the verb does not appear in the Nestle Greek New Testament or the Westcott & Hort Greek New Testament. It does appear in the Textus Receptus and two Byzantine manuscripts.
Paul also used the word in Colossians 3:18, the other “wives submit yourselves” verse.
biblehub.com/text/colossians/3-18.htm
As examples of that, I would include instances of women holding political authority over men, positions in education over men, statements in favor of the equality of men with women, and statements that tell men not to dominate women, where “dominate” is the opposite of “serve.”
Most of those instances are not particularly serious. For example, you cite a Roman Empress (and Saint) who ruled with her husband. (and you don’t mention the husband). You cite St. Augustine criticizing one aspect of Roman law (which was not a part of roman law prior to 200 BC), and conclude he supports equality across-the-board.
Of the “equality as doctrine” examples, they don’t seem to teach that wives should hold equal status, or equal authority to husbands. In fact, one seems to actually teach unequal status, and another recommends about unequal authority.
And lots of women have been intellectuals. That’s always been true, even in Patriarchal cultures.
Secondly, “serve” and “dominate” are not opposites.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dominate
Merriam Webster: Dominate:
- rule, control
- to exert the supreme determining or guiding influence on
- to overlook from a superior elevation or command because of superior height or position
By this definition, does Jesus dominate the church? Do parents dominate their children? I’d think yes.
You:
Me:
Not “equality” in the sense the term is typically used, certainly. Does a parent love his children as himself? Does he value their time equally to his?
I think he should, if I understand you correctly.
The answers I was expecting were “Yes” to the first question and “No” to the second. I don’t know any parents who treat their child’s time as equally valuable to theirs. If nothing else, the parent’s time is usually worth a fairly high $/hour wage.
contains many examples of women, but not children, holding political authority over men, and many examples of women, but not children, holding positions in education over men.
There have been lots of child-kings in Catholic history. And many of them actually ruled. And there was a laudable child-king in the Old Testament. Josiah, I believe.
I’m not sure what position of authority someone would hold in education. A professor? A dean of a college? Women have always been intellectuals, even in very Patriarchal societies.
provided he uses that responsibility to serve (as in, opposite of dominate) his family, including his wife. And I don’t think he could do that without their (name removed by moderator)ut.
Depends on the decision. Lots of them don’t really need (name removed by moderator)ut from everybody.
I believe that one reason why women used to be excluded from the vote was out of a fear of doubling each vote. I don’t think that is a denial of women’s equality. I don’t know if anyone in authority ever claimed that women should be denied the vote because they are inherently uninformed or stupid.
That would be a stupid concern. Doubling the vote would never change an election result. If each man has two votes, it changes nothing.
And I don’t think the Catholic church has a developed understanding of “who ought to vote”.
We nourish ourselves by taking in food and water, right? And then we let our bodies distribute the nourishment. I think the act of eating or drinking therefore constitutes spending an equal amount of nourishment on every body part, even every cell.
By now, the analogy has broken down, but each cell gets different amounts of nourishment. So they are not equal.
If you mean the degree or kind of honor paid to them, I think some queens are comparable in degree of honor paid to them, though different in kind, while nearly all children receive a lower degree of honor.
A King’s honor is tied to his power, wealth, et cetera. A Queen’s honor is tied to her husband’s power, wealth, et cetera, and how successful she is at making babies. Barren queens are pitied, as are queens with poor husbands. That seems like a distinctly Patriarchal approach.
And reserving the honor of the Papacy (even the Orthodox call it a “primacy of honor”), for men, is Patriarchal. Though from the exclusion of women from Bishops/Papacy, we cannot conclude women ought to be excluded from other stuff.
(modern European queens may be an exception to this, but they aren’t really queens in the normal sense)
I think the striving after that by some women is a symptom of clericalism, not of an authentic search for equal roles of service in the Church, which I think are available to women.
From my reading about Orthodoxy, the
Priest’s wife has a special place in the community. Of course, the Roman rite has no Priest’s wives.
I had said that the New Testament improved upon Roman social practice by giving women authority in the family, which, if I understand ancient Roman domestic history correctly, they had not had under pagan Rome. I thought you had answered that the pagan Roman women did have authority in the family.
I assumed you were talking about the NT. I was not aware that the Christianization of Rome gave women authority in the family, specifically, but I would not be surprised. The whole “always a daughter” approach was a weird legal construct.
