The Child of Shame

Honour killings, bride prices, veiled women are not part of Western culture. We find the ideas abhorrent and repressive. Yet this was the Mediterranean world, to varying degrees, in the first century, the world into which Jesus was born. When seen against this background the Christmas narrative, whether read as fact or myth, is a powerful affirmation of human dignity.

In the culture of the time Honour was like money in the bank, and the more one had the better. One acquired honour at birth, with those of noble birth having high honour. Honour was added to, or lost, in social interaction such as business, debate, and relationships. Men were responsible for defending the family honour and for adding to it.

Women were considered inferior. Typically, when they moved outside the domestic realm women were expected to be accompanied by a male relative, not speak, and remain covered.  Women preserved the family honour by remaining chaste. A man lost honour if he could not protect the chastity of women under his dominion.

In the Christmas story a man Joseph is engaged to a young woman, Mary. This would have been an arranged marriage accompanied by the payment of the bride price. Engagement was a binding relationship that could only be terminated by divorce. The betrothal period was typically 12 months, at which point the couple would marry.

During the betrothal period Mary ends up pregnant. She has brought shame on herself and her family. The penalty for adultery, although rarely practiced, was the stoning of both offenders. Joseph, according to both Roman and Jewish law had no option than to divorce her. The future of a woman in her situation was bleak indeed.

Joseph was a compassionate man and not wanting ‘to disgrace her publicly … he decided to break the engagement quietly.’ (Mat. 1:19). Another man could have chosen to make the matter public and in so doing kept the assets she brought to the marriage and possibly reclaimed the price he paid for her. When told by the angel that Mary was pregnant through the power of God Joseph went ahead with the marriage. In so doing he sacrificed his own honour.

Now, at this point, it is fair to ask, ‘What was God doing in all of this? Why would He want to treat anyone like this, knowing the consequences for all involved?’ And that is a fair question, one that I will try to answer.

First, the child of that union was Jesus, the Son of God or, as He is sometimes called, God in human flesh. That child took on the shame of His parents. Throughout His life He would have been called by many who knew the circumstances of His birth as ‘The bastard son of Joseph and Mary’.

Through His life and teaching Jesus sought to overturn the values of the Honour/Shame society, demonstrating that all human beings, no matter how seen in the eyes of the world, had value in the sight of God. Joseph and Mary themselves, lowly valued in their society, were highly valued in the eyes of God. But, more importantly, He demonstrated that God identifies with the outcasts of society. Every child, every person, is of inestimable value.

And that is something we need to be reminded of, not just at Christmas, but every day of the year.

That ‘Wives Submit to Your Husbands’ Thing.

Those who argue for the submission of the wife to the husband do have Biblical support. Let’s face it, Paul, in Col. 3:18 says quite clearly ‘Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord.’ This is first of a short list of instructions regarding relationships in Christian households.

A similar list is found in Ephesians 5:21 – 6:9. Both relate to the same groups of people and both follow the same order – wives, husbands, children and slaves. As greater detail is provided in Ephesians we can take it as the most instructive.

Summing up his discussion on unity and living as Christians Paul, in Ephesians 5:21 states: ‘And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.’ This injunction overarches what follows – all relationships listed are mutually submissive.

Wives

For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. ²³ For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. ²⁴ As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.

It seems that submission is not the same as obedience. Children and slaves are instructed to obey, not wives. Perhaps this reflects the inherent equality that is intended of the relationship. Christian wives cannot mindlessly submit to the authority of the husband, for Christian women and men alike must first submit to the ultimate authority of Jesus. Any submission of one human to another must not come at the cost of faithfulness to God.

More significantly perhaps, the instruction to the wife is succinct, expressed in three verses, as opposed to the longer and more detailed instruction given to the husband in verses 25-33.

Husbands

For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her ²⁶ to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. ²⁷ He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. ²⁸ In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. ²⁹ No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. ³⁰ And we are members of his body.

³¹ As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” ³² This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. ³³ So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

That more attention is given to the husband’s role is significant. That the wife would submit to her husband was the social norm. In this world women were generally considered inferior. Typically, they were considered less intelligent, restricted to the domestic role, not allowed to speak in public, and required a male guardian to carry out legal and financial transactions. So the idea that the husband should submit to his wife was radical. Paul, therefore, needs to spell out what this means.

Paul wrote at a time when the man was truly the head of his household. He did not challenge this concept – at least directly. ‘For a husband is the head of his wife [and his household by implication] as Christ is the head of the church …’ (v. 23). But when one understands what Paul is saying against the background of his day, this is revolutionary. This becomes obvious when one understands the relationship between Christ and His Church as portrayed in the New Testament.

The Headship of Jesus

First, consider what Paul says in Philippians 2:1-8:

Is there any encouragement from belonging to Christ? Any comfort from his love? Any fellowship together in the Spirit? Are your hearts tender and compassionate? ² Then make me truly happy by agreeing wholeheartedly with each other, loving one another, and working together with one mind and purpose.

³ Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves. ⁴ Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too.

⁵ You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.

⁶ Though he was God,
    he did not think of equality with God
    as something to cling to.
⁷ Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
    he took the humble position of a slave
    and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form,
⁸     he humbled himself in obedience to God
    and died a criminal’s death on a cross.

And then there are Christ’s own words in Matthew 20:26-28. To set the context, the mother of two of His disciples had just asked Jesus to give her sons the places of honour in His kingdom – to sit one on His right and the other His left hand. This request upset the others. In response, Jesus said:

…“You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. ²⁶ But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, ²⁷ and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. ²⁸ For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Jesus both taught and modelled a new way. Christian leadership – or headship – is lived out in service, in placing the welfare of others before self. If you desire to be top dog, said Jesus, become a slave.

Now, think about this concept in the context of male leadership in the family setting – and especially the husband and wife relationship. It is not about lordship, but servant hood. For the husband, the welfare of his wife is his highest priority, regardless of the cost to himself. She is one with him, to be cared for as he would care for himself. He will support her, encourage her, and take a real interest in her growth. He will recognise her intellectual capacity, not as a lesser, but as an equal. Her right to learn, to question, to hold and express independent views, and to contribute as God calls her to, will be respected. He will recognise her talents and spiritual giftedness and not stand in the way of her using these in the service of God. And in those things where her knowledge and abilities are better than his, he will submit to her better judgement.

Yes, the Bible, and Paul in particular, do instruct wives to submit to their husbands. But, the obligation is mutual: ‘… submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.’ Just as this is true in the husband/wife relationship, it is true for all Christian relationships. We are not here to be served, to take, but rather to serve and to give.

Copyright Notice

Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton Illinois 60189. All rights reserved

Women's ordination and the ideal

In Genesis 1 man is made in God’s image – ‘male and female he created them’.  Not man, or woman, alone as the image, but male and female together were the image. Together, as equals, they were to multiply, fill the earth and rule over it – in the image of God. In Genesis 2 we are told that man and woman were to become ‘one flesh’.

This was in the ideal world. In chapter 3 it all went wrong.

Jesus came to restore in us the image of the Divine, to return us to the ideal. In Galatians 3:28 Paul says ‘There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ In other words the divisions and inequalities brought about by the fall are done away with. Humanity is restored to its ideal.

I wonder what all this means within the context of female ordination. Did the restoration of the ideal happen at Calvary, or is it something that is still to come? Should the Church today continue to model the consequences of the fall or the future ideal? Or, perhaps, we are in some half way house.