Biblical Interpretation and the Lisa Baumert Introduction Cultural translation Where and how we start in our interpretation of Scripture de- Most Christians are familiar with the task of cultural translation termines where we will end up. When seeking to understand the while interpreting Scripture. We recognize that the was relevancef o the Bible’s teaching for our lives, interpretive starting written in a different context than our own and seek to under- points are particularly significant. The method by which we read stand its relevance for our lives. When interpreting and appropri- and derive meaning from Scripture is the fundamental determi- ating the book of Ephesians, therefore, we naturally and necessar- nant of the nature of the meaning we will derive. ily engage in cultural translation. For example, the admonitions Nevertheless, we can make several affirmations about the concerning slaves in are properly and almost univer- Bible and its meaning. First, we can affirm that Scripture holds sally acknowledged to be nontransferable to our present context relevance and truth for our lives and our Christian faith, because in the Western world. We readily reject the institution of slavery we believe that Scripture is the word of God. Through the power as evil, and do not hesitate to avoid the direct application of the of the Holy Spirit, God speaks through Scripture in ways that command “Slaves, obey your earthly masters.” As we do, we are transcend our best academic and scientific analysis of the Bible. interpreting the commands of Scripture in light of our present Secondly,e w can affirm that we possess clear and helpful meth- social, political, and theological contexts. ods and resources for understanding and applying Scripture to The location from which we begin our interpretation of Ephe- our s lives. A we gain deeper insight into the historical, literary, sians 6—for example, in the case of twenty-first-century North and social settings of the Bible, we encounter fresh and deeper Americans living after the civil rights movement, in a democratic understandings of its meaning for our lives. country and globalized world—influences how we apply this pas- These two affirmations—that the Bible is the word of God and sageo t our lives. Although a seemingly elementary affirmation, thate w have tools to interpret Scripture—enable us to assert that the previous statement holds great significance for our interpre- Scripture contains accessible and applicable truth. tation of Ephesians’s teaching on women. In f light o Ephesians 5:21–33 and its teachings regarding the Interestingly, the modes of interpretation and cultural trans- Christian community, women, and marriage, let us examine the lation used by Christians are often inconsistent when approach- methods and resources for interpretation. This passage says: ing Ephesians’s commands regarding slaves and women. While few Christians interpret Ephesians as a justification for slavery, Submito t one another out of reverence for . Wives, sub- many o hold t a supposedly “direct” application of its commands mito t your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the concerning women in chapter 5. Paul’s exhortation “Wives, sub- headf o the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, mit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord” is of e which h is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, interpreted and applied literally as supporting male dominance so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. in the church and home. This common inconsistency between Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church readingsf o Ephesians’s commands regarding slaves and women and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by indicates that many Christians possess preconceived and extra- the washing with water through the word, and to present her neous assumptions about the roles of women, which they bring to s himself a a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any to their interpretation of the text. other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, hus- Those who hold that Ephesians 5:21–33 supports the author- bands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who ityf o husbands over their wives start their interpretation of this lovess hi wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his passage with preconceived beliefs in gender inequality and pa- own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the triarchy. When such preconceived beliefs and interpretations are church—for we are members of his body. “For this reason a broughto t the passage, the cultural context of the first century is man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, abandoned and the thrust of the message is missed. Fair interpre- and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mys- tation necessitates that, in the same spirit by which we evaluate tery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, Ephesians’s teaching regarding slaves, we acknowledge how the each f one o you also must love his wife as he loves himself, cultural and social norms regarding women in the first century and the wife must respect her husband. (NIV 1984) underlie the author’s instructions regarding women and mar- riage. Starting with a solid understanding of the social and his- torical context is essential to arriving at a balanced and thought- LISA BAUMERT is is currently pursuing a Master ful interpretation of the Bible. of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. A graduate of Wheaton College (IL), The historical, social context of Ephesians Lisa worked as an intern for CBE during the sum- During the first century, when Paul wrote the letter to the Ephe- mer of 2010. sians, the social and cultural context was significantly different. Wives were commonly twelve to fifteen years younger and far less educated than their husbands.1 Furthermore, women in Greek

22 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 25, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2011 culture during the first century were considered largely property two unlike things. When two things are related through meta- of their fathers and husbands.2 eTh predominant cultural assump- phors and similes, they necessarily possess both points of similar- tion regarding women at this time was patriarchy and inequality. ity and points of difference. A simile ceases to function as a simile Gordon Fee, in his 2002 article, offers a helpful description if the two things being related are viewed either as completely of the Greco-Roman household of Paul’s day.3 oAccording t Fee, identicalr o utterly different. This is particularly important to re- the household was a place of production, run by a man, wherein member when seeking to interpret and apply scriptural similes. slaves, women, and children existed in hierarchal relationships In o order t be understood, similes and metaphors require that benefitted the male-dominated household business. Mar- imagination. In fact, I offer that humans’ ability to create and un- riages wa not based on love, but existed for the purposes of derstand metaphor is our highest form of cognitive capacity—an bearing children and maintaining the household structure. Men ability that sets us apart from all other species. Further confirma- and women were not considered equals and did not exist in lov- tionf o this idea is evidenced in an analogy’s ability to advance ing marriage relationships as we understand them. Thus, Paul’s empathy,n a intellectual identification with the feelings, thoughts, wordso t the Ephesians, especially those concerning household and actions of another. Empathy flows from an understanding of relationships, address a particular context and culture quite for- similarity and unity. When we acknowledge the full humanity of eigno t our own—so much so that great care must be taken when others,e w participate in a comparative exercise of empathically seeking to apply his instructions to our present circumstances. recognizing the similarity between our lives and those of others. In Ephesians 5, Paul takes the normative social structures of I suggest, therefore, that understanding comparative figures his day for granted. He addresses the relationship between hus- of s speech i centrally important to the Christian gospel and mis- bands and wives in a descriptive manner that would have made sion.e W cannot love our neighbors unless we acknowledge our senseos t hi original readers. Thus, Ephesians does not provide common origin as children of God. Furthermore, the message of prescriptive guidelines for marriage. As Philip Payne has stated, Christs i dependent upon a plethora of analogical constructions, “While Paul’s wording was framed in order to speak to people in and the gospel can only be advanced through the utilization and his own social structure, one must not assume that he intended to comprehension of these comparisons. Examining biblical meta- make those social structures normative for all societies.”4 phors and similes and applying their significance to our own lives The difference between the context in which the text was demands that we creatively engage with their historical and liter- written and our present context necessitates that we thoughtfully ary foundations and imagine how they might be translated into and creatively reimagine how we might follow the principles and our own context. commands of this passage. Thus, the interpretive task for us as Metaphors and similes are not timeless, but, rather, reflect the Christians in the twenty-first century is to understand and de- unique context of their creator. They have cultural and historical termine what Paul was telling the Christians in first-century limits, and the original, authorially intended points of similar- Ephesus, why his message was significant at that time, and how ity and points of difference are frozen in a particular social and we might appropriate the meaning of his commands in our own historical thought world—one that must be penetrated and un- lives.e W ought, as I. Howard Marshall describes, to engage in derstood if the full sense is to be comprehended. “continuing evaluation of society in light of the gospel.”5 At the same time, metaphors and similes are rich and living. They can, and do, take on new and additional meanings over Metaphorical language in Ephesians 5:21–33 time.s A their meanings change and develop, they demand con- In 3 verse 2 of Ephesians 5, Paul utilizes a metaphor and a simile tinual engagement and exploration in order to be understood. whene h states, “For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the Often, over time, the meaning conveyed through a figure of headf o the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” The rela- speech might be more accurately expressed through a different tionship between Christ and the church is presented as analogous referent.e Th task of Christian theology and the church is, thus, to the relationship of husbands to their wives. Paul makes further to engage the metaphors and similes of and its Scrip- usef o simile when, in verse 25, he charges husbands to “love your tures in order to see new and pertinent meaning in them. wives, s just a Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,” Reading Ephesians in light of the gospel andn i verse 28 states, “[H]usbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.” The relationship between Christ and the church The f book o Ephesians and its teaching on wives and husbands and the relationship between husbands and wives are similar inso- must likewise be read with attention to the gospel message and fars a they relate analogically, but they are not identical. the circumstances surrounding its authorship. In “Mutual Love Ephesians 5:21–33, as is common throughout Scripture and and Submission in Marriage,” I. Howard Marshall states, “Paul’s literature, utilizes the literary mechanism of analogy as a tool for teaching remains authoritative for today, but is authoritative, just conveying meaning. A simile is a figure of speech using like ro ase h himself would insist, as an expression of the gospel.”6 The as (a metaphor omits these) in which a comparison is made be- teachingsf o and the redemptive history of God’s work must tween two unlike things which, in fact, have something in com- serves a the lens through which we interpret Scripture, partic- mon.e Th comparison relates two unfamiliar things in a manner ularly those sections, like Ephesians, that address early church that presents them as substitutes for one another. communities in specific contexts. Theres i not a one-to-one, unequivocal relationship between In particular, we must examine the gospel’s teachings on re- things joined in metaphors and similes, because such figures of lationships, and study how Jesus’ ministry addressed social re- speech highlight the points of connection or similarity between lationships at the time in which the was writ-

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 25, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2011 • 23 ten.e Th Christian faith offers us a fundamental understanding Paul’s commands about marriage in this passage are given for of t what i means to be human—what it means to be created in the purpose of explaining Christians’ “new life in Christ.” The the f image o God and exist in relationship with God and other submission to which Paul was calling the church was a submis- humans. Thus, at stake in every discussion about gender identi- sionf o equals. His use of the reciprocal pronoun allelois in Greek ties and roles within the church and home is theological anthro- to form the construction “Submit to one another” in 5:21 indi- pology. More than seeking to locate and name the fundamental cates action that is free and collective. Thus, Paul’s use of this differences between men and women, our task in interpreting construction is incompatible with a patriarchal interpretation of Scripture should be to understand what it means to be humans, his later commands concerning marriage. Read in view of this male and female, together, created in the image of God. authorial intention, as well as the historical circumstances of his An accurate reading and explication of Ephesians 5:18—6:9 day, Paul’s teaching on women and marriage in Ephesians cannot can occur only with attention to the entirety of Paul’s message be interpreted so as to justify the subordination of women. in this letter. This section is located within a larger passage that The command for wives to submit to their husbands is directly addresses Christian relationships and living. Paul’s concern here dependent upon the command for everyone within the Christian is that followers of Christ live lives of holiness—lives character- community to submit to each other. “Wives, submit yourselves to izedy b righteousness and newness of life. Becoming a Christian your own husbands” cannot properly be interpreted and applied means that one’s understanding of oneself, and, consequently, apart from the preceding and prerequisite command, “Submit to one’s actions, are changed. Christians are “to be made new” (4:23) one another out of reverence for Christ.” ando t “put off” (4:22) the corruption and sin of their former, The “head” metaphor in Ephesians 5:21–33 unbelieving lives. Truthfulness, peace, respect, reconciliation, encouragement, compassion, love, and forgiveness are to charac- Ephesians 5:21–33 offers, by way of analogy and metaphor, ex- terize all followers of Christ, because they reflect Christ himself. amplesf o how the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, through the sal- Paul’s words concerning wives and husbands in Ephesians oc- vationf o Jesus Christ, might transform relationships within the cur within this understanding that the lives of Christians are to Christian community. One of the most well-known and misun- reflect unique moral standards characterized by holiness. Here, derstood metaphors (followed by a simile) for marriage in the Paul addresses three relationships: wives and husbands, slaves New Testament is found in this passage when Paul says, “For the and masters, and children and fathers. Gordon Fee notes that husbands i head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.” these three relationships were primary to the Greco-Roman This metaphor invites readers to imagine and interpret the rela- householdf o the first century and that addressing these relation- tionship between head and body in order to understand more ships would have been common practice.7 fully how new life in the Holy Spirit transforms marriage. Like Many scholars, including Gordon Fee and I. Howard Marshall, all metaphors, head,s a Paul uses it, is rich and living. Its proper suggest that the interpretive key to Paul’s writing on Christian interpretation demands care and understanding. holiness in these three relationships is found in the command Paul’s assertion that husbands are the heads of their wives is ino 5:18, t “be filled with the Holy Spirit.”8 Therefore, the holi- commonly interpreted by some Christians in a hierarchal man- ness and newness of life to which Paul is calling the church can ner, meaning ruler ro authority.e Th original Greek text of Ephe- onlye b realized through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This sians, however, does not allow for such an ordered interpretation. passage continues by describing what Spirit-filled lives look like. In this passage, the limits of the English language blur impor- The Holy Spirit’s power enables Christians to “[b]e completely tant distinctions among several meanings of the term translated humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” head in English. Rather than indicating hierarchy and therefore (4:2), acknowledge that “[w]e are all members of one body” wives’ submission to their husbands, the Greek word kephalē in (4:25), “[b]e kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving this context is properly understood to convey the ideas of depen- each other” (4:32), “[l]ive a life of love, just as Christ loved us and dence and unity and can be translated source.9 tsI wa commonly gave himself up for us” (5:1). Finally, and most significantly for used in Paul’s day as a military term to describe one who went our discussion, the Holy Spirit enables Christians to “[s]ubmit into battle before the rest of the troops.10 tThus, i indicated chro- to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21). Submission is, nology rather than leadership or position of authority. Kephalē therefore, presented here as a characteristic of our new humanity indicates those who willingly sacrifice and lay down their lives. in Christ, not merely a feminine ideal. Such understanding is consistent with Paul’s metaphorical asser- This passage is teaching all Christians to submit to one another tion that Christ is the kephalē of the church. in love and humility—an idea which, at that time, would have trans- Another Greek word, archē,s wa used in Paul’s time to convey formed the normative understanding of social relationships. The the hierarchal ideas of leader ro ruler,s a well a point of origin hierarchal social structures of the period in which this letter was and beginning.11 Had Paul used this word, Ephesians’s teaching written would have been incompatible with the social ethic Paul on marriage would be more justifiably hierarchal. However, as was presenting to the church in Ephesians. Rather than prescribing constructed, the metaphor of head does not indicate subordina- patriarchal relationships within marriage, Paul was challenging the tion.ts I i significant that Paul chose the word kephalē ot describe patriarchyf o his day by calling the whole church—men, women, the relationship between husband and wife in the Christian com- slaves, and free—to be filled with the life-transforming power of munity because the wider Greek culture of Paul’s time would the Holy Spirit and so to submit to one another. have expected the use of the word archē in a description of the marriage relationship.

24 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 25, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2011 In saying that the husband is the head or kephalē fo the wife, lives filled with the Holy Spirit’s power. The injunctions in this Pauls i speaking to the chronology of creation history and his passage that “husbands ought to love their wives as their own own historical situation rather than hierarchy within the mar- bodies,” and “each one of you also must love his wife as he loves riage relationship. The instruction for husbands to be the head of himself,” powerfully emphasize the love and service husbands are their s wives i an application of Genesis 2:24, which says that hus- to extend in relationship with their wives. band and wife are to form one flesh. Man and woman were cre- For Paul, the “headship” husbands are to have over their wives ated for a unified life with each other. Therefore, Paul’s metaphor is exercised by loving their wives (5:25, 28, 33), cleansing them in Ephesians implies mutual dependence rather than hierarchy in through the word (5:26–27), nourishing them (5:25, 28, 33), and marriage.n I this metaphor, the head and the body, which make cherishing them (5:29). I. Howard Marshall notes, “Not only is up the one flesh of marriage, cannot survive apart from or over this instruction to husbands to love their wives unusual and un- and against one another. In keeping with the thematic thrust of conventional in the world of the New Testament, but the sheer this passage, Paul states that, through the power of the Holy Spir- intensityf o the love demanded is extraordinary.”12 safThi ide o it, husbands are to be the head of their wives by existing as one “headship” would have been strange in the Greco-Roman house- part of a unified and mutually dependent flesh. hold, s but i consistent with Paul’s teaching on new life through the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ as the head of the church This interpretation of Ephesians is also congruent with Jesus’ In o order t understand more fully Paul’s head metaphor in Ephe- life and teaching. The gospel offers a transformative ethic of au- sians,e w must examine the relationship of Christ and the church thority, power, and relationships: “Instead, whoever wants to be- to which the marriage relationship is likened. As already noted, come great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants analogical language, by its nature, highlights the similarity be- toe b first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not tween two unlike things. Christ and the church are categorically comeoe t b served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for different than man and woman. As the church’s foundation and many” (Mark 10:43–44). Likewise, the Beatitudes of Matthew 5 Savior, Jesus in his relationship to the church can never be iden- present meekness, mercy, and peacemaking as values of the king- tically mirrored in the marriage relationship. The simile of the dom of God. relationships of Christ and the church and husbands and wives In Ephesians, Paul takes up and illuminates via metaphor and would cease to be analogous if there were not significant differ- simile how these teachings of Christ are exemplified within mar- ences between them. riage. Far from condoning hierarchy within marriage, he calls However, in the church today, the distinction and differences Christianso t a new level of mutuality, love, and service in all of between the Christ/church, husband/wife simile are often lost or their relationships and, particularly, in their marriage relation- denied. When this occurs, the idea of mutuality within marriage ships. His teaching is consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ is lost, and husbands are often made out to be the “saviors” or and reflects a new understanding of the Spirit’s transformative “spiritual leaders” of their wives. Such an understanding denies and powerful presence in the lives of Christians. women a fully free relationship with God. Notes That being noted, the points of similarity between these two relationships will be our focus. The point of commonality is 1. I. Howard Marshall, “Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: found in the Greek word kephalē and its meaning of “source.” :18–19 and Ephesians 5:21–33,” in Discovering Biblical Equal- Pauls i saying that, just as Christ is the source of the church, so ity: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Re- too the husband became the source of his wife’s existence when becca Merrill Groothuis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 199. 2. Marshall, “Mutual Love,” 199. God used Adam’s rib to create Eve in Genesis. 3. Gordon Fee, “The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18–6:9,” Pris- With this simile, Paul was also seeking to highlight the unity cilla Papers 16, no. 1 (Winter 2002), 3–8. http://www.cbeinternational. and mutuality with which husbands and wives are to live. Christ org/new/E-Journal/2006/06winter/06winterfee.html. and the church exist in a reciprocal and unified relationship. The 4. . Philip B Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ (Grand Rapids, churchs i dependent upon Christ for its wellbeing and life, and MI: Zondervan, 2009), 272. the church does Christ’s work on earth. Likewise, husbands and 5. Marshall, “Mutual Love,” 190. wives o are t be unified and reciprocally loving toward one an- 6. Marshall, “Mutual Love,” 203. 7. Gordon D. Fee, “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians other. Therefore, the analogy between the relationships of Christ 3:26–29,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, 184. and the church and husbands and wives is found in the idea of 8. Fee, “Male and Female in the New Creation,” 175; Marshall, “Mu- source and unity, rather than the commonly interpreted idea of tual Love,” 196. hierarchy. 9. See, for example, Catherine Clark Kroeger, “Toward an Under- Love your wife as Christ loved the church standingf o Ancient Conceptions of ‘Head,’” Priscilla Papers 20, no. 3 (Summer 2006), 4–8. Paul’s admonition for wives to submit to their husbands is par- 10. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women: The alleled in this passage in another analogical construction when Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1991), 36. Paul says in 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved 11. Gordon D. Fee, “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies,” in the church and gave himself up for her.” This command further Discovering Biblical Equality, 151. expounds Paul’s understanding of Christian marriage and two 12. Marshall, “Mutual Love,” 199.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 25, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2011 • 25