Answer 6.1a: Gal. 3:28 teaches unity among diverse members in the body of Christ, but it does not teach that we are all the same or have all the same roles. (184)
Answer 6.1b: Gal. 3:28 cannot teach that all role distinctions are abolished, because the NT still gives different commands telling how men and women should obey God. (185)
Answer 6.1c: There are social implications in Galatians 3:28, but other texts in the New Testament explain what they are and are not. (185)
Egalitarian claim 6.2: Seed Idea: Galatians 3:28 is a "seed
idea" that would ultimately lead to the abolition
of male headship once cultural changes made it possible
to adopt a superior ethic to that of the New Testament.
(186)
Answer 6.2a: We should not think we can "move beyond" the ethic of the New Testament to a higher ethic. (186)
Egalitarian claim 6.3: New Creation Pattern: Galatians 3:28 is a "new
creation" pattern that overthrows the "old
creation" patterns of male leadership in the home
and church. (187)
Answer 6.3a: Male headship is part of the original good creation, and it is also part of the new creation in Christ. (187)
Egalitarian claim 6.4: Mutual Submission: The New Testament writers
urged the mutual submission of husbands and wives to one
another (Eph 5:21). Therefore there is no unique leadership
role for the husband. (188)
Answer 6.4a: If by "mutual submission" someone means that husband and wife should love one another and be considerate of one another's needs, this is surely a Biblical idea, but it is not taught in this verse. (189)
Answer 6.4b: In the context that follows Ephesians 5:21, Paul explains what he means by "submitting to one another": he means wives should submit to husbands, children to parents, and servants to masters. (189)
Answer 6.4c: The egalitarian view of "mutual submission" is a novelty in the history of the church. (190)
Answer 6.4d: Husbands are never told to be subject to their wives. (191)
Answer 6.4e: The egalitarian position depends on giving a Greek term a meaning it has never been shown to have. (191)
Answer 6.4f: The term translated "one another" often means "some to others" and not "everyone to everyone." That is the sense it has to have here. (196)
Answer 6.4g: Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, and 1 Peter 3:1 do not allow the egalitarian sense of "mutual submission." (198)
Answer 6.4h: Conclusion: the egalitarian idea of "mutual submission" is not taught in this verse. (199)
Answer 6.4i: Should "mutual submission" be put in churches' policy statements? (199)
Egalitarian claim 6.5: Preliminary Movement: The New Testament commands
regarding male headship are only a "preliminary
movement" to partially correct the culture at that
time, and the New Testament ethic regarding male headship
needs further improvement. (200)
Answer 6.5a: This denies the Bible's moral authority, for it assumes that the New Testament's ethical standards should not be ours today. (200)
Egalitarian claim 6.6: "Head" Means "Source" Or "Preeminent One": In Ephesians 5:23, the
word kephale ("head") does not mean "person
in authority" but rather "source," as
in "source of a river" (or perhaps "preeminent
one"). (201)
Answer 6.6a: A word's meaning is found by examining its use in various contexts. Kephale is found in over fifty contexts where it refers to people who have authority over others of whom they are the "head." But it never once takes a meaning "source without authority," as egalitarians would like to make it mean. (202)
Answer 6.6b: Verses that refer to Christ as "head" cannot rightly be used to deny the idea of authority. (203)
Answer 6.6c: A listing of several ancient texts where one person is the "head" of another makes clear the meaning "person in authority over another." (204)
Answer 6.6d: The meaning "source" makes no sense in key passages like Ephesians 5:23, "the husband is the head of the wife." (206)
Answer 6.6e: All the recognized lexicons (dictionaries) for ancient Greek, or their editors, now give kephale the meaning "person in authority over" or something similar, but none give the meaning "source." (206)
Answer 6.6f: The meaning "one who does not take advantage of his body" is mentioned in no lexicon and proven by no ancient citation. (208)
Answer 6.6g: The meaning "preeminent one" is likewise mentioned in no lexicon and proven by no ancient citation. (209)
Egalitarian claim 6.7: 1 Corinthians 7:3-5: In 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 Paul establishes an egalitarian model within marriage. (211)
Answer 6.7a: This text modifies and restrains, but does not nullify, a husband's authority in marriage. (212)
Egalitarian claim 6.8: No Offense To Roman Leaders: Paul taught that wives should be subject to their husbands because he did not want to offend the patriarchal culture, and especially the Roman leaders, of that time. (212)
Answer 6.8a: Paul does not appeal to expectations of "powerbrokers" in the Roman culture but to the relationship between Christ and the church, and to the marriage of Adam and Eve before there was sin. Both of these are permanent reasons that transcend all cultures. (213)
Answer 6.8b: This argument assumes that Paul taught something wrong in order to advance the gospel, or else that he taught something and then contradicted it. (214)
Egalitarian claim 6.9: Submission Only For Evangelism: The purpose
for a wife's submission to her husband at the time
of the New Testament was evangelism, and since this purpose
is no longer valid, wives need no longer be subject to
their husbands. (214)
Answer 6.9a: This position says wives should not obey 1 Peter 3:1–2 today. (215)
Answer 6.9b: This position makes Christian evangelism into a bait-and-switch technique. (215)
Answer 6.9c: This position will lead people to disobey other New Testament commands. (215)
Answer 6.9d: This position minimizes other reasons for submission given in the New Testament. (216)
Egalitarian claim 6.10: Young And Uneducated Wives: Wives were to
be subject to their husbands at the time of the New Testament
because they were younger and less educated than their
husbands, but this is not true today, so the command no
longer applies. (217)
Answer 6.10a: These are not the reasons Paul gives, and they would not apply to all wives. (217)
Egalitarian claim 6.11: No Other Options: The Bible adopted male leadership
because there were no competing options in society at
that time, but there are other options today, so male
headship in the family is not required. (218)
Answer 6.11a: The New Testament taught many things that were unpopular in the culture. (218)