S/O -- Christian Marriage Wife Submission

[Mrs Mungo]

I spoke to our elder's wife before hand, and she asked me how my husband felt about it. I told her he felt confident (he wouldn't tell me if he was scared b/c that would scare me anyway). She then said she looks to her husband as the head for medical decisions. He has a direct line to God. She will present her medical concerns to him, and he will tell her if she needs to see a doctor. So, if my husband felt confident, I should rest in the fact that God will lead my husband.

 

Do you see why I am asking these questions?

 

Wow. I think God wants us all to have a direct line to Him. That's why Christ explicitly told us to pray to our Father. If I had to go to my husband for every, single decision I make that would drive him craaaaaazy and I would not be submitting to my husband's desire for an independent, thinking wife.

[jld]

Elizabeth, thanks for bringing that up. I read Jesus: A Revolutionary many years ago, and found it enlightening. I'm going to have to take a look at Crossan's other books . . .

 

Thanks again!

[Mrs Mungo]

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/In%20Search%20of%20Paul.htm A critical historical analysis of Paul leads to the opposite conclusions regarding gender and patriarchy in the minds of some scholars and some Christians. This is not an attempt to persuade anyone here toward a different pov but rather to give a voice to the pov of many people who call themselves Christians but do not read the Bible literally without reference to its time, place and authors . It is not my intent to derail the thread or in any manner detract from the immediate discussion but merely to give a response consistent with my understanding and beliefs.

 

I haven't read the link, please forgive me (I'm walking out the door, I had to check my email first and I get sucked in a little). However, I agree (I think this is what you are saying?) that a great number of Paul's writings are meant for a specific circumstance at a specific time and place.

[SonshineLearner]

 

...He has a direct line to God. She will present her medical concerns to him, and he will tell her if she needs to see a doctor. So, if my husband felt confident, I should rest in the fact that God will lead my husband.

 

Do you see why I am asking these questions?

 

I do see why you're asking. AND, I do believe you should submit to your husband. BUT, you have a direct "line" to God as well. I consider myself ultra conservative, take the Bible as authoritative, and don't understand this.... I even ask my children... at a certain point... about their own health.

 

I do think you should do research, talk with your husband, and take his concerns into account. I don't see why he would want to make the final decision about your health. So, in principle, I believe that you should submit, but I don't understand why "submission" come into play very often. You love your husband, and so you listen to his advice; your husband loves you and so he cherishes your life more than his...

 

:-)

[Peek a Boo]

I would not jump to the idea that Paul was wrong - it may be that the interpretation of Scripture is faulty.;)

 

:iagree:

I don't need a "critical historical analysis" to try to spin Paul's words away when I have clear scriptural context that upholds and teaches mutual submission and Christian accountability to our husbands as Christian brothers.

[Joanne]

http:// This is not an attempt to persuade anyone here toward a different pov but rather to give a voice to the pov of many people who call themselves Christians but do not read the Bible literally without reference to its time, place and authors .

 

Thank you.

 

Here is an article that may interest Christians who believe the Bible is Truth but not literal.

 

Not only do I believe the Bible to be cultural (as well as God-breathed), I believe the translations and interpretations to be cultural as well.

 

Patriarchy has far, far reaching history and power and ramifications.

 

No gender is God sanctioned as better equipped to be the "final decision maker in the case of an impasse" than the other gender involved. (Yes, I realize what a bad sentence that is)

 

No gender is God sanctioned to be exclusive religious leaders or teachers.

 

My Bible does not tell me "thou shall be limited to a ministry of women" or "thou shall teach Sunday School to children".

 

I do want to say, though, that if couples are struggling over dinner choices, the issues aren't with "wife only submission" but "wife only submission" are the place for issues to show up.

 

While I don't agree with wife only submission from a living or even doctrinal standpoint, I'd like to believe that most wife-only submission couples are much healthier than the examples given.

 

Unfortunately, it's not unlike the Pearls. People with problems are more likely drawn to extremes due to the nature of their issues. The fact that a high percentage of wife-only sumbission couples also embrace a punitive parenting paradigm is not a mystery.

[asta]

I would have agreed with you before I started homeschooling. The first time I ever heard about 'wifely submission' was in a Catholic homeschooling group. It was a big topic among most of the women of that group. It was also in this Catholic homeschooling group that I first heard of the Pearls and the Ezzos. This is the group where I was asked if I had my dh's permission to go on an out of town field trip. This is the group where we were advised to never go against our dh's wishes in anything; that by submitting in all to our husbands we were, in effect, submitting to God.

 

Indeed, there's a Catholic homeschooling message board and several Catholic e-mail groups where this is discussed.

 

It still boggles my mind.

 

I'm curious if these were "mainstream" Catholics or, perhaps Opus Dei Catholics? Opus Dei is where you find the big submission stuff. But you also won't find mainstream Catholics and Opus Dei Catholics who "hang out" and have donuts together after mass. The only Catholics I have ever met who leaned towards those viewpoints fell into the highly conservative, pre, pre, PRE Vatican one side of the house. No pants, head coverings, the whole shebang.

 

Even the ones I knew who were "well, husband is the head of the household" were ALSO "but If he doesn't respect me, I'll have the Church on him so fast, his head is going to spin".

 

I was married in 1985 at a Nuptial Mass and the word obey was not part of our vows.

 

Yes, "obey" has been optional for a long, long time. At least since Vatican 2.

 

 

a

[kmacnchs]

I spoke to our elder's wife before hand, and she asked me how my husband felt about it. I told her he felt confident (he wouldn't tell me if he was scared b/c that would scare me anyway). She then said she looks to her husband as the head for medical decisions. He has a direct line to God. She will present her medical concerns to him, and he will tell her if she needs to see a doctor. So, if my husband felt confident, I should rest in the fact that God will lead my husband.

 

Do you see why I am asking these questions?

 

I definitely understand better now but I agree w/others that we both have a direct line to God...that is biblical. I believe in fully submitting to God and in His Word it says to submit to my dh. It does not say that I do not have a personal relationship with my Lord b/c I am a woman.

 

I look to my dh for medical decisions but that is mainly b/c he is in the medical profession :D

 

Maybe she just didn't get her view across the right way...or maybe she did :tongue_smilie:

[woolybear]

I haven't read all the responses here, but I will say this. My first husband wanted an intelligent, creative, thinking, helpful wife. When it came down to big decisions, he would listen to my opinions. However, he wanted to have the final say. Clearly, he wanted to be the boss and have ultimate control. I used to say that he liked an intelligent wife for "parlor talk" but not for real life.

 

I think for him it might be part of his upbringing.

He was also a control freak.:D

 

Woolybear

[lionfamily1999]

Wow. I think God wants us all to have a direct line to Him. That's why Christ explicitly told us to pray to our Father. If I had to go to my husband for every, single decision I make that would drive him craaaaaazy and I would not be submitting to my husband's desire for an independent, thinking wife.

See, Mrs. Mungo, I think this gets forgotten too. Taking it for granted that you're both Christians, your dh WANTS you to be independant and I don't think you're the exception to the rule. I think, in general, even far right conservative yadayadayada Christian men want their wives to be capable of independance and they need to trust that their wives will do the right thing, have the wisdom and discernment to make the right decisions for their family.

 

So, you do submit, it just so happens that your husband is normal... rather, he's okay with you making potty without permission, iykwIm, and I think that most marraiges are this way.

[8circles]

I spoke to our elder's wife before hand, and she asked me how my husband felt about it. I told her he felt confident (he wouldn't tell me if he was scared b/c that would scare me anyway). She then said she looks to her husband as the head for medical decisions. He has a direct line to God. She will present her medical concerns to him, and he will tell her if she needs to see a doctor. So, if my husband felt confident, I should rest in the fact that God will lead my husband.

 

Do you see why I am asking these questions?

 

I do see... I will be brutally honest here. I don't mean this to be offensive & I apologize in advance if it is because it isn't my intent to offend. But if I was told that from our church leadership I would run the other way. As quickly as I could.

 

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/In%20Search%20of%20Paul.htm

 

Here is an article that may interest Christians who believe the Bible is Truth but not literal.

 

Thank you elizabeth & Joanne. I'll be reading those although I've always considered myself to believe the Bible as literal.

[ereks mom]

YEP YEP!!!! DH and I agree that Eph 5: 21 gets LOST when talking submission stuff. Dh is a preacher (fill in when needed only so not a full time preacher. He is a full time Sunday School teacher). He says this scripture gets ignored in the submission talks even on the pulpit. It aggravates him when this gets ignored.

 

Our relationship is the whole thing from Eph 5:21 to 33.

 

Let me preface my post by saying that dh (a pastor for over 30 years, with Master's degrees in Biblical Studies and Pastoral Ministries) and I (BA in Christianity and Master's in Education) have studied these scriptures in depth. We teach these scriptures each week in classes for couples who are referred to us because of problems in their relationships.

 

Verse 21 goes with the verses above it. Verses 22-33 are talking to husbands and wives; verse 21 is talking to the church in general. Notice that husbands/wives are not addressed until verse 22. What's happening there is that in verses 1-21, Paul is talking to the church about the kind of life they are supposed to lead. In the church, the members are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then, he turns his attention to the husband/wife relationship. Kind of like, "speaking of submission...", and then he goes on to the husband/wife relationship. The wife is commanded to submit to her husband here and in other places in scripture as well, but NOWHERE in scripture is the husband commanded to submit to his wife. See I Peter 3, Colossians 3, and Titus 2. (Interestingly, the husband is commanded to love his wife, but the wife is not commanded to love her husband.) Mutual submission in the husband/wife relationship is not a Biblical concept.

 

But before you start to think that I believe that women are somehow "less" than men, please read what I said in my previous post in this thread:

 

...It is wrong for a man to expect his wife to obey him as if she were a child. Submission is not supposed to be something the husband demands; it's something the wife does voluntarily. If she is forced to do it, she isn't submitting. Submission involves a conscious choice on the part of the wife. She CHOOSES to give her husband her respect. She chooses to allow him to have the final say in a matter, although he should listen to her opinion because she is supposed to have an advisory role.

 

This is what the Bible means when it says (I Peter 3) that the husband is to give honor to the wife as a weaker vessel. Many people wrongly interpret this passage to mean that the wife is less important than the husband, or is in some way flawed. What it actually means is that she is valuable and therefore treasured, as a porcelain vase would be when compared to a frying pan. The pan is stronger, but the vase has value because of its delicate nature. When a husband treats his wife as valuable, and treasures her, it is easy for her to respect him and submit to him as I described above.

Edited March 2, 2010 by ereks mom

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/In%20Search%20of%20Paul.htm A critical historical analysis of Paul leads to the opposite conclusions regarding gender and patriarchy in the minds of some scholars and some Christians. This is not an attempt to persuade anyone here toward a different pov but rather to give a voice to the pov of many people who call themselves Christians but do not read the Bible literally without reference to its time, place and authors . It is not my intent to derail the thread or in any manner detract from the immediate discussion but merely to give a response consistent with my understanding and beliefs.

 

:iagree: Thanks for the post:)

[Paisley Hedgehog]

nm

[Parrothead]

She then said she looks to her husband as the head for medical decisions. He has a direct line to God. She will present her medical concerns to him, and he will tell her if she needs to see a doctor. So, if my husband felt confident, I should rest in the fact that God will lead my husband.

 

Do you see why I am asking these questions?

That is wrong on so many levels.

 

What does she do when the doctor disagrees with the husband? Not get treatment? Die?

 

What if the husband (not necessarily your elder) is just waiting for the wife to die so he can chase some pretty young thing?

 

What if it wasn't the wife that needed medical treatment, and it was the kid? If treatment is denied because the husband said no, and something happens to the kid - like he dies, then both the husband and wife could be facing criminal charges. The submission thing probably would not get the wife out of a jail term.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Parrothead

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I do see... I will be brutally honest here. I don't mean this to be offensive & I apologize in advance if it is because it isn't my intent to offend. But if I was told that from our church leadership I would run the other way. As quickly as I could.

 

 

Thank you elizabeth & Joanne. I'll be reading those although I've always considered myself to believe the Bible as literal.

 

:iagree: I would be running as well. They are essentially saying that women are lesser beings in the eyes of God and do not have a line to God:001_huh: For too long IMHO, there have been many who see women as lesser beings and not as spiritual as men which is very wrong IMHO. Of course men and women are different, but we are also alike in many ways and are both blessed with human dignity by God IMHO.

 

There are 2 creation stories in Genesis:

 

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

 

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

 

To me this passage clearly says God created both men and women in the image of God as equals IMHO.

[*********]

Let me preface my post by saying that dh (a pastor for over 30 years, with Master's degrees in Biblical Studies and Pastoral Ministries) and I (BA in Christianity and Master's in Education) have studied these scriptures in depth. We teach these scriptures each week in classes for couples who are referred to us because of problems in their relationships.

 

Verse 21 goes with the verses above it. Verses 22-33 are talking to husbands and wives; verse 21 is talking to the church in general. Notice that husbands/wives are not addressed until verse 22. What's happening there is that in verses 1-21, Paul is talking to the church about the kind of life they are supposed to lead. In the church, the members are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then, he turns his attention to the husband/wife relationship. Kind of like, "speaking of submission...", and then he goes on to the husband/wife relationship. The wife is commanded to submit to her husband here and in other places in scripture as well, but NOWHERE in scripture is the husband commanded to submit to his wife. See I Peter 3, Colossians 3, and Titus 2. (Interestingly, the husband is commanded to love his wife, but the wife is not commanded to love her husband.) Mutual submission in the husband/wife relationship is not a Biblical concept.

 

Erek's mom, I agree with everything you wrote here, except for the bolded part.

 

Titus 2:3-5 says:

 

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (KJV)

 

The older women of the church are instructed to teach the younger women, among other things, to love their husbands.

 

I believe the word of God instructs women to submit to, reverence, respect, obey, and love their husbands.

[ereks mom]

Erek's mom, I agree with everything you wrote here, except for the bolded part.

 

Titus 2:3-5 says:

 

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (KJV)

 

The older women of the church are instructed to teach the younger women, among other things, to love their husbands.

 

I believe the word of God instructs women to submit to, reverence, respect, obey, and love their husbands.

 

But women are not commanded to love their husbands in this passage. As you said, the older women are told to teach the younger women to do this. So, obviously, women are expected to love their husbands. But if you go back to the Greek, different words were used when talking about the husband's love for his wife and the wife's love for her husband. We are a bit handicapped in English when translating from Greek, where there are different terms for different types of love. In English, we "love" our husbands, we "love" our children -- but we can also "love" peanut butter, or going to the beach, or a particualr song on the radio. In Greek, there would have been different words for each of these.

Edited March 2, 2010 by ereks mom

[HRAAB]

I'm curious if these were "mainstream" Catholics or, perhaps Opus Dei Catholics? Opus Dei is where you find the big submission stuff. But you also won't find mainstream Catholics and Opus Dei Catholics who "hang out" and have donuts together after mass. The only Catholics I have ever met who leaned towards those viewpoints fell into the highly conservative, pre, pre, PRE Vatican one side of the house. No pants, head coverings, the whole shebang.

 

Even the ones I knew who were "well, husband is the head of the household" were ALSO "but If he doesn't respect me, I'll have the Church on him so fast, his head is going to spin".

 

 

 

Yes, "obey" has been optional for a long, long time. At least since Vatican 2.

 

 

a

 

These people, as far as I know, attend the Novus Ordo but looked for the most conservative, traditional priest they could find. While they say they embrace VII, they are very, very traditional. They use the Balt. Cat. or Our Holy Faith type catechisms. If there were a Latin Mass nearby I would think many would be attending that. And yes, they wore dresses and at least two of them covered their heads - not only at Mass but at home as a sign of submission to their husbands. There was this constant undercurrent of a battle - between the conservatives and liberals with the conservatives being the saviors of the church and liberals destroying the church. I had never in my life seen anything like it, and unfortunately, they sucked me in. It was the lowest point in marriage and parenting. Not only that, it's about done me in with religion altogether. More than you wanted to know, huh? :001_smile:

 

Several of these families were Regnum Christi (the secular movement of the Legionnaires). If you're interested you can good Fr. Maciel and get the scoop on him. There were some homeschooling families that were Opus Dei but they were not part of this group.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Ishki
spelling

[*********]

But women are not commanded to love their husbands in this passage. As you said, the older women are told to teach the younger women to do this. So, obviously, women are expected to love their husbands. But if you go back to the Greek, the words translated as "love" in these passages are different words when talking about the husband's love for his wife and the wife's love for her husband.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I sincerely don't see the difference. If the older women are instructed to teach the younger women to love their husbands, doesn't that imply that a) the older women are to love their husbands (in order to teach the younger women) and b) that the younger women are to learn to love their husbands?

 

In Ephesians 5:33, where Paul says:

 

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (KJV)

 

I don't think his point is that women need only reverence her husband, and *not worry about loving him. Otherwise, why would Paul have instructed, In 1 Timothy, for the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands?

 

(Not meaning to rabbit trail here. It just never has set right with me when I hear women say that the Word does not instruct women to love their husbands.)

Edited March 2, 2010 by bethanyniez

[Peek a Boo]

But women are not commanded to love their husbands in this passage. As you said, the older women are told to teach the younger women to do this. So, obviously, women are expected to love their husbands. But if you go back to the Greek, different words were used when talking about the husband's love for his wife and the wife's love for her husband. We are a bit handicapped in English when translating from Greek, where there are different terms for different types of love. In English, we "love" our husbands, we "love" our children -- but we can also "love" peanut butter, or going to the beach, or a particualr song on the radio. In Greek, there would have been different words for each of these.

 

 

ALL Christians are commanded to Love One Another.

I think that command is made clearly different from how we are allowed to love Peanut Butter. ;)

The marriage relationship MUST be kept in context of the Christian walk -- too many try to isolate these passages and ignore clear context of Christian love and accountability, found in both the OT and NT.

[angela in ohio]

I didn't have time to read all the responses, but my attitude toward wifely submission changed when a dear friend was told by a pastor that she must stay with (and obey and all that jazz) her mentally ill, drug addicted, chronically unemployed, verbally abusive husband. It was (and still is) a nightmare. She is a Bible-believing Christian lady who tolerated abuse for a decade before seeking help. I will never again accept the S-word as a model of "proper" marriage having seen the fallout.

 

That is not the fault of submission. That is the fault of poor church leadership.

 

In our church, which preaches submission, he would have been out of the home until he was ready to repent and support his family. Meanwhile, the wife would have been supported and cared for by the church, and he would have been receiving counseling through the church.

[TravelingChris]

My husband not only doesn't expect me to consult with him about my medical decisions, he expects me to give him counsel about his. It is simply because I am much more knowledgeable about this. Now sometimes he chastises me when he sees me doing something that will harm my joints but that is similar to my shopping for and urging him to eat certain foods because they are higher in potassium. We certainly don't believe that I need to go through my husband to pray and neither have any of the churches we have ever attended.

[ereks mom]

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I sincerely don't see the difference. If the older women are instructed to teach the younger women to love their husbands, doesn't that imply that a) the older women are to love their husbands (in order to teach the younger women) and b) that the younger women are to learn to love their husbands?

 

In Ephesians 5:33, where Paul says:

 

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (KJV)

 

I don't think his point is that women need only reverence her husband, and *not worry about loving him. Otherwise, why would Paul have instructed, In 1 Timothy, for the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands?

 

(Not meaning to rabbit trail here. It just never has set right with me when I hear women say that the Word does not instruct women to love their husbands.)

 

I think you and I are agreeing, but seeing two sides of the same coin. :) In scripture, the husband is commanded to love (ἀγαπᾶτε) his wife, while the older women are expected to teach the younger women to love (φιλάνδρους) their husbands. And as you can see, a different word for love is used in each case. The man is commanded to love his wife with a self-sacrificing love -- the probably-familiar agape -- while the older women are expected to teach the younger women to love their husbands "the special way that a woman loves a man", or as dh puts it "the way that only a woman can love a man". :001_smile:

[lionfamily1999]

ALL Christians are commanded to Love One Another.

I think that command is made clearly different from how we are allowed to love Peanut Butter. ;)

The marriage relationship MUST be kept in context of the Christian walk -- too many try to isolate these passages and ignore clear context of Christian love and accountability, found in both the OT and NT.

You will know them by their love for eachother.

[Firefly]

This is what the Bible means when it says (I Peter 3) that the husband is to give honor to the wife as a weaker vessel. Many people wrongly interpret this passage to mean that the wife is less important than the husband, or is in some way flawed. What it actually means is that she is valuable and therefore treasured, as a porcelain vase would be when compared to a frying pan. The pan is stronger, but the vase has value because of its delicate nature. When a husband treats his wife as valuable, and treasures her, it is easy for her to respect him and submit to him as I described above.

 

Just an interesting aside. When I lived in the Middle East, this (the bold) is almost verbatim what Muslim women explained to me about their marriages and the reason why they cover everything up, can't drive, can't eat in the same places as men, have to ride in the back of the bus, etc etc.

[ereks mom]

ALL Christians are commanded to Love One Another.

I think that command is made clearly different from how we are allowed to love Peanut Butter. ;)

The marriage relationship MUST be kept in context of the Christian walk -- too many try to isolate these passages and ignore clear context of Christian love and accountability, found in both the OT and NT.

 

Yes, 1 John 4:7 says that we are to love one another (ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους). Note that the Greek word for love used here (ἀγαπῶμεν) is the same as the word used in Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:19 (ἀγαπᾶτε).

[Joanne]

Let me preface my post by saying that dh (a pastor for over 30 years, with Master's degrees in Biblical Studies and Pastoral Ministries) and I (BA in Christianity and Master's in Education) have studied these scriptures in depth. We teach these scriptures each week in classes for couples who are referred to us because of problems in their relationships.

 

Verse 21 goes with the verses above it. Verses 22-33 are talking to husbands and wives; verse 21 is talking to the church in general. Notice that husbands/wives are not addressed until verse 22. What's happening there is that in verses 1-21, Paul is talking to the church about the kind of life they are supposed to lead. In the church, the members are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then, he turns his attention to the husband/wife relationship. Kind of like, "speaking of submission...", and then he goes on to the husband/wife relationship. The wife is commanded to submit to her husband here and in other places in scripture as well, but NOWHERE in scripture is the husband commanded to submit to his wife. See I Peter 3, Colossians 3, and Titus 2. (Interestingly, the husband is commanded to love his wife, but the wife is not commanded to love her husband.) Mutual submission in the husband/wife relationship is not a Biblical concept.

 

But before you start to think that I believe that women are somehow "less" than men, please read what I said in my previous post in this thread:

 

Ereksmom,

 

I appreciate your passion and care. I respect your and your DH's experience and education. I disagree wholeheartedly that teaching a literal, conservative view of submission helps relationship problems and I don't "buy" the delicate but equal vessel metaphor.

 

That's fine; I'm just posting to say that a person can be a Bible believing, Jesus worshiping, saved person with a Biblical marriage and not believe as you do and as you teach.

[ereks mom]

Ereksmom,

 

I appreciate your passion and care. I respect your and your DH's experience and education. I disagree wholeheartedly that teaching a literal, conservative view of submission helps relationship problems and I don't "buy" the delicate but equal vessel metaphor.

 

That's fine; I'm just posting to say that a person can be a Bible believing, Jesus worshiping, saved person with a Biblical marriage and not believe as you do and as you teach.

 

Yes, I definitely understand that a person can be a Christian and practice differently than the way I do. Not all Christians will agree on all subjects; that's why there are so many different denominations and interpretations of scripture.

 

Also, it's very hard to succinctly state my views on every facet of this topic, so I'm sure I'm miscommunicating to some degree. If I could overcome that, I think that we would find that we actually agree more than we disagree.

[Joanne]

Yes, I definitely understand that a person can be a Christian and practice differently than the way I do. Not all Christians will agree on all subjects; that's why there are so many different denominations and interpretations of scripture.

 

Also, it's very hard to succinctly state my views on every facet of this topic, so I'm sure I'm miscommunicating to some degree. If I could overcome that, I think that we would find that we actually agree more than we disagree.

 

What a gracious response. :grouphug: It's certainly possible we agree on many aspects of what is a healthy Christian marriage. :001_smile:

[Carol in Cal.]

Verse 21 goes with the verses above it. Verses 22-33 are talking to husbands and wives; verse 21 is talking to the church in general. Notice that husbands/wives are not addressed until verse 22. What's happening there is that in verses 1-21, Paul is talking to the church about the kind of life they are supposed to lead. In the church, the members are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then, he turns his attention to the husband/wife relationship. Kind of like, "speaking of submission...", and then he goes on to the husband/wife relationship. The wife is commanded to submit to her husband here and in other places in scripture as well, but NOWHERE in scripture is the husband commanded to submit to his wife. See I Peter 3, Colossians 3, and Titus 2. (Interestingly, the husband is commanded to love his wife, but the wife is not commanded to love her husband.) Mutual submission in the husband/wife relationship is not a Biblical concept.

 

My understanding is that verse 21 is the independent clause, and the other verses below it are like dependent clauses. (I love it that this is TWTM so we use grammar to discuss this!)

 

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ...

...wives to your husbands as to the Lord, etc.

...husbands, loving your wives just as Christ loved the church, etc.

 

 

(Long digression about bodies, and Christ and His church)

 

...children, obeying your parents in the Lord, etc.

...fathers, not exasperating your children, etc.

...slaves, obeying your earthly masters, etc.

...masters, treating your slaves, etc.

 

I don't know Greek, but that is what I have read. What I have read over and over and over is that in verse 22 there is no verb--it clearly gets its verb from verse 21. So 21 CANNOT be a wrap up of the prior verses only--it MUST be the header for verse 22 at least.

[AngelBee]

I think you and I are agreeing, but seeing two sides of the same coin. :) In scripture, the husband is commanded to love (ἀγαπᾶτε) his wife, while the older women are expected to teach the younger women to love (φιλάνδρους) their husbands. And as you can see, a different word for love is used in each case. The man is commanded to love his wife with a self-sacrificing love -- the probably-familiar agape -- while the older women are expected to teach the younger women to love their husbands "the special way that a woman loves a man", or as dh puts it "the way that only a woman can love a man". :001_smile:

 

:iagree: and I think I am going to start following you around to soak up your wisdom. :D

[kmacnchs]

(Long digression about bodies, and Christ and His church)

 

...children, obeying your parents in the Lord, etc.

...fathers, not exasperating your children, etc.

...slaves, obeying your earthly masters, etc.

...masters, treating your slaves, etc.

 

I don't know Greek, but that is what I have read. What I have read over and over and over is that in verse 22 there is no verb--it clearly gets its verb from verse 21. So 21 CANNOT be a wrap up of the prior verses only--it MUST be the header for verse 22 at least.

 

If you are saying that these verses say there is to be mutual submission, are you saying that Christ is supposed to submit to the church as the church submits to Him? In no way! The church is to submit to Christ just as a wife is to submit to her husband...pretty clear to me...

[Mrs Mungo]

Verse 21 goes with the verses above it. Verses 22-33 are talking to husbands and wives; verse 21 is talking to the church in general. Notice that husbands/wives are not addressed until verse 22. What's happening there is that in verses 1-21, Paul is talking to the church about the kind of life they are supposed to lead. In the church, the members are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then, he turns his attention to the husband/wife relationship. Kind of like, "speaking of submission...", and then he goes on to the husband/wife relationship. The wife is commanded to submit to her husband here and in other places in scripture as well, but NOWHERE in scripture is the husband commanded to submit to his wife. See I Peter 3, Colossians 3, and Titus 2. (Interestingly, the husband is commanded to love his wife, but the wife is not commanded to love her husband.) Mutual submission in the husband/wife relationship is not a Biblical concept.

 

There are many people with equal education and equal number of years pastor experience who would disagree with what I *think* you are saying here. This is such a bad form of communication for this sort of discussion but I don't think you can separate the husband/wife relationship from the Christian relationship. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ is a commandment that applies to everyone. Despite what some (not you) would claim, there is a lot of room for interpretation in these passages.

 

My current pastor had an interesting take on this-men are commanded to love their wives because that is the commandment they *needed* and is not necessarily their nature; women are commanded to submit because that is the commandment they needed that is not necessarily in their nature. Wait...I'm putting this badly and we have a writing class to go to. :tongue_smilie: I'll try to get back to this later.

 

But, let me speak back to Dawn having read some of this. Dawn, what would these people make out of the "Wife of Noble Character" passage in Proverbs 31?

 

10c A wife of noble character who can find?

She is worth far more than rubies.

11Her husband has full confidence in her

and lacks nothing of value.

12She brings him good, not harm,

all the days of her life.

13She selects wool and flax

and works with eager hands.

14She is like the merchant ships,

bringing her food from afar.

15She gets up while it is still dark;

she provides food for her family

and portions for her servant girls.

16She considers a field and buys it;

out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

17She sets about her work vigorously;

her arms are strong for her tasks.

18She sees that her trading is profitable,

and her lamp does not go out at night.

19In her hand she holds the distaff

and grasps the spindle with her fingers.

20She opens her arms to the poor

and extends her hands to the needy.

21When it snows, she has no fear for her household;

for all of them are clothed in scarlet.

22She makes coverings for her bed;

she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

23Her husband is respected at the city gate,

where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

24She makes linen garments and sells them,

and supplies the merchants with sashes.

25She is clothed with strength and dignity;

she can laugh at the days to come.

26She speaks with wisdom,

and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

27She watches over the affairs of her household

and does not eat the bread of idleness.

28Her children arise and call her blessed;

her husband also, and he praises her:

29“Many women do noble things,

but you surpass them all.â€

30Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;

but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.

31Give her the reward she has earned,

and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

 

 

This is not the description of a woman who is consulting her husband on every, little, piddling thing. She is making decisions for her household, big and small. She is making business decisions-trading, buying property. She's not a woman waiting for her husband to do these things for her.

[8circles]

My current pastor had an interesting take on this-men are commanded to love their wives because that is the commandment they *needed* and is not necessarily their nature; women are commanded to submit because that is the commandment they needed that is not necessarily in their nature.

 

This is what I've been taught in every church we've ever attended.

 

This thread is very eye-opening.

[TXMary2]

There are many people with equal education and equal number of years pastor experience who would disagree with what I *think* you are saying here. This is such a bad form of communication for this sort of discussion but I don't think you can separate the husband/wife relationship from the Christian relationship. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ is a commandment that applies to everyone. Despite what some (not you) would claim, there is a lot of room for interpretation in these passages.

 

My current pastor had an interesting take on this-men are commanded to love their wives because that is the commandment they *needed* and is not necessarily their nature; women are commanded to submit because that is the commandment they needed that is not necessarily in their nature. Wait...I'm putting this badly and we have a writing class to go to. :tongue_smilie: I'll try to get back to this later.

 

But, let me speak back to Dawn having read some of this. Dawn, what would these people make out of the "Wife of Noble Character" passage in Proverbs 31?

 

 

 

 

This is not the description of a woman who is consulting her husband on every, little, piddling thing. She is making decisions for her household, big and small. She is making business decisions-trading, buying property. She's not a woman waiting for her husband to do these things for her.

 

Very interesting, since Proverbs 31 is supposed to be God's "ideal" woman. I know I would drive my husband crazy if I consulted him about everything. He trusts my judgement to make the right decisions.

 

When I make decisions he isn't happy with I fall back on what a wise woman told me years ago.......It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. :D

[TXMomof4]

Let me preface my post by saying that dh (a pastor for over 30 years, with Master's degrees in Biblical Studies and Pastoral Ministries) and I (BA in Christianity and Master's in Education) have studied these scriptures in depth. We teach these scriptures each week in classes for couples who are referred to us because of problems in their relationships.

 

Verse 21 goes with the verses above it. Verses 22-33 are talking to husbands and wives; verse 21 is talking to the church in general. Notice that husbands/wives are not addressed until verse 22. What's happening there is that in verses 1-21, Paul is talking to the church about the kind of life they are supposed to lead. In the church, the members are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then, he turns his attention to the husband/wife relationship. Kind of like, "speaking of submission...", and then he goes on to the husband/wife relationship. The wife is commanded to submit to her husband here and in other places in scripture as well, but NOWHERE in scripture is the husband commanded to submit to his wife. See I Peter 3, Colossians 3, and Titus 2. (Interestingly, the husband is commanded to love his wife, but the wife is not commanded to love her husband.) Mutual submission in the husband/wife relationship is not a Biblical concept.

 

But before you start to think that I believe that women are somehow "less" than men, please read what I said in my previous post in this thread:

 

 

I have to disagree about the verses 'going together'. The command to submit to one another is in context of loving each other - the command to the church and to families. Paul didn't put in the little sub-titles. He wrote a letter to the church. If you read the whole passage and don't connect the submission to wives and husbands then in essence he is telling the church to submit to each other, but husbands don't need to have that same heart for their wives? That isn't a logical flow to the letter either.

 

Now, what does submission look like on either side? I would venture to guess my husband does as much submitting as I do. He is the head of our house, I honor and respect him, but I expect him to respect my contributions to the family as much as I respect his. He has a different job in our family than I do. However, our ultimate goal is the same and we are each doing our part *together* to accomplish that goal.

[Carol in Cal.]

If you are saying that these verses say there is to be mutual submission, are you saying that Christ is supposed to submit to the church as the church submits to Him? In no way! The church is to submit to Christ just as a wife is to submit to her husband...pretty clear to me...

 

I was debating EriksMom's contention that verse 21 wraps up the prior verses. That doesn't make any sense if verse 22 depends on verse 21 to even have a verb in it.

[Lovedtodeath]

There are many people with equal education and equal number of years pastor experience who would disagree with what I *think* you are saying here. This is such a bad form of communication for this sort of discussion but I don't think you can separate the husband/wife relationship from the Christian relationship. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ is a commandment that applies to everyone. Despite what some (not you) would claim, there is a lot of room for interpretation in these passages.

 

My current pastor had an interesting take on this-men are commanded to love their wives because that is the commandment they *needed* and is not necessarily their nature; women are commanded to submit because that is the commandment they needed that is not necessarily in their nature. Wait...I'm putting this badly and we have a writing class to go to. :tongue_smilie: I'll try to get back to this later.

 

But, let me speak back to Dawn having read some of this. Dawn, what would these people make out of the "Wife of Noble Character" passage in Proverbs 31?

 

 

 

 

This is not the description of a woman who is consulting her husband on every, little, piddling thing. She is making decisions for her household, big and small. She is making business decisions-trading, buying property. She's not a woman waiting for her husband to do these things for her.

:iagree::iagree:

[TXMomof4]

Just one more little thought - Christ is head of the church, we are to submit to Christ. Christ as the head of the church led by example. He didn't demand anything for himself, but "humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death" Phil. 2. The head of the church, the head of the family doesn't demand his way or lord his dominance over the body. He guides the body, but not for any vain or selfish reasons, right?

 

So much of this idea of submission gets skewed by the idea that it is a power trip for the man. Can you picture Jesus demanding tacos for dinner when someone had lovingly prepared him meatloaf? Can you imagine Jesus demanding that his laundry be done a certain way or telling a woman she has no business making decisions about her healthcare?

 

I think the idea of submission has been perverted and has such a negative connotation that it's virtually impossible to approach the idea without some bias.

[hsmom23]

This has been a very interesting thread for me as I am currently reading The Excellent Wife by Martha Peace and have really struggled through it. I have a few comments I would like to post on my understanding and experience, limited though it is.

First of all when ereks mom posted

 

"Verse 21 goes with the verses above it. Verses 22-33 are talking to husbands and wives; verse 21 is talking to the church in general. Notice that husbands/wives are not addressed until verse 22. What's happening there is that in verses 1-21, Paul is talking to the church about the kind of life they are supposed to lead. In the church, the members are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then, he turns his attention to the husband/wife relationship. Kind of like, "speaking of submission...", and then he goes on to the husband/wife relationship. The wife is commanded to submit to her husband here and in other places in scripture as well, but NOWHERE in scripture is the husband commanded to submit to his wife."

 

I think that she's saying its like paul said something like this "In the church the members to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. oh yeah and speaking of submission, the wives should also submit to their husbands..." I think she is saying that they are linked in their content, but not in their audience.

 

I really agree with and respect all of your postings eriksmom, i think that most of what you said is exactly how Paul meant it to be treated.

 

To the original poster, I think the answer to your question is sin. Sin causes us all to be selfish and if a man has taken and begun to use his God given position abusively, it is because he is selfish in nature. We have all done this, we all suffer from a sin nature. We as women have at times been selfish too, we are no different than this man that is theoretically spoken of. No sin is greater than another. I think that we as women are not called to ignore that but to lovingly show him where he is wrong to do this and then let it lie (not nag). We are called to continue to submit to him though. Our submission should be no more conditional than we expect our husbands love to be. If we make a mistake (or sin), even a very large one, we expect our husbands to forgive us and continue to love us. God calls us to this no matter what our spouse does does. And it is clearly stated that submission is required of a wife and that such submission can bring her husband to Christ or to a closer relationship with him. I do not believe that in any situation a wife should submit if she disobeys a direct command from God in doing so! And totally believe she should seperate from him temporarily if the situation is abusive.

 

This is a lot to try and get across in a post, but hope you all get my heart in this.

[Peek a Boo]

If you are saying that these verses say there is to be mutual submission, are you saying that Christ is supposed to submit to the church as the church submits to Him? In no way! The church is to submit to Christ just as a wife is to submit to her husband...pretty clear to me...

 

yes way!!

 

Christ did submit to the church--even to the point of death.

 

and I'd have to disagree w/ Martha Peace after looking at the grammatical structure of that passage in its entirety.

 

But I think a Christian wife can submit in whatever way works for her marriage. :D

[ereks mom]

...Christ is head of the church, we are to submit to Christ. Christ as the head of the church led by example. He didn't demand anything for himself, but "humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death" Phil. 2. The head of the church, the head of the family doesn't demand his way or lord his dominance over the body. He guides the body, but not for any vain or selfish reasons, right?

 

If you've been reading my posts in this thread, this is what I was saying-- or trying to say. :)

 

So much of this idea of submission gets skewed by the idea that it is a power trip for the man. Can you picture Jesus demanding tacos for dinner when someone had lovingly prepared him meatloaf? Can you imagine Jesus demanding that his laundry be done a certain way or telling a woman she has no business making decisions about her healthcare?

 

I think the idea of submission has been perverted and has such a negative connotation that it's virtually impossible to approach the idea without some bias.

 

:iagree:

[hsmom23]

I wanted to clarify that I didnt get that from Martha Peace, I was trying to clarify what I thought that ereks mom was trying to get across about the content and audience of verse 22 compared to the verses before that, i hadnt figured out how to quote her properly, sorry if that was confusing or if i misunderstood what she was trying to say. I brought up Martha Peace because the book is relevant to the discussion and is pretty conservative. At first I fought what the book said with everything in me, but I am learning it is fear of having to give up myself and fear of my needs and wants getting neglected that caused this and that she has a lot of sound biblical basis for her writing. God is working on my heart of selfishness right now big time! ;)

 

yes way!!

 

Christ did submit to the church--even to the point of death.

 

and I'd have to disagree w/ Martha Peace after looking at the grammatical structure of that passage in its entirety.

 

But I think a Christian wife can submit in whatever way works for her marriage. :D

[Peek a Boo]

I wanted to clarify that I didnt get that from Martha Peace, I was trying to clarify what I thought that ereks mom was trying to get across about the content and audience of verse 22 compared to the verses before that, i hadnt figured out how to quote her properly, sorry if that was confusing or if i misunderstood what she was trying to say.

 

aha-- gotcha!

 

i have not read Martha Peace, but i might have to read it and have a couple highlighters at the ready. ;)

[Nestof3]

Thanks, Mrs. Mungo for taking the time to include those verses. I think they would say that those things are all good for a woman, but that her husband should oversee it. The mom and her daughters do a lot of the things mentioned in this. I know that her husband values her in all of this. She made the comment once that he sets their schedule, and though this is hard because he doesn't really know how long it takes to do certain things, she knows she is honoring him by going along with it. I think things are better now that he is working from home. They own a family business.

 

But, let me speak back to Dawn having read some of this. Dawn, what would these people make out of the "Wife of Noble Character" passage in Proverbs 31?

 

 

 

 

This is not the description of a woman who is consulting her husband on every, little, piddling thing. She is making decisions for her household, big and small. She is making business decisions-trading, buying property. She's not a woman waiting for her husband to do these things for her.

[Nestof3]

Yes, I agree with you.

 

We watched Michael Pearl video once (or was it a book?) that said that if a woman is fed up with her husband watching porn (which MP is against), instead of telling him she is fed up with it and that she will not stand with it, she should get her lingerie on and dance seductively around him to pull him away from it.

 

I'm sorry, but if my husband chooses to enjoy the imtimate parts of another woman, the last thing I want is him touching me.

 

I believe he was quoting the fact that a woman should submit in all things without a word, that her husband would be won over by her demeanor.

 

 

Just one more little thought - Christ is head of the church, we are to submit to Christ. Christ as the head of the church led by example. He didn't demand anything for himself, but "humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death" Phil. 2. The head of the church, the head of the family doesn't demand his way or lord his dominance over the body. He guides the body, but not for any vain or selfish reasons, right?

 

So much of this idea of submission gets skewed by the idea that it is a power trip for the man. Can you picture Jesus demanding tacos for dinner when someone had lovingly prepared him meatloaf? Can you imagine Jesus demanding that his laundry be done a certain way or telling a woman she has no business making decisions about her healthcare?

 

I think the idea of submission has been perverted and has such a negative connotation that it's virtually impossible to approach the idea without some bias.

[OnTheBrink]

That is not the fault of submission. That is the fault of poor church leadership.

 

In our church, which preaches submission, he would have been out of the home until he was ready to repent and support his family. Meanwhile, the wife would have been supported and cared for by the church, and he would have been receiving counseling through the church.

 

We must attend similar churches. Mine would have, and has, done the same thing.

[OnTheBrink]

Just one more little thought - Christ is head of the church, we are to submit to Christ. Christ as the head of the church led by example. He didn't demand anything for himself, but "humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death" Phil. 2. The head of the church, the head of the family doesn't demand his way or lord his dominance over the body. He guides the body, but not for any vain or selfish reasons, right?

 

So much of this idea of submission gets skewed by the idea that it is a power trip for the man. Can you picture Jesus demanding tacos for dinner when someone had lovingly prepared him meatloaf? Can you imagine Jesus demanding that his laundry be done a certain way or telling a woman she has no business making decisions about her healthcare?

 

I think the idea of submission has been perverted and has such a negative connotation that it's virtually impossible to approach the idea without some bias.

 

Amen, amen and amen!

[Mrs Mungo]

Thanks, Mrs. Mungo for taking the time to include those verses. I think they would say that those things are all good for a woman, but that her husband should oversee it. The mom and her daughters do a lot of the things mentioned in this. I know that her husband values her in all of this. She made the comment once that he sets their schedule, and though this is hard because he doesn't really know how long it takes to do certain things, she knows she is honoring him by going along with it. I think things are better now that he is working from home. They own a family business.

 

Then, I would say that she and her husband are the ones who have chosen a path other than the one laid out in The Bible. That's fine, whatever works for them, but it's not Biblical, imo. And if it was me they were confronting, I would tell them that but I don't think I'm as nice of a person as you are. ;)