duggie:

    yes, it is really happening. It is kind of surreal, but my husband is doing it to me. He began financially abusing me last year and uses Genesis 3:16 to defend it. He says that “…and he will rule over you” is God’s provision of protection for me. His domination of me is for me. He treats me with ridicule, accusation, and contempt all the while claiming to be doing God’s will and that he is doing it because he is maturing spiritually. It is crazy-making. (By the way, he does this proudly in front of the kids, who are so scarred spiritually).

    1. It’s very useful that it’s on the WebArchive, as that article listed all the changes they had made in this most recent translation.

      And although they’ve decided that it is no longer the PERMANENT translation, they have not (yet) decided to modify any of the verses they changed.

  15. I just found out something curious.

    The Blue Letter Bible and Bible Gateway are both showing the new version of Genesis 3:16.

    But Bible Study Tools is still showing the former version of Genesis 3:16
    Genesis 3:16 ESV [Internet Archive link]

    And also has the old version
    Search results for: genesis 3:16 [Internet Archive link]

    And so does the!bible/Genesis+3 — when you’ve gone there, click on the tab “Parallel” [We were unable to find this link in the Internet Archive. We are unable to confirm whether or not had the old version. Editors.]

  16. Good words from Todd Pruitt:

    The analogy for how a husband should love his wife is not some supposed difference of authority between the Father and the Son. Paul gives us the analogy in Ephesians 5: “Love you wife as Christ loved the church.” Not “lead your wife as the Father leads the Son”—you’re not doing it right if you’re doing it that way!

    But Grudem has written, in years past, for CBMW, that if our complementarianism is not derived from the submission of the Son to the Father within the eternal Godhead, then it all falls apart.
    And I just don’t understand why he thinks that.

    Todd was being interviewed at Episode 26: Confessionalism or Biblicism? [Internet Archive link] [The original link was broken, and we were unable to find a copy of the podcast that played. We included the Internet Archive link to retain a more complete record. Editors.] Hear it at 44:18 of the podcast.

Leave a comment. It's ok to use a made up name (e.g Anon37). For safety tips read 'New Users Info' (top menu). Tick the box if you want to be notified of new comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.