Reasons to be an Egalitarian: Going Back to Genesis (honestly)

As I said in my introductory post, any Complimentarian argument, sustained long enough, eventually goes back to the Creation and Fall accounts in Genesis 1-3.  It is here, according to Complimentarians, that God established the hierarchy of roles between the genders.  This is why it's such a critical topic: in Complimentarianism male leadership isn't just a social construct—it's a part of the created order originally made by God.  In this view, leadership is an essential part of masculinity: literally what men were created to be.  Likewise with submission for women.  Its easy to see how this view could easily spill over into a view of complete inequality, wherein women are created as inferior humans who need to "learn their place"—which is sadly something women still have to put up with hearing from time to time in supposedly Christian society.

But where is this essential part of the Creation story?  Where does Genesis say that women were created to follow and men to lead?  Well, no where so clearly as Genesis 3:16:

To the woman he said, "...Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Well, that's it folks!  God has officially instituted the patriarchy as His divine will for all women everywhere!  Show's over!...at least until we read the rest of the verse:

To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.  Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

That complicates things.  You see, in context God's declaration of the patriarchy isn't part of His establishing the ideal way things are meant to be.  It's part of the Curse, part of a passage where He goes about systematically breaking His perfect world so that Adam, Eve, and the Serpent will be forcibly confronted with the depth of their sin.  For the man, the curse was hard labor, thorns and thistles, death, and eventual decay.  For the woman, the curse was extreme pain in childbirth and domination by men.  None of these things are the way the world was supposed to be.  All of them represent a twisting of the created order by the sin that we, as sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, brought into God's perfect world.

An Egalitarian can read the passage that way, can see the domineering and abusive patriarchy that we observe throughout so much of history as a curse brought on as a consequence of sin.  But the Complimentarian reading, again, must approach the passage inconsistently.  Sure, thorns and thistles, death, decay, and extreme pain in childbirth are not the way things are meant to be.  All these things, the Complimentarian acknowledges, are a part of the Curse and are distortions of God's perfect created order.  But  the domineering patriarchy from the very same verses?  Somehow, that must be exactly the way God intended things!

When we have to be inconsistent like this and change the meaning from Curse to Created Order in the middle of a verse, it's a good hint that we're not reading the passage honestly.  We're bringing in some outside idea and trying to mold the Bible to support our own views.  An honest reading sees that "he shall rule over you" is a curse, a statement of how the world will be broken as a result of sin, just as much as the statement "you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

But this is only the most obvious place where Complimentarians see a subtext in Genesis supporting their position.  Really, Complimentarians see and claim it everywhere, but most prominently in the following places:


1. Woman was Created for Man
In Genesis 2:18-25, the story of Eve's creation takes the form of a search by God for a "help-meet" for Adam (or, as other translations have it, a "helper fit for [or suitable for] him").  Woman, therefore was created to be man's helper.  How exactly you want to take that varies.  Some interpret it as meaning that woman is an accessory to man: unnecessary, and fit only to be a man's slave.  That's an extreme view, and one attested no where else in scripture.  More moderate interpretations have woman as an essential part of humankind, but one suited and created for supporting roles, rather than leadership.  After all, you can't be a "helper" and still be a leader, right?

Well, perhaps not so much.  See, the word translated "help-meet" is the Hebrew 'ezer.  Anyone who's a fan of old hymns might recognize it.  The old classic "Come Thou Fount" features the word in the form of a name:

"Here I raise my Ebenezer: hither by Thy help I'm come!"

 Ebenezer, far from being simply a Charles Dickens character, is a Hebrew name from the Bible (1 Samuel 7:12, actually) that means "Stone of Help."  An Ebenezer was a stone set up to mark a place where God had helped someone...that is, in the name Ebenezer, the 'ezer (or helper) is none other than God Himself.

In fact, in every occurrence of the word 'ezer in the Old Testament, except for two, the word is referring to God and His divine action of rescuing, delivering, sustaining, directing, and saving.  The two other occurrences are in Genesis 2 and refer to womankind collectively in Eve.  That is a radical perspective shift when it comes to thinking about woman being made for man!

If woman is an 'ezer—a term elsewhere only used to describe the miraculous intervention of God—then she is surely not an unnecessary accessory to man.  She is certainly not his inferior.  It is unthinkable to say she is his slave (is God Almighty our slave?!).  Can we even say that she's a supporting actress, unfit to lead?  Not honestly.  God is certainly not limited to helping us in non-directive ways.  In fact, we are very, very much in need of God's leadership and direction.  Very frequently His role as our 'ezer takes the form of Him giving us divine leadership and direction through life's challenges.  Why should we expect things to be different with woman, created to be an 'ezer to man herself?  She may not always lead, especially after the Curse put domineering male authority as an obstacle in her life as surely as thistles were an obstacle to man, but leadership certainly is not beyond her created capabilities, purpose, or role as an 'ezer.

2. Man was Created First

Similar to the first argument, but weaker, this argument says that, since Adam was created first, it's implied that he, as the forerunner of the human race, had a divine implied imperative to lead which was passed on to all of his sons.  Order of creation implies order of hierarchy.  Specifically, because God delivered His command against eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to Adam before Eve was created, Adam must have been intended as the spiritual leader of the pair, since he would have to teach this command to Eve himself.

However, the basic argument of the order of creation translating into an order of hierarchy falls apart when the creation order from Genesis 1 is examined.  In this order, the first creatures God put on the Earth are fish and birds, and by this logic they would have an implicit divine mandate to rule over all of us (well, maybe they do).  But this isn't so in the Bible.  Rather, the mandate to rule is given to humankind, the very last species to be created by God.  If it is order that makes hierarchy, then this would actually put women as the rightful leaders of the species rather than men.

The argument for spiritual leadership doesn't fare much better.  All we really know for sure is that God told Adam not to eat of the fruit and that somehow, by chapter 3, Eve knew as well.  Did Adam tell her?  This would seem logical, but there are other possibilities.  God may have told her before He brought Eve to Adam.  She may have simply been created with this knowledge, the way she was evidently created with the knowledge of how to walk and talk.  We simply don't know, and that gap in the text renders the argument for spiritual headship from Genesis to an argument from silence, which is inherently weaker than any passages blatantly stating that women and men are equals in spiritual matters before God.

3. The Fall was really a Failure of Male Leadership

This argument is really a complete reinterpretation of the story of the Fall in Genesis 3.  In this interpretation, Eve started out under Adam's spiritual leadership.  Under him, she learned the command God had given them.  Enter the snake.  Satan deceives Eve and gets her to doubt God's leadership, and, implicitly, Adam's.  The real sin here is that Eve casts off Adam's spiritual guidance and takes initiative for herself.  She takes the fruit, eats it, and—even worse—acts as a spiritual leader herself by giving it to Adam.  Thus the real moral failure of the Fall was not a human disobedience to God (though that certainly was there) but a female rebellion and reversal of the God-ordained male hierarchy!  Thankfully, God restores the right and good order of the patriarchy later during the Curse.

The problem with this interpretation is that it isn't based on what Genesis 3 actually says at all.  It's an interpretation entirely imported from our own views.  There's no mention of Eve usurping spiritual leadership from Adam, or even of him having a spiritual leadership role for her to usurp.  When God deals out justice for the Fall, He does not mention Eve usurping authority or Adam failing to exercise it.  His focus is on disobedience, on each of the newly created humans listening to someone else other than God (Eve, in the case of Adam, and the serpent in the case of Eve).  Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the "establishment of the patriarchy" is a part of the Curse—which is perhaps the most compelling argument for believing that it is not a part of the created order and is, in fact, something Christians may rightly struggle against.  Weeds aren't a part of the naturally created order, and we certainly strive against them!

At this point, someone may object that these interpretations of Genesis are Biblical because Paul subscribed to them, based on readings of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 or 1 Timothy 2:11-15, but such readings ignore the larger context of what Paul was talking about and why he referenced Genesis in the first place.  For example, in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Paul brought up the facts in Genesis that Adam was created before Eve and that Eve was the first deceived in Genesis because he was combating early Gnostic heresy, which asserted that Eve was created first and that she was a demi-goddess, a wellspring of divine wisdom and enlightenment: contrary to what scripture actually said about her.  He wasn't trying to justify male spiritual dominance, but trying to combat the opposite teaching.  However, to be fair, these complex passages really deserve their own posts, to explain how I understand them now as an Egalitarian.  For now, suffice it to say that, in their context, they don't support a complete reinterpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

The account, as it stands, is one of equality.  Both male and female are created together in chapter one, both in the image of God, and both together given dominance over all other life on Earth.  In Genesis 2, looking at the particulars we see the woman created for the man as an 'ezer, an amazing companion whose role as help does not at all imply inferiority or an inability to lead (since it is directly related to the way God Himself helps us and acts as our 'ezer).  Finally, in the Fall we see both male and female fall when they place someone else before God and disobey Him, and as a result both are cursed by God with a broken creation to strive against.  For women, a part of this fallen world is a domineering male society—something they must strive against even as farmers have, throughout recorded time, striven against weeds.

Reasons to be an Egalitarian: Reading About Submission of Wives in Context

Okay, so I'm going to go back a few posts and revisit three passages I touched on earlier, when I was discussing how the Egalitarian position can help a man be a more Biblical husband than the Complimentarian position.  When discussing that, I deliberately left out any discussion of the following verses:

"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."

—Colossians  3:18, ESV

"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.  Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.  For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.  And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening."

—1 Peter 3:1-6, ESV

"Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands."

—Ephesians 5:22-24, ESV

Just looking at these verses, it would seem that they spell doom for the Egalitarian position.  Here, plain as day, the Bible is telling wives they need to obey their husbands.  1 Peter 3:6 even says wives should be calling their husband "lord!"  At this point, the Complimentarians declare victory, insist on "love, cherish, and obey" as the bride's wedding vow, and prepare to walk off the scene.  After all, demonstrating that wives must be totally submissive toward their husbands is only one step away from showing that women cannot have authority over any men at all, period.

But all is not as it seems from a simple first reading, and these verses do not exist in isolation.  In understanding the Bible, context is critical.  So what's the context of these three passages?  Well, their immediate context is a set of commands to husbands and wives...and as we saw in a previous post, Complimentarianism isn't too good at taking the verses aimed at husbands seriously.  In fact, they're mostly ignored in favor of telling men to be dominant leaders (from nowhere in the Bible) and citing these verses out of context to tell women to obey.

But the larger context of these verses is even more enlightening.  These verses belong to three parallel passages in the Bible: Colossians 3:1-4:6, 1 Peter 2:11-3:8, and Ephesians 5:1-6:20.  Each passage details how Christians are supposed to live in certain situations.  The Colossians and Ephesians passages are nearly identical, speaking of, in order: general commandments, mutual submission among believers, wives, husbands, children, fathers, slaves, masters, and the importance of prayer.  In fact, the Ephesians-passage could be called simply a fleshed-out version of the Colossians-passage outline.  The passage in 1 Peter is a little different, coming from a different Biblical author, but still covers the same general topics: general commandments for all believers, commands for citizens obeying the government, commands for slaves, commands for wives, husbands, and ending with a call for overall unity.  The main difference is that verses directed toward masters, fathers, and children are left out while verses about submission to government are included.

What does this mean for us?  Well, it means that in their original context, the verses about wives being obedient to their husbands are part of a set of verses directed to Christians in various walks of life telling them how they should live in the roles within which they find themselves.  Citizens should obey their governments, slaves should obey their masters, masters should treat slaves fairly, wives should obey their husbands, husbands should love their wives, children should obey their parents, fathers should treat their children well, etc.  All three passages are also framed by general commandments to all Christians for how they should live their daily lives in all circumstances, and calls for mutual submission and unity.  In other words, the passages are sets of instructions for how Christians living very different lives are to live out the unity, mutual submission, and love that they have in Christ.

This is an important point.  Its easy to see these passages as endorsing these societal roles, but in fact the Bible does no such thing.  All three passages advise slaves on how to live within their roles as Christian slaves without necessarily saying that slavery is good or right.  In fact, in insisting that masters remember that their slaves are equals, these passages subtly lay the groundwork for future Biblical abolitionist movements, which see that these roles, while they can be lived in as a Christian, are fundamentally un-Christian in nature.

The problem for Complimentarians is, again, that their reading of the passages must switch partway through.  The verses that talk about the absolute submission of wives to their husbands are held to be universal divine edicts, expressing the pure will of God for all Christians throughout all time, and most definitely endorsing a patriarchy at home.  However, when, in the same context, the Bible talks about the absolute submission of slaves to their masters...somehow this is a not-so-eternal truth.  It's more of a command to Christians finding themselves in a certain cultural and social construct (slavery) which the Bible, rather than endorsing, simply tells them how to endure in their role as Christians.  The same goes for the verses commanding absolute and unquestioning obedience to an imperial government in 1 Peter.  Just because the Bible says, "Honor the Emperor" or "Honor the king" (in some translations), does not mean that the Bible is establishing an imperial monarchy as the only Biblical and Christian form of government.  So just because the Bible has commands for Christians under autocratic governments and slavery does not mean the Bible endorses these institutions...but somehow just a few verses later passages about how Christians are to behave in a patriarchal marriage absolutely is an endorsement of this institution.

This is a contradictory reading!  We can't have it both ways!  Either the Bible's commands to slaves, citizens, and wives are circumstancial and cultural, telling Christians how to live under certain institutions without endorsing the institutions themselves, or else all Christians everywhere are under a divine command to fight for a society marked by slavery, autocracy, and patriarchy.  Again, as in the previous post, the Complimentarian position forces us to ignore context and treat the items of a list as having totally different meanings, and this is inconsistent.  To me, it means that the Complimentarian reading is, in some way, deeply flawed, forced to distort the passage and take it out of context in order to maintain its own views imported from the outside.

Egalitarianism carries no such burden to the passage.  It sees all three passages as commands given to Christians who find themselves in social and cultural roles which the Bible does not necessarily endorse.  Rather than laying out what these roles should be, these passages simply tell Christians how to live out lives pleasing to Christ within the cultural and social roles in which they find themselves.  Citizens are to obey and honor the autocracy under which they find themselves, even though it may not be the ideal form of government for Christian principles.  Likewise slaves are to obey their masters even though under Christ both are equals.  So also wives, finding themselves in patriarchal marriages where they were literally dependent on their husbands for everything, were to obey him, even though in Christ gender doesn't matter.

What does this mean for us today?  Two things, really.  First, it means that patriarchal marriages as described in these passages are not God's gold standard of relationships.  They are not even, necessarily, something consistent with the rest of Christianity.  Like slavery and autocracy, they are social and cultural roles, and, like slavery and autocracy, we have the freedom in Christ to seek a more perfect and more Christian union.  Second, it means that the roles we take in marriage (whether submissive, dominant, or sharing), like the roles we take in government and economic life, are not nearly as important as how we live those roles, as Christians.  If we, as Christians, find ourselves in a culture of egalitarian marriages which emphasize mutual decisions over male leadership, we do not have a divine mandate to revive the patriarchy.  Nor do we, if we live under a patriarchy, necessarily need to abolish it.  Whether we show the love of Christ and His new life in us in our roles within our culture and marriage (whatever those roles may be) is far more important to God.

Reasons to be an Egalitarian: Taking Galatians 3:28 Seriously

I apologize for the lapse in posting.  I was hoping this would be a quick series of blog posts, but it's hard to make a series quick if you stop partway through!  So, let's try to wrap this up!

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

—Galatians 3:28 KJV

 Galatians 3:28 is without a doubt the best verse for arguing equality in the Bible.  It says that in Christ, we are all equal.  Race doesn't matter (neither Jew nor Greek), economic and social status doesn't matter (neither bond nor free), and sex doesn't matter (neither male nor female), we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Despite some preconceived notions some might have, this isn't a point that's actually at variance between the Egalitarian and Complimentarian camps when it comes to gender.  Both sides of the debate insist and believe that men and women are equal before God.  The difference is that the Complimentarian position insists that, while they are equals before God, women and men are designed to function in different roles in the church and the home as part of a divinely ordained hierarchy.  Egalitarians insist that gender is not something that determines roles in the church, but that God can gift anyone, regardless of gender, to be a leader.

Let's take a look at these differences as they contrast with the verse above.  In the verse above, all three categories are declared to be equal before God.  But to what extent are they equal?  Are there certain things in the church which, by divine command, can only be done by people of a certain race?  Can only Jews be leaders in the church, while Greeks must remain followers?  Certainly not!  What about the distinctions between economic and social status?  Should the poor and slaves be forced to remain in separate church roles, while the upper levels of church hierarchy are reserved for the wealthy?  While historically it may have worked out this way more often than not, I think we can all agree that this is merely our human prejudice stepping in rather than a divinely ordained division of roles.  In fact, the Bible flatly condemns such prejudice in James 2:2-7 (and that just in a simple thing like seating arrangements!).  It is clearly not established by God.

This is where the problem comes in to the Complimentarian reading of Galatians 3:28.  In the first two cases, we can agree that the equality the verse speaks of is a total equality that encompasses all church life, that there is no God-ordained division between races or classes to restrict their roles in the church.  When the verse says they are equal, it means they are completely equal and can fulfill any role in the church to which God may call them.

But when it comes to the third pair of the verse, the Complimentarian reading has to make a radical shift.  Men and women, in Complimentarianism, can't be equal in the same way as race and class are in the church, because while race and class cannot be used in the name of God to restrict roles within the church, gender must be.  While the verse clearly says that all three sets of distinctions are done away with in Christ, and all three are equal in the same way in Christ, the Complimentarian can only take the verse seriously on the first two.  When it comes to the third, the Complimentarian must suddenly restrict the kind of equality meant by the verse to an equality of salvation (men and women are both saved in the same way) or worth (men and women are both equally loved by God).  An equality of roles (which exists in the previous two sets of distinctions) cannot exist between men and women because the Complimentarian view holds that men are divinely appointed leaders at home and in church and women can never rightly hold a leadership role over men—that is, male vs female is still a very important distinction and division within the church to God, in a way that Jew vs Greek and slave vs free isn't.

This bothered me for years, and was one of the reasons I eventually became an Egalitarian.  It's textually inconsistent to switch meanings in the middle of a sentence.  It's especially inconsistent to switch meanings in the middle of a list.  If I say, "I love pizza, meatloaf, and spaghetti" it would be a strange interpretation indeed if one were to understand me as saying that pizza and meatloaf were my favorite foods but that I only liked spaghetti occasionally.  Yet that is exactly what I was forced to do when I read Galatians 3:28 as a Complimentarian.  Neither Jew nor Greek meant just that: race doesn't matter to God, and doesn't determine standing or role within the church.  Neither bond nor free meant just that: economic and social status doesn't matter to God, and doesn't determine standing or role within the church.  But neither male nor female?  That I had to switch up and understand in a completely different way, because that one obviously still mattered to God and determined standing and role within the church, despite what this verse was saying to me.  I knew that, because of this forced shift of meaning, my understanding of the passage was fundamentally unsound.  That bothered me, and it was only as I began to see the way other passages I struggled with fit together neatly in Egalitarianism that I was able to let go of this weak and warped interpretation of the passage and take Galatians 3:28 seriously.  Neither race, nor social or economic status, nor gender matter before God—and none of them can determine or limit our roles in our service to Him!

Reasons to be an Egalitarian: Better (& more Biblical) Sex

This post is not explicit, but due to it's topic of married sexuality and the Bible, it is probably not for younger folks.  If you are not of age to talk about sex in a mature way, this post is not for you.  Please move on.

Reasons to be an Egalitarian: You can be a better, more Biblical husband

Yesterday I posted about how I came to change my views on gender and leadership, from believing the complimentarian position that only men can lead, to holding the egalitarian position that leadership is not one of the things men and women differ on.  While I alluded to the reasons why I changed my mind, I didn't actually mention any of them.  I thought I'd start now and revive my dusty old blogging habits by making a series of posts on why I consider the egalitarian position the best in the light of scripture.  There are lots of better minds that have written on this subject, so I thought I'd start with a topic that doesn't get much attention: the idea that being an egalitarian can help you be a better man, and more specifically, a better husband.

Consider the following verses aimed at husbands in the Bible.

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."

—Colossians  3:19

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

—1 Peter 3:7

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.  In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.  'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'  This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.  However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

—Ephesians 5:25-33

Looking at these passages, one thing is conspicuous by its absence: none of these passages contain commands for a man to exercise authority and leadership over his wife.

Now, one can argue that the exercise of authority is implied by the proceeding verses about wives submitting themselves to their husbands.  That argument could be further backed that the passages instructing parents on how to treat their children don't mention exercising authority over them either, even though it's clearly assumed that they will.  But where this analogy breaks down is when we admit that women are not children.  There is a difference between a man's wife and his daughter.  A child, still growing up, needs instruction and guidance from their parents and there are many, many verses in the Bible attesting to that and admonishing parents to raise their children well, especially in Proverbs.  Women, on the other hand, are adults who no longer require parenting, especially not from their husbands.  There are no verses anywhere in the Bible instructing husbands to exercise authority and give guidance to the lives of their wives.  From the complimentarian position, we have to simply assume it's implied by the verses about wives submitting to their husbands.  We have no other scriptural proof that it is so.

But, from such a dearth of proof comes a wealth of "Biblical" advice and commands from Christian sources.  I sat in on a number of gender talks when I was at Summitview.  The importance of leading one's wife and family was a topic that never failed to come up.  In one particularly memorable session, the entire talk was devoted to leadership by provision, and how critically important it was that we as men find profitable jobs and pursue marketable degrees so that we would be able to financially support our family in the white-picket-fence American dream (anyone with aspirations of a less lucrative career was told point-blank to abandon their dreams for money; there was even a list showing which careers were most profitable and thus which occupations were acceptable for a leading, Biblical man and which weren't).  The topic of male leadership is proclaimed everywhere in complimentarian Christianity.  If someone is decrying the loss of masculinity in the church today or the record numbers of men who are up and leaving their families, odds are the solution they'll propose is that men become better leaders and exercise more authority.  According to the complimentarian view, the essential thing for making a good, godly husband and a good, godly man is nothing more or less than the exercise of authority and leadership.

The problem with this is that our proscription for godly men is not at all the same as the Bible's.  Ask the Bible what advice husbands need to hear, and it isn't "lead your wives and provide for them," but "love your wives and understand them."  We may brush this aside as a non-issue, perhaps a mere cultural difference (like early church men somehow already knowing how to lead whereas ours do not), but the truth is that this is more than a simple disconnect.  There's actually an inherent contradiction that arises when we put the emphasis for husbands on leading rather than loving in their marriage.

Take, for example, this scene that played out at my register yesterday.  A young couple was in line buying a variety of groceries and obviously enjoying themselves.  When it came time to pay, however, a disagreement arose.  She wanted to split the transaction.  He wanted to pay all of it.  Very likely the pair shared finances to some degree, so it probably made little difference whose account it came out of.  However, the man felt his prerogative to provide and lead was being threatened.  He insisted.  Things became physical.  He shoved her forcefully away from the checkout stand, told her harshly not to get in his way, and swiped his card, insisting I allow him to pay the entire bill.  Now, some questions.  Was the man leading?  Well, certainly.  He fulfilled the prerogative to provide by paying, and he exercised authority by making sure he got his way.  Was the man loving?  I would say just as certainly no.  And now, for the real question: was he Biblical?  If we go by what the complimentarian position defines as Biblical for men, then yes, or nearly yes, because to that position the most essential part of manhood and being a husband is to exercise authority and provide leadership, which he did (albeit not in a very gentle way).  However, if we go by just what the Bible actually says, we'd have to say certainly not.  He was harsh with her, not gentle or loving.  He did not try to understand her at all or honor her.  He certainly did not show the same kind of self-sacrificial love to her that Christ shows to the church.  He dominated her.  This is the disconnect: in the Bible, his behavior was unambiguously wrong, but in complimentarian morality he was right or at least on the right track.

When our views lead us to different moral conclusions than the Bible, I think it's high time we reexamined our views!

But the disconnect goes deeper.  A few years ago I had the privilege to acquire the book For Men Only by Shaunti and Jeff Feldhahn.  I recommend it and its companion For Women Only for anyone who wants to understand gender differences and the opposite sex better (which, Biblically, should be a goal for all husbands, citing 1 Peter 3:7).  Each chapter is dedicated to one of the most commonly reported (by women) misunderstandings between them and their spouse.  One chapter is titled, "Your Real Job is Closer to Home."  The thrust of the chapter is how many husbands believe that their financial provision is their best or a major way of expressing love for their spouse.  They put in long hours at the office, they work hard for the promotion they don't really want, they work nights and weekends to get that extra paycheck...and then come home to a wife and family that feels positively abandoned by them.  Why?  Because when it comes to the type of love wives and families need from their men, the love that provides monetary things is way, way down on the list.  Most of the women surveyed by the Feldhahns (who based all of their writing on comprehensive surveys of actual couples, etc) would much rather be married to a poor but affectionate man rather than a hard-working provider who was never there when they needed him.  Another chapter of the book, if I recall correctly, was dedicated to addressing the misconception in men that women talk about feelings because they want them fixed by the man rather than simply understood.  The problem for the complimentarian husband is that his ideology predisposes him to make both mistakes.  Complimentarian ideology says that leading, fixing, and providing are all essential not only to the role of a husband but also to a man's very masculinity.  Certainly it holds these things as more essential for husbands to practice than love, emotional connection, and understanding.  The problem is that wives find the opposite is true and the Bible agrees with them!  To be good, Biblical husbands, men must agree with these priorities as well.

This doesn't fly in complimentarian theology.  In fact in the Bible's emphasis on husbands loving and understanding their wives we probably see the stage set Biblically for the end of the patriarchal system, much as the Bible's insistence that masters treat their slaves as brothers in Christ spelled the eventual emergence of Biblical abolitionist movements.  If we insist on complimentarianism, we're forced to hold a believe that contradicts scripture when it comes to where our priorities should be as men and husbands, and one which, at the very least, predisposes us to be bad husbands and very possibly unbiblical ones.  If we instead discard the belief that leadership and provision are divinely ordained roles every husband must fulfill, we are much more free to obey the Bible's commands to husbands and to better love our wives.

Comparable to the Bible: Quoting Scripture

It's time for me to finish up my reading of 1 Nephi.  Three chapters remain, chapters 20-22.  Of these, the first two consist Nephi quoting Isaiah chapters 48 and 49 in their entirety.  The last chapter of 1 Nephi consists of him discussing these chapters with his brothers.

One might b tempted to think that quoting an extensive passage of scripture like this would guarantee a favorable comparison, that any source that quotes the Bible must be true, especially if it quotes it so extensively.  But Satan, the Father of Lies, quotes scripture himself, in Matthew 4:6, distorting it with lies in an attempt to convince Christ to throw Himself from the tower.  One of the best ways to hide a lie is in a deluge of other information.  In the world of hardball negotiations, this is known as a snowjob.  The sheer amount of material quoted immediately raises this suspicion in my mind.  In the New Testament we have many different people and authors quoting passages from the Old Testament, but none of the quotes are more than a few verses long.  The quote in 1 Nephi is 2 chapters or 48 verses long, many times the length of the longest quotation in the New Testament (which appears to be Acts 2:17-21, a sermon by Peter which quotes a mere 4 verses from Joel 2:28-32).  Why such a long quotation?  The chapters quoted cover multiple prophesies and topics.  What, out of all of that, is Nephi trying to convey to his readers?  Why reproduce in whole such a vast portion of scripture, when Nephi has already complained multiple times that space is limited in his magical gold book?  Already the genealogies of his family (which were extremely important to Jews, as evidenced by all the genealogies in the Bible) have been left out simply because they're recorded in another set of plates (supposedly).  Supposedly both of these chapters are simply being quoted from the brass plates Nephi murdered Laban for liberated from Laban.  Why quote them at all instead of simply referencing them?

It does not make any sense from a standpoint of Nephi being the Hebrew author of this book, especially given how much he's already compressed and abridged in earlier parts supposedly out of a need to conserve space.  But if we accept Smith as the author, it makes perfect sense.  Smith's foremost aim would be to legitimize his manuscript as scripture, and the surest way to connect his work with the Bible would surely be to quote the latter as extensively as possible.  As we've seen, him trying to make this sort of connection has already driven him to extensively abuse archaic English throughout his manuscript.  After that, a two chapter quote is no big surprise.

However careful reading of these chapters in the Book of Mormon reveals that simply quoting scripture wasn't Smith's sole intent.  He wanted to change and reinterpret it.  We know this because there are a number of substantive changes between Isaiah 48-49 as they appear in 1 Nephi and as they appear in all other Bible translations.  Both additions and subtractions have been made in order to change the meaning or favor a certain interpretation.

One might try to defend these changes.  The first argument might be that it is our Bibles that have been changed and that 1 Nephi 20-21 represents a textually pure reading of Isaiah 48-49.  However, in 1 Nephi 13:25-26, the Book of Mormon claims that the textual purity of the Bible was intact during the time of the twelve Apostles and the genesis of the Gentile church in the late 1st Century AD.  We have copies of the book of Isaiah dating back to 150 BC that agree with ours today.  This means that the book of Isaiah could only have been corrupted some time before that date...and if it was, then the Book of Mormon's statement in 1 Nephi 13 is a lie.  The other argument might be that Nephi rephrased to illuminate some new meaing, but this contradicts the practice of the Bible.  In the Bible many passages are given new meaning, but always by placing them in new context, so as to bring out a double-meaning in the original.  The passage itself is always quoted exactly from either the Hebrew text or the Septuagint.  Since no other translations of the book of Isaiah existed during Nephi's time (in fact, that even one copy of the book should have found its way to Nephi is a strain on credulity), Nephi—if following the Biblical example—should have quoted the words with no additions or modifications at all.  The only explanation that remains is that Nephi, or Smith, altered the meaning deliberately.  There is a precedent for this: in Matthew 4:6 Satan quotes Psalm 91:11-12, but deliberately leaves out a portion, so as to make God's actual promise of angelic protection against everyday accidents a blanket promise of protection that can be applied to suicidal stunts.

Here follows a list of the changes.  Several Bible versions have been listed for comparison, which are the KJV (the most common in Smith's day, as today) and the ESV (a similarly literal translation, but using modern English).  Both translations are used so that readers may rest assured that the differences are not simply alternative translations of the original text.  Additions are in italics.  Subtractions struck through.  At the bottom I'll look at how each change effects the reading of the verse:

• "Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and who came from the waters of Judah, who swear by the name of the LORD and confess the God of Israel, but not in truth or right."—Isaiah 48:1, ESV
• "Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness."—Isaiah 48:1, KJV
• "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness."—1 Nephi 20:1
• The additions here serve two purposes.  The first at the end clarifies the slight ambiguity of the verse's final phrase, but does not appear to alter the overall meaning.  The addition in the middle of the verse, however, forces the meaning of "baptism" onto "the waters of Judah."  There is no reference to baptism in any Old Testament text: it wasn't practiced until the New Testament.  Placing a reference here is a blatant attempt to alter the meaning of the text to address not Jews but people who have been baptized.

• "For they call themselves after the holy city, and stay themselves on the God of Israel; the LORD of hosts is his name."—Isaiah 48:2, ESV
• "For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The LORD of hosts is his name."—Isaiah 48:2, KJV
• "Nevertheless, they call themselves of the holy city, but they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel, who is the Lord of Hosts; yea, the Lord of Hosts is his name."—1 Nephi 20:2
• A meaningless repetition of "the Lord of Hosts" has been added, probably by mistake, like other Book of Mormon repetitions.  The other changes give the verse a more negative slant.  While the original lists only the claims of these individuals, Smith is already busy using the language of the verses to counter these claims.

• "The former things I declared of old; they went out from my mouth, and I announced them; then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass."—Isaiah 48:3, ESV
• "I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass."—Isaiah 48:3, KJV
• "Behold, I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I showed them.  I did show them suddenly."—1 Nephi 20:3
• Another meaningless word has been appended to enhance the archaic feel of the language.  The big change comes toward the end.  By inserting the word "show" Smith has implied that God did not bring His prophesies to pass suddenly (as in the originals) but that the making of the prophesies themselves was sudden.  This changes the meanings of the next verses, which reference what God has done to refer to His making rather than fulfilling the prophesies.

• "I declared them to you from of old, before they came to pass I announced them to you, lest you should say, 'My idol did them, my carved image and my metal image commanded them.'"—Isaiah 48:5, ESV
• "I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them."—Isaiah 48:5 KJV
• "And I have even from the beginning declared to thee; before it came to pass I showed them thee; and I showed them for fear lest thou shouldst say—Mine idol hat done them, and my graven image, and my molten image hath commanded them."—1 Nephi 20:5
• The change in this verse implies that God worked to counteract idolatrous boasting out of fear.  The Bible nowhere says that God, or even Christ, can or ever has been afraid (for "God is love" and "perfect love casts out fear," per 1 John 4:8 and 18).  To say that God not only fears but is motivated by fear is radically contrary to the Bible.

• "They are created now, not long ago; before today you have never heard of them, lest you should say, 'Behold, I knew them.'"—Isaiah 48:7, ESV
• "They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them."—Isaiah 48:7, KJV
• "They are created now, and not from the beginning, even before the day when thou heardest them not they were declared unto the, lest thou shouldst say—Behold I knew them."—1 Nephi 20:7
• The passage quotes the KJV exactly up to the point of the addition, which at first seems simply to clarify the passage, but when looking at the other two passages its clear that it should have been left ambiguous: the passage is not meant to say that the Isrealites have already been told about these things (as shown by the ESV and NIV).  The addition, therefore changes the meaning to say they have been and didn't listen, so that their ignorance becomes their own fault rather than something planned by God for His glory.

• "For my name's sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off."—Isaiah 48:9, ESV
• "For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off."—Isaiah 48:9, KJV
• "Nevertheless, for my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain from thee, that I cut thee not off."—1 Nephi 20:9
• Another meaningless "nevertheless."  The big change though is saying that God will refrain Himself from the Israelites, rather than restraining His anger for them.  This depicts a god who cannot allow himself to love them and must cut off all contact.  This is the god of man-made religions, contrasting with the God of the Bible, who died for us while we were sinners, not even abandoning us when we were enemies to Him.

• "Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction."—Isaiah 48:10, ESV
• "Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."—Isaiah 48:10, KJV
• "For, behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."—1 Nephi 20:10
• A meaningless transitional word is inserted.  All reference to silver is removed, obscuring the metaphor of the verse and making it overall seem more positive than it was in the original text.

• "Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans."—Isaiah 48:14, ESV
• "All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans."—Isaiah 48:14, KJV
• "All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; who among them hath declared these things unto them?  The Lord hath loved him; yea, and he will fulfil {sic} his word which he hath declared by them; and he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be upon the Chaldeans."—1 Nephi 20:14
• There's nothing in the originals about God fulfilling the word of "them."  Also, fulfilled is spelled incorrectly.

• "I, even I, have spoken and called him; I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way."—Isaiah 48:15, ESV
• "I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous."—Isaiah 48:15, KJV
• "Also, saith the Lord; I the Lord, yea, I have spoken; yea, I have called him to declare, I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous."—1 Nephi 20:15
• A repetitive and unnecessary attribution is added.  Then God's calling to His servant is said to be for him "to declare" something, when this meaning is not in the original text.

• "'Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.' And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit."—Isaiah 48:16, ESV
• "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me."—Isaiah 48:16, KJV
• "Come ye near unto me; I have not spoken in secret; from the beginning, from the time that it was declared I have spoken; and the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me."—1 Nephi 20:16
• For a minor change in wording, this changes a lot.  While the original affirms that God has existed and "been there" from the time that "it came to be," the changes remove all references to both God's ongoing existence and instead make the whole verse about God declaring things.

• "Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: 'I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go.'"—Isaiah 48:17, ESV
• "Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go."—Isaiah 48:17, KJV
• "And thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I have sent him, I am the Lord thy God who teacheth thee to profit, who leadeth thee by the way thou shouldst go, hath done it."—1 Nephi 20:17
• Another pointless transitional word has been added.  Then the meaning of the second part of the verse has been completely altered.  Rather than being about God's identity, it is now about the servant from the previous verse, saying God sent him and performed "it" (presumably the sending of the servant).

• "'There is no peace,' says the LORD, 'for the wicked.'"—Isaiah 48:22, ESV
• "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked."—Isaiah 48:22, KJV
• "And notwithstanding he hath done all this, and greater also, there is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked."—1 Nephi 20:22
• This large addition to the beginning makes it seem as though the lack of peace for the wicked is despite everything God has done in an effort to give them peace: as though God were trying to give them peace and failing—which seems like a classic thing for the overly-simplified nice-god of some Christians to do.  In the original there remains a very real possibility that the wicked do not have peace because God will not give them any.

• "Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name."—Isaiah 49:1, ESV
• "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name."—Isaiah 49:1, KJV
• "And again: Hearken, O ye house of Israel, all ye that are broken off and are driven out because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people; yea, all ye that are broken off, that are scattered abroad, who are of my people, O house of Israel.  Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far; the Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name."—1 Nephi 21:1
• A very long addition to the beginning of the verse completely alters the verse's intended audience, inserting the idea of Israelites forced into exile by corrupt rulers, an idea foreign to the passage.  It seems to be an attempt to make the passage apply directly to Nephi and his companions.

• "Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: 'Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the LORD, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.'"—Isaiah 49:7, ESV
• "Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee."—Isaiah 49:7, KJV
• "Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nations abhorreth, to a servant of rulers: Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee."—1 Nephi 21:7
• An article has been left out in the middle of the sentence, probably by accident (and I thought this was supposed to be the "most correct book" in the world!).  At the end of the sentence the second reference to God being the Holy One of Israel and him choosing the "deeply despised one" is removed.  This makes it seem as though the adoration of the rulers is all that is promised and/or that it won't arise as a result of God's choice.

• "Thus says the LORD: 'In a time of favor I have answered you; in a day of salvation I have helped you; I will keep you and give you as a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to apportion the desolate heritages,'"—Isaiah 49:8, ESV
• "Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;"—Isaiah 49:8, KJV
• "Thus saith the Lord: In an acceptable time have I heard the, O isles of the sea, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will give thee my servant for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;"—1 Nephi 21:8
• Two additions are used to change this verse from one addressing God's servant to one addressing the isles of the sea.

• "Sing for joy, O heavens, and exult, O earth; break forth, O mountains, into singing! For the LORD has comforted his people and will have compassion on his afflicted."—Isaiah 49:13, ESV
• "Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for the LORD hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted."—Isaiah 49:13, KJV
• "Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; for the feet of those who are in the east shall be established; and break forth into singing, O mountains; for they shall be smitten no more; for the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted."—1 Nephi 21:13
• Two large additions break the flow of the poetry of the verse and insert a new meaning, referencing the establishment of the people "in the east" and the end of their afflictions.  Who these are is not clear, but it's certainly possible that Smith is trying to reference Nephi and his ilk.

• "But Zion said, 'The LORD has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me.'"—Isaiah 49:14, ESV
• "But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me."—Isaiah 49:14, KJV
• "But, behold, Zion hath said: The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me—but he will show that he hath not."—1 Nephi 21:14
• Again, "behold" is interjected for no reason.  Then an emphatic ending is appended.  While it is positive, the original does not promise that God will do some action to prove Himself, but the altered version implies that He will and must.

• "Your builders make haste; your destroyers and those who laid you waste go out from you."—Isaiah 49:17, ESV
• "Thy children shall make haste; thy destroyers and they that made thee waste shall go forth of thee."—Isaiah 49:17, KJV
• "Thy children shall make haste against thy destroyers; and they that made thee waste shall go forth of thee."—1 Nephi 21:17
• By the addition of a single word, what was a verse about rebuilding Zion and its destroyers leaving it in a hurry has now become a military action, with the destroyers not being repelled by God but by the force of Israelite arms.

There are many other minor changes, but these are the most substantial, and they give an overall feel for what has been changed and why.  Numerous archaic words were inserted to impede the flow and thus make the KJV sound more like Smith's own laborious prose.  Various other additions and subtractions were made to cause ambiguous verses to come to a chosen meaning (which may not necessarily be correct).  More alarming are the many changes that were made in order to alter the meaning entirely, like the addition of the reference to baptism in 1 Nephi 20:1, when baptism is not even a concept appropriate to this time period.  Again, this is very different from the way the Bible quotes itself, and much more akin to how Satan quoted scripture, changing it in order to alter its meaning.

After this long quotation, the book of 1 Nephi concludes with Nephi giving his brothers his interpretation of the previous chapters, which seems somewhat uncertain and confused.  Nephi says that part of the passage has spiritual and some literal application.  He says it means that the house of Israel will be scattered, but will eventually be nourished and cared for by the Gentiles.  He goes on to say that a great Gentile nation (America) will arise in this land and scatter "our seed" (the Indians, supposedly Nephi and his brothers' descendants) on this continent.  But don't worry, because then God will do some "marvelous work among the Gentiles" (the Book of Mormon) which will also be good for the Indians/Jews (which are, supposedly, the same) and this is "likened unto their being nourished by the Gentiles and being carried in their arms and upon their shoulders" (1 Nephi 22:8).  It will also evidently reveal God to all the world, causing the evil church mentioned in 1 Nephi 13 to self-destruct "for they shall war among themselves" (1 Nephi 22:13).  Similar fates are predicted for any nation that wars against Israel, which will lead to a time when Satan has "no more power over the hearts of the children of men" (1 Nephi 22:15).  This lack of power will be "because of the righteousness of his [God's] people" (1 Nephi 22:26).  During this time, God will judge the wicked and the righteous will be spared.  After making this interpretative speech, Nephi closes and the book ends.  The sudden end of the book, it should be noted, is because the book is split into two parts...but it should be noted that it's not an entirely artificial end.  Nephi does get to address the reader one last time with a final thought about how both he, his father, and the words on the brass plates (supposedly the Bible) are all addressing the same truth and then end with an "amen."  Contrast books of the Bible which were split later, which have no such natural end points.  1 Nephi was written to end right there.

There are several things to point out in this interpretive chapter.  First of all, out of the 2 chapter quotation Nephi just used the "scarce" space in his book to reproduce, he uses only one verse in his interpretation.  Clearly quoting the entire passage was unnecessary...for him.  This is further evidence that the long quote was engineered by Smith in order to draw parallels to the Bible.

Second, Nephi's interpretation presents prophesies that are false and have not come true.  To start with, Indians and Jews are not related, as genetic testing and cultural heritage have both shown time and time again.  Even if they were, Gentiles getting the Book of Mormon in 1830 is not the same as Jewish children getting nursed and brought back to the Israelite homeland by foreign royalty (as in Isaiah 49:23, the one verse Nephi uses).  This is made brutally evident by the fact that shortly thereafter a series of fronteer wars and massacres would decimate the populations of the remaining American Indians and drive the survivors into reservations, where they remain in scandalously impoverished conditions even today.  Notably the Mormons themselves had a hand in these wars, fighting the Black Hawk Wars against native Ute tribes in Utah, driving them off and, at times, slaughtering men, women, and children of friendly bands indiscriminately.  So much for the great blessings of Mormonism to the Indians!

Third, saying that our own righteousness can prevent Satan from having power of us seems, to me, to be an idea more from man-made religion rather than the Bible.  In the Bible we have power against Satan because "greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world" (1 John 4:4).

Finally, when it comes to God judging the wicked and sparing the righteous, Nephi has this to say, "Wherefore the righteous need not fear; for thus saith the prophet, they shall be saved, even if it so be as by fire." (1 Nephi 22:17).  Searching for an exact quote along those lines will not turn up any result, so at first you might thing this was another unknown (or made-up) prophet, like Zenos from 1 Nephi 19.  But the phrase "saved...as by fire" is an undeniably familiar one to anyone who has read the King James Version of the Bible extensively...as well it should be.  The phrase actually occurs in the writings of a prominent Bible author: "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."  The problem is that this author is Paul, who is writing these words in the mid to late 1st century AD, over 600 years after Nephi supposedly cross-referenced him.  Once again Smith's eagerness to draw connections with and steal words and imagery from the Bible has led him to make an impossibly anachronistic connection between his writings and Paul's.  This time, though, it is far worse.  The ripoff of the olive tree metaphor could be excused with the improbable idea that two writers inspired by God just happened to use the same detailed metaphor at very different times.  But here, Nephi comes right out and says he's quoting someone, and the only one who's written anything remotely like that is Paul.  Once again the Book of Mormon proves to be an incredibly transparent fake, a consistent disappointment when compared to the Bible.

How We Should Treat "One Another": a brief Bible survey

At church this past week.  We were given a "homework assignment" to find some of the "one another" verses: verses that direct us as Christians in how we are to behave toward each other.

There are a lot of ready-made lists you can find out there, and making one of your own isn't that hard, as long as you have a concordance or a program or website (like Bible Gateway or Blue Letter Bible) that can stand in for one).  The challenge for me is in understanding the list, going beyond a simple collection of chapter and verse citations to actual directions I can apply to my life.

So below I've sorted the results of several lists, grouped them by theme to try to get a feel for the overall message the Bible is telling us.  This is not an exhaustive list, merely a short one composed of other people's lists that I could find in a quick Google search.

Verses about Service:

• John 13:14: "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet."
• 1 Corinthians 11:33: "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—"
• Galatians 5:13: "For you were called to freedom, brothers.  Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."
• Galatians 6:2: "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
• 1 Peter 4:9: "Show hospitality to one another without grumbling."

Summary: Christ is to be our example in service, because He came to serve us.  We are to show our love through serving.  We are to use our freedom to serve and help one another.  We are to do it without complaining.

Verses about Love:

• John 13:34-35: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
• John 15:12: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
• John 15:17: "These things I command you, so that you will love one another."
• Romans 12:10a: "Love one another with brotherly affection."
• Romans 13:8: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."
• 1 Thessalonians 3:12: "and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another, and for all, as we do for you."
• 1 Thessalonians 4:9: "Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another"
• 2 Thessalonians 1:3: "We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing."
• 1 Peter 1:22: "Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart."
• 1 John 3:11: "For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another."
• 1 John 3:23: "And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us."
• 1 John 4:7-8: "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God, and knows God.  Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."
• 1 John 4:11-12: "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.  No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
• 2 John 1:5: "And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one that we have had from the beginning—that we love one another."

Summary: Love is paramount.  It is the only one of these that is actually called a command.  Love is the first command, Christ's command, a new and an old command.  Love fulfills the law.  Christ is to be our example in love.  We are to love because He loved us, as He loved us.  God the Father is also our example in love because He is love.  Our love is to be a sign that we know Him and that we are true disciples of Christ.  Failure to love casts doubt on whether or not we truly know God.

Verses about Encouragement:

• Romans 1:12: "that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine."
• Ephesians 5:18-19: "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart."
• 1 Thessalonians 4:18: "Therefore encourage one another with these words." (speaking about the resurrection and rapture)
• 1 Thessalonians 5:11: "Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing."
• Hebrews 3:13: "But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today,' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin."
• Hebrews 10:24: "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works."

Summary: We are to encourage each other with our faith, with reminders of the coming rapture and resurrection, and with songs.  The goal is to encourage each other to love and do good works, and to keep our hearts from being hardened by sin.

Verses about Unity:

• Mark 9:50 "Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again?  Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."
• Romans 12:4-5: "For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another."
• Romans 12:16: "Live in harmony with one another.  Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.  Never be wise in your own sight."
• Romans 14:19: "So let us then pursue what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding."
• Romans 15:5-7: "May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God."
• 1 Corinthians 7:5: "Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (in context this is talking about sexual unity between married believers)
• 1 Corinthians 12:22-27: "On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require.  But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.  If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.  Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."
• Ephesians 4:1-3: "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
• 1 John 1:7: "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."

Summary: Unity is our identity.  We are one in Christ.  We are one body with many parts.  We are not who we are by ourselves.  We are only "us" together.  We are therefore to be together regularly, welcoming each other, having fellowship with each other, sharing our highs and lows, sympathizing with each other, and being at peace with each other.

Verses about Honor:

• Romans 12:10b: "Outdo one another in showing honor."
• Philippians 2:3: "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves."

Summary: We are to have only one rivalry, only one competition, and that is in who can honor the other more.  This requires humility on our own part.

Verses about Instructing:

• Romans 15:14: "I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another."
• Colossians 3:16: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God."

Summary: We are to be filled with goodness, knowledge, and Christ so that we may instruct one another in all wisdom.

Verses about Greeting:

• Romans 16:16: "Greet one another with a holy kiss.  All the churches of Christ greet you."
• 1 Corinthians 16:20: "All the brothers send you greetings.  Greet one another with a holy kiss."
• 2 Corinthians 13:12: "Greet one another with a holy kiss."
• 1 Peter 5:14: "Greet one another with the kiss of love.  Peace to all of you who are in Christ."

Summary: We are to greet one another, and it is to be with a kiss.

Verses about Forgiving:

• Ephesians 4:32: "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."
• Colossians 3:13: "Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgive you, so you also must forgive."

Summary: We must forgive each other.  Christ is to be our example in forgiveness.

Verses about Submission:

• Ephesians 5:21: "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ."
• 1 Peter 5:5: "Likewise you who are younger, be subject to the elders.  Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for God 'opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.'"

Summary: All of us are to be submitted to each other out of humility and respect for God.

Verses about Honesty:

• Ephesians 4:25: "Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for are members one of another."
• Colossians 3:9: "Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices"

Summary: We are to no longer practice falsehood, but to be honest with each other.

Verses about Praying:

• James 5:16: "Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.  The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working."

Summary: We are to honestly confess our sins to each other, and pray for each other's spiritual healing from these sins.  These prayers are effective.

Verses about not Judging:

• Romans 14:13: "Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but decide rather never to put a stumbling block or a hindrance in the way of a brother."
• James 4:11: "Do not speak evil against one another, brothers.  The one who speaks against a brother or judges a brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law.  But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge."

Summary: We are to not judge, speak evil of, or hinder one another.  To do such things reflects negatively on our view of the law, under which Christ holds us forgiven and blameless.

Verses about What Else NOT to do:

• Galatians 5:26: "Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another."
• 1 Thessalonians 5:15: "See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to good to one another and to everyone."
• James 5:9: "Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you be not judged.  The Judge is standing at the door."

Summary: We are not to provoke, envy, grumble against, or do evil to one another.  Instead, we are to seek to do good to one another.

 I have to admit that all of this is rather humbling and convicting for me.  I spend a lot of time alone.  I could spend a week or more without speaking to a single person.  I have a very solitary nature.  But God has called me outside my comfort zone to be a part of a larger community.  That's not something I'm good at, but it's something I need.  I need to serve and encourage, and I need encouragement myself.  I need prayer.  I need love.  I need the kind of community that would exist if we actually did this, and none of it is happening without me stepping up to bat and doing it myself to others.

One thing that did get me thinking was the verses about greeting each other with a kiss.  It's easy to dismiss this as an outdated social custom, like wearing togas, and headdresses, and hats.  But the Bible says this one repeatedly, through different authors.  That alone makes me wonder.  Then I think about the reasons why we don't kiss other Christians.  We're generally alright with kissing close family members, but other Christians we greet with a respectful handshake or a casual "Hey."  But I think the Bible is deliberately calling us to use the same greeting for fellow Christians that we would normally only use for close family.  After all, that is what we're supposed to be as the Church, a family.  And there is something to be said about the profound and elusive power of touch on our psyches.  A kiss may make us uncomfortably close to some people, but maybe those "untouchables" are just the people we need to touch, to remind us that they are a part of us, and to remind them that they are honored and family in Christ.  There's also the whole idea that Christianity isn't supposed to leave us content in our comfort zones in the first place.  It's definitely something I'll need to look into further.

Reliance in our Religion

I'm tempted sometimes to envy the church-goer who seems to have it all together.  Such a person's life seems to have clear direction and meaning derived from their church and approved of by the Christians around them.  Maybe they are a missionary or a Sunday school teacher.  Regardless, they've got that all figured out and their life is on track for that goal, that ministry, that work that both God and man will approve of.  When temptations or distractions come their way, they seem immune.  Through sheer force of will, they push through and accomplish their goals, without even messing up their hair in the process.

Such a persona, of course, is a myth.  There are no doubt people who try to live that myth, who pretend to be unshakable and always act like they always know exactly what they're doing.  Underneath the mask, these people are human, too.  Still, it remains an ideal to attain to: to find or borrow some kind of inner direction to unerringly steer us through life, and the strength with which to resist temptation and never deviate from our course.

But is this really an ideal we should be drawn to?  In the end, who does this system rely on?  It may give lip-service to reliance on God, but in the end it is our ability to parse out His will that guides us, and our ability to grit our teeth and try harder in spiritual life that gets us through.  This makes me leery.  I have found that any system that, at bottom, relies on man is doomed to fail, no matter how much lip service it may give to God.

The Bible seems to agree.  On the subject of guidance, Isaiah 50:10-11 praises the faith of those who, when they "walk in darkness" and have "no light" choose to "trust in the name of the LORD and rely on...God."  They place their trust and reliance on Him, His name, His character, who He is, and trust Him to guide them rather than trying to illuminate everything and figure it all out by themselves.  They may remain in the dark, but even there God can guide them.  By contrast, the passage rebukes those who take the matter of guidance into their own hands "who kindle a fire and equip yourselves with flaming torches."  To such as have made their own sense of things and come up with their own plan to guide them, God says, "Walk by the light of your fire, and the torches you have kindled!  This you have from my hand: you shall lie down in torment."  He gives them up to their own devices and plans, but they do not end well without Him!  I don't know about you, but I would rather lead a "dark," seemingly aimless life with God than try to figure it all out and "lie down in torment" without Him.

It doesn't stop at guidance.  So often in the day-to-day battles against temptation we seem to be relying on our own strength.  At so many Bible studies where the topic of temptation and habitual sin comes up, the answer people give seems couched in terms of human effort.  Try harder.  Pray harder.  Read your Bible more.  Resist temptation.  Avoid the source of it.  Memorize these verses.  Read these books.  Pray for God to bolster your own strength so that you can try harder and do it all again.  I don't believe I have ever seen or heard of such an approach working, though I'm sure many people think it works because they have traded one sin for another (lust for pride, maybe) and I'm sure many others (myself among them, I confess) have pretended that it worked and announced ourselves as cured by our own efforts so that we can escape the constant badgering to perform beyond our capabilities.  I'm sure someone will say that it is not our capabilities that matter but God's, and that His power in us is what will make these effort-based techniques work.  But it is not so.  God is not the one trying to memorize Bible verses in the vain hope that being able to recite scripture chapter and verse will make you immune to temptation.  God is not the one installing monitoring software on your computer or outright smashing it to bits (a la Fireproof) in hopes of breaking your porn addiction.  God is not the one putting pennies in the swears jar every time you cuss.  You are, and if you are doing these things of your own effort, then it comes down to a human feat no matter how much lip service we may give to God.

The Bible addresses this too.  The Apostle Paul, frustrated and concerned by a Galatian church that had turned from faith to human effort challenges them.  "Let me ask you only this," he says, "Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by the hearing of faith?  Are you so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:2-3).  I confess that many times, I am that foolish.  I know that salvation is something God accomplished for me, the death and resurrection of Jesus bringing me from death to life, through the work of the Spirit within me.  Having acknowledged this, I put it firmly in the past and determine to grit my teeth and pull of a successful spiritual life (which I myself define) through my own efforts.  If I acknowledge God's present involvement at all, it is with the expectation that He will allow me to try even harder and redouble my efforts.  But this is all wrong.  It is the work of the Spirit that perfects us, and His is a work that starts on the inside and works its way out (rather than vice versa, with our efforts).  He starts by removing our heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26), by replacing the lies that made us slaves to sin with the truth that set us free (John 8:32) so that we may have life to the full (John 10:10).  A book I've been reading, Pursued by Jud Wilhite (in a commentary on Hosea 2:16-17), puts it in a different way:

"In fact, the love of God is so powerful it sweeps us off our feet and makes us forget all about those counterfeit loves we pursued.  God says He's going to erase the worship of false gods from the people's midst.  God wants to fulfill the emptiness inside us with a love that will cause all our idols to fall by the wayside.  This is why I believe that conquering our idols and habitual sins is ultimately a matter of being swept up by His love rather than gritting our teeth and trying harder.  If we give Him a chance, God allures us and woos us with loyal love by showing His enormous strength, patience, and gentleness."

This is something I've been sensing about Him for a long time, but never before knew how to put into words.  That God doesn't conquer the sin in my life the way I've been trying to do it, through efforts to avoid temptation, pound myself into obedience, and punish myself for failure, but through captivating me with love.  He doesn't overwhelm me with the consequences of my sin, because He took care of that on the cross (and to wallow further in guilt is to account His sacrifice as nothing).  He doesn't send me to memorize whole books of the Bible, because Satan himself knows the Bible better than we do (and it's not doing him a whole lot of good).  He does not have me smash my computer or move into a cave to live like a hermit, because even hermits can be tempted.  Instead, He transforms my heart and awakens a vibrant desire that loves as He loves.  When temptation comes, it has no power.  It is like a thief with glass beads trying to bribe a jeweler who has seen real diamonds.  When obedience is called for, it flows naturally from a heart that wants to obey.  It isn't a transformation that can even be attempted by my own efforts.  It is totally a work of the Spirit.  And while it does not come with handy human signposts and "torches" to let me know I am on track to some known end goal, it is the only place where I have seen victory, healing, and growth occur.  I would rather have such reliance on God in the darkness than work by my own effort in my own light.

Breaking the Second-Greatest Commandment

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.  "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

--Matthew 22:35-40 (ESV)

Some of us in the Christian community have a tendency for making and trying to keep large bodies of rules.  I confess that I have often done that sort of thing.  When we do, we tend to completely lose sight of what really matters to God.  We wind up with a long list of things that make us "Christian" which, at bottom, have nothing to do with Christianity and are generally just yardsticks for our pride (see list, it's still humbling for me to read it).

I think many churches and Christians are getting better, though, at recognizing that it is not adherence to a set of rules that makes us Christians, but a relationship with God.  The most important rule doesn't even appear on our list: and that is to love God.  I am getting better at understanding that this one rule is more important than anything on my list, and that I often fail to love God because I am too concerned with my list.  It is a process, but I am getting better.

But what about the second-greatest commandment?  Honestly, it's not only not on the list, but many of the list items contradict it.  So often we are focused on getting minutia of doctrine, belief, and respectability right that we forget about others.  Worse, we often decide that nailing these things is so over-ridingly important that people who fail (or are not quite as good as we are) are unworthy of our love or sympathy.  But if we're honest, the things on the list are all pretty stupid.  One person lambastes another because he doesn't have the exact same understanding of predestination--even though the exact points they disagree on aren't even in Scripture, it apparently matters much more to God than what God did put in Scripture.  One churchgoer snubs his neighbor because his haircut is too messy--since God looks on the outward appearance, apparently (or is it the other way around? 1 Samuel 16:7).  Two Christians tear each other up for using the "wrong" translation of the Bible--because apparently reading exactly the right English words is much more important than obeying them yourself.  One member of a church refuses even to acknowledge another, let alone work out a past conflict, but is highly praised because of her involvement in church activities--which are obviously more important than brotherly love, seeing as how the activities aren't even mentioned in the Bible but brotherly love is mandated at practically every page.  Do we really think this is how it's supposed to be?  Honestly, sometimes we would fit in so much better with the Pharisees whom Christ decried than with the penitent sinners with whom he spent his time.

The things on our list are generally extremely petty, and usually they aren't even remotely based on the Bible.  The list the Bible gives is shorter and much more pointed: love God with all you are, and love each other.  Particular emphasis is placed on this last commandment throughout the New Testament.  It is the only command Christ gives his disciples the night he is betrayed--so important to him, in fact, that he repeats it three times in his last address before the Cross (John 13:34; 15:12 & 17).  He goes on to say that it is this commandment and no other that will distinguish the true disciples of Christ to the world (John 13:35).  No other commandment gets such a mention.  Christ does not tell us that people will know we're really his because we dress in a certain style, understand theology in a certain way, use the right translation, attend the right church, or participate in the right outreach activities: what will distinguish us is our love for each other.

So I have to ask, are we really distinguishable at all?

Moving on, Paul says that if you follow this commandment, no other is necessary because you have fullfilled the law (Romans 13:8).  That takes a step further from saying love one another should be the first item that on the list and says that, actually it should be the list!  Elsewhere he says our love for each other is something taught to us by God (1 Thessalonians 4:9).  I remember many times praying that God would teach me to understand this or that doctrine, but it appears what I should have been praying was that He would teach me how to love.  Peter says our love is an outworking of the purifying of our souls (1 Peter 1:22).

So if we do not love one another, how can we hold ourselves to have purified souls regarding the other commandments?  If we have failed in love, we have failed entirely!

John, in his first epistle, spends most of his time rehashing this commandment.  He has a lot to say.  He tells us love is a commandment both new and old, a mystery revealed and a message heard from the very beginning.  He tells us that if we love one another, we know God and are born of Him, that He dwells in us and His love is perfected in us, and that we can therefore have confidence before the Judgement Seat of God...but he does not stop there.  He more ominously tells us that if we do not love each other, we do not know God (1 John 4:8), and that anyone who claims to love God while he does not love his brother is actually a liar and cannot actually know God at all (1 John 4:8).

This really gives me pause.  So many times I've heard non-Christians classify Christians as hateful people, and too often they are right: we put our petty doctrinal points, traditions, and "good" works ahead of actually having the love Christ commanded.  In doing so, we prove that we are not Christians, and that we do not know God.  This is bad enough.  Worse is when we praise other "Christians" for keeping the minutia of our man-made laws while they neglect this all-important commandment, instead of calling them out on it.

May Christ teach us to love, so that we may know Him and actually bear His image, rather than defaming it!