I will admit that I have never submitted to my husband...

[annandatje]

... proselytizing to you.

 

Inductive reasoning concludes that there is a direct mathematical relationship between submission threads and likelihood of proselytizing, which increases as thread length increases.

[Nakia]

Inductive reasoning concludes that there is a direct mathematical relationship between submission threads and likelihood of proselytizing, which increases as thread length increases.

 

:D But we were doing so good! I mean, we made it, like, 12 pages without any cross words being exchanged. That might be a record.

 

As the op, I take full responsibility. ;)

[Leonana]

Do you take Peter literally?

 

 

It depends. Sometimes it's a matter of interpretation.

 

However, I do not take all of the Bible literally.

 

As I've said, there should be discussion as to what submission means, and what spouses should do in different circumstances. While I think it's a grave error to not accept any part of the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God, I would rather hear comments like yours about Paul's letters upfront. A lot of people skip over that point, and it's difficult to have a conversation about the details when you're coming from such different places. So the difference really isn't so much about men and women, but what do you think of God's Word-- is it something we can pick and choose what we like from, or is it God's authoritative Word to mankind with no error or flaw?

 

I am a Christian and believe that the Bible records man's experiences with God. However, I do not think it is without error. I believe it is up to the Church to interpret it.

 

If it is without error, then it's ineffective as such. There are 30,000 different denominations with different interpretations.

 

Believe me, it's no picnic being a "fundamentalist" either. LOL Especially on this board!! :tongue_smilie:

 

LOL! I'm sure.

 

Genesis is not a problem when you consider it one of many creation stories documented by humans to explain the existence of mankind, the universe, the existence of evil\bad things and spiritual truth.

 

Spiritual truth does not have to be literal to me in order to be accurate, timeless, real, and meaningful.

 

Adam and Eve, as useful prototypes, reflect the thinking of ancient times. The spiritual truths of the Christian Bible transcend culture, dogma, and bias. "Picking and choosing" is not an issue when you have the Christian Bible in context of Truth, metaphorically offered and written by human hands.

 

I agree.

 

Just to be absolutely clear:

 

My reaction isn't because of a reaction to "submit". It is not because I assume an abusive, or even authoritarian husband "barking" orders or a passive, doormat wife. Explaining to me how "your" function of wifely submission is loving, kind, Godly, or respectful doesn't change things.

 

It's not a matter of not understanding about "biblical submission".

 

You won't find me throwing out red herring or straw man challenges to wife-only submission such as "what if he's abusive\alcoholic\name dysfunction.

 

I am against "wife only" submission theoretically, and doctrinally. I believe the wife-only submission model is inherently an inappropriate distribution of power and against the spirit of the law, and against God's design for human relationships.

 

Well said!

[Aelwydd]

I had no intention of arguing when I started this thread, but I find myself feeling defensive. I never said "I refuse to submit to my husband." I said it has NEVER been an issue and that our marriage does not work that way. I have judged no one whose marriage works differently except to say that a specific example up thread did not sound particularly healthy to me. Yet, those of us in marriages that don't operate with the husband as the ultimate head of the household and making all decisions have been accused of not believing the whole bible and not being the right kind of wife.

 

Personally, and this is just me, I think it speaks to wholeness and completeness of one's relationship, and the spiritual nature of it, when it does not depend upon one party imposing his or her will on the other, in order to reach a decision.

 

Perhaps it may not be pertinent to some, but my dh has done a lot of research into early church theology, especially with regards to the Orthodox Church. And one of the things he's shared with me, is that throughout Christian history, right up to today, the belief that there is a hierarchy in the Trinity is considered erroneous. That is to say, Jesus submitted himself when He became man, but when he returned to His Father's side, he was restored to his full glory, and that of equal status to Father and Holy Spirit. All "persons" are equal in glory, power, and together, created the cosmos.

 

It was Lucifer, in the beginning, who sought to exalt himself over others. When he failed, he went after humanity, and again, used the same tactic: exalt yourself, and be like God. The tragic truth is that Adam and Eve already were like God--they were made in his image. And like the Triune God in whose image they were made, they were One and equal.

 

We don't see the "headship" of man emerge until after the Fall. And then, it was spoken as a kind of sad prophecy, like God was explaining to Eve the full implications of her loss of status as Adam's equal. Because the Fall didn't just mean separation between God and Man; but man and woman. They lost their unity with each other, and then, and ONLY then, did authority suddenly become an issue.

 

But I believe Christ came as the Second Adam, and as the Perfect Adam, he restored the status of the daughters of Eve, when he restored fallen mankind through redemption. And that's when he began teaching submission to each other.

 

Christ's teachings are the ideal and the spiritual calling of every wedded man and woman. Paul's teachings are a concession to the reality of the times. Just because spiritually speaking, a new epoch had dawned on humanity, does not mean that humans, as a whole, recognized or registered the change. And redeemed Christians were still called to live in a fallen world, which included beliefs about the inequality of women. Those beliefs meant that women were still treated and considered less than men.

 

So, what should a fledgling church have done? Raised its arms in rebellion against society? Sent its women out to do the equivalent of bra burning on the streets of Rome (heh, now there's an image)?

 

No, because Paul and other apostles recognized that the outward conditions of society were not ready to recognize the inward spiritual reality of redeemed humanity. And that was the case for MANY issues, not just women's equality. That's why Peter and Paul taught that the ideal Christian was to show the Truth by submission to authority, even UNJUST authority, the way Jesus did. For the sake of orderliness and quietness, they called upon the women to obey their husbands (and in doing so, avoided bringing down the scorn and outright objection by patriarchal and misogynist groups, many of whom were Jewish).

 

But that concession was just that--a concession. In the same way Jesus' submission was a concession, but should in no way be taken to mean that Jesus is actually less than God--because He took a temporary reduction in rank, so-to-speak.

 

Likewise, I think it is the height of Pharisaicalism for church leaders and Christianity to call for Christian women to be in a subordinate position to men, as if that is still required for the peace of society (it's not), or that it is the ideal (that's heresy--the same as saying that Jesus is not equal to the Father or the Holy Spirit is heresy).

 

It is NOT the ideal, and it NOT reflective of a God who made us in "Their" (using the language of the Bible) image.

 

I apologize for this long-winded post--I just said all that to say this: if your marriage is such a partnership where submission to each other out of care and concern and charity, rather than out of rote obedience to a regulation that requires the subordination of one party for the sake of peace, then your marriage is based on a superior motive--LOVE.

 

Because you don't require someone to have the ultimate card of "I'm boss" to reach a consensus--filial love and respect between you ensures that such a conflict is alien, foreign, to your understanding of each other. That's how the Trinity works. That's how God works.

 

1 Cor. 13 tells us everything we need to know about love, how it operates, and what it looks like. And it looks like the Trinity. It looks like a Christian marriage--of equals.

[simka2]

Very late coming to this thread. I once believed and practice "wife-only" type submission. I will tell you that everytime I "submitted" under this type of power play it has ended horribly!!!!!

 

It is not something we practice in our marriage anymore. It is not something we will EVER do again.

[lovelaughs_times_three]

Personally, and this is just me, I think it speaks to wholeness and completeness of one's relationship, and the spiritual nature of it, when it does not depend upon one party imposing his or her will on the other, in order to reach a decision.

 

Perhaps it may not be pertinent to some, but my dh has done a lot of research into early church theology, especially with regards to the Orthodox Church. And one of the things he's shared with me, is that throughout Christian history, right up to today, the belief that there is a hierarchy in the Trinity is considered erroneous. That is to say, Jesus submitted himself when He became man, but when he returned to His Father's side, he was restored to his full glory, and that of equal status to Father and Holy Spirit. All "persons" are equal in glory, power, and together, created the cosmos.

 

It was Lucifer, in the beginning, who sought to exalt himself over others. When he failed, he went after humanity, and again, used the same tactic: exalt yourself, and be like God. The tragic truth is that Adam and Eve already were like God--they were made in his image. And like the Triune God in whose image they were made, they were One and equal.

 

We don't see the "headship" of man emerge until after the Fall. And then, it was spoken as a kind of sad prophecy, like God was explaining to Eve the full implications of her loss of status as Adam's equal. Because the Fall didn't just mean separation between God and Man; but man and woman. They lost their unity with each other, and then, and ONLY then, did authority suddenly become an issue.

 

But I believe Christ came as the Second Adam, and as the Perfect Adam, he restored the status of the daughters of Eve, when he restored fallen mankind through redemption. And that's when he began teaching submission to each other.

 

Christ's teachings are the ideal and the spiritual calling of every wedded man and woman. Paul's teachings are a concession to the reality of the times. Just because spiritually speaking, a new epoch had dawned on humanity, does not mean that humans, as a whole, recognized or registered the change. And redeemed Christians were still called to live in a fallen world, which included beliefs about the inequality of women. Those beliefs meant that women were still treated and considered less than men.

 

So, what should a fledgling church have done? Raised its arms in rebellion against society? Sent its women out to do the equivalent of bra burning on the streets of Rome (heh, now there's an image)?

 

No, because Paul and other apostles recognized that the outward conditions of society were not ready to recognize the inward spiritual reality of redeemed humanity. And that was the case for MANY issues, not just women's equality. That's why Peter and Paul taught that the ideal Christian was to show the Truth by submission to authority, even UNJUST authority, the way Jesus did. For the sake of orderliness and quietness, they called upon the women to obey their husbands (and in doing so, avoided bringing down the scorn and outright objection by patriarchal and misogynist groups, many of whom were Jewish).

 

But that concession was just that--a concession. In the same way Jesus' submission was a concession, but should in no way be taken to mean that Jesus is actually less than God--because He took a temporary reduction in rank, so-to-speak.

 

Likewise, I think it is the height of Pharisaicalism for church leaders and Christianity to call for Christian women to be in a subordinate position to men, as if that is still required for the peace of society (it's not), or that it is the ideal (that's heresy--the same as saying that Jesus is not equal to the Father or the Holy Spirit is heresy).

 

It is NOT the ideal, and it NOT reflective of a God who made us in "Their" (using the language of the Bible) image.

 

I apologize for this long-winded post--I just said all that to say this: if your marriage is such a partnership where submission to each other out of care and concern and charity, rather than out of rote obedience to a regulation that requires the subordination of one party for the sake of peace, then your marriage is based on a superior motive--LOVE.

 

Because you don't require someone to have the ultimate card of "I'm boss" to reach a consensus--filial love and respect between you ensures that such a conflict is alien, foreign, to your understanding of each other. That's how the Trinity works. That's how God works.

 

1 Cor. 13 tells us everything we need to know about love, how it operates, and what it looks like. And it looks like the Trinity. It looks like a Christian marriage--of equals.

 

:iagree: Rebekah, you're awesome! :D

[Little Nyssa]

I have to say I haven't read the rest of the thread... but here's my 2 cents.

 

(We are EO Christians BTW) I once asked DH what he thinks the wife's submission means. He said cheerfully "Well, it would be nice if you didn't criticize EVERYTHING I say." So I am working on that. That's nice & specific.

[KathyBC]

Since the passages containing "wives submit yourselves to your husbands", is philosophically contradictory to "For this reason a man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh" and "In Christ there is no male or female", as well as looking at the life of Christ and His elevated treatment of women in a patriarchial society, I have concluded that our interpretation from Greek to English or our understanding of how these verses are to be applied is erroneous.

 

A man cannot be "over" or have authority over someone he is to be "at one" with...someone who is to be his own flesh, 50% of him, 50% of the relationship. The two shall become one is very clear and the Aramaic is not subjective. The Greek is actually quite emphatic, "In Christ there is no male or female". The verbs and nouns used in that text are very straight forward. So, there must be something missing that we fallible humans don't get because if a gender based authority over another is given but yet in Christ there is no gender, we have a problem in application.

 

There are prophecies against Ancient Greece, Egypt, Ninevah, the Assyrian Empire, against specific rulers, etc. in the Bible. I recognize that those words are not directed to me personally, but to a specific point in time, to a specific situation, etc. I can still learn from these passages. As with all scriptures, God is very revealing about who He is and it enhances my understanding and relationship with Him when I read and study and grapple with those passages. But, He also gave me a brain for understanding and it is also clear that I am not in Ninevah, nor am I Nebudcanezzer, or Darius, or Pharoah so how I apply them in my life is very different. Since there appears to be a historical context surrounding many of Paul's instructions to married couples and yet the words of Christ and other Apostolic writers appear to be in conflict, then I must assume that we moderns don't get it and I wouldn't presume to attempt to teach as a tenant of faith or marriage, something that is clearly not fully understood and which also stands in clear opposition to other verses.

 

This is where the Holy Spirit needs to be allowed to rule. There are personal convictions and these are NOT hard and fast theologies. They are beliefs and paths God has brought us to in life to refine us, make us more like Him, to be making a new creation of us.

 

The picture of marriage given us in the Bible is so clear as a picture of unity, spiritual and physical oneness, of Christ to His Church...that subjugating one gender to another appears to contradict the clarity of the picture God has painted of us. So I think it is wonderful if wifely submission, however that is practiced, works well for a couple and brings honor and glory to God, but I also think that preaching it as a one-size-fits-all doctrine when there are more passages which promote a different view, is unwise and possibly inserting man/humankind into a marriage relationship in which the Holy Spirit is working differently towards unity. The focus is not on who has authority because any couple in right relationship with their Creator, is submitting BOTH to the Lordship of Jesus. Therefore, authority becomes a moot point and I think that the picture that Joanne paints of standing hand-in-hand facing God as ONE in Him, is the ultimate goal and clearly fulfills God's design for marriage that "the two shall become one flesh."

 

Faith - you may now commence firing sequence :D

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to post that. I love posts that help me articulate what I believe! This one is a keeper - I'm sure I'll be restating it at some future date. :D

[YLVD]

I have no problem with the word submission or even admitting I have at times submitted to my dh. My problem is when I hear others say its biblical for dh to be head of the household and for him to get final say. That's just not how it works here, not how it worked for my parents and not how my grandparents did things, either. There are times I submit and there are times dh submits - no one ever gets "final say". We work it out together. Dh just said he would actually hate to be told he now has final say.:tongue_smilie:

 

This is how I feel. I have no issue with submission..to eachother.

 

I submit to my partner and he does for me. But, just because he's a male does not mean that he gets authority over me or that I have to go along with his decisions. We work it out and decide based on a lot of factors.

 

SO would not be with me if I were to defer to him. Nothing else would get done either~!

[YLVD]

Hm. Well, I'm thinking of it in this situation:

 

"Honey, we should paint the house."

"Mmm... Okay."

"I like red."

"Really? Blech. Red is okay but I really like blue."

"Oh, I'm just in love with this red."

"Really red?"

 

Now in this situation obviously someone IS going to submit - give in. There are two completely opposite opinions. Either the first person will compromise, meaning no matter how much they LOVE red, they'll give in, or the person who feels less strongly (blue) will give in. You could debate it to death, but ultimately there will be a submission. Even a compromise will be a submit, but on the part of both parties. Does that make sense?

 

Truly, I think in a healthy marriage you don't see the submissive part as much because it isn't a "martyr" type thing. It's two healthy adults constantly looking out for the health and welfare (emotionally and physically) of one another. But as women, we DO tend more towards control/controlling behaviour - ever heard Dr. Laura :D and I think that we have a tendency to focus on nagging and/or manipulating our husbands to our will. I think it is a far healthier thing to die to self. What about issues where you (as the wife) have strong feelings? I should think that every submissive wife here with a healthy marriage/husband has had this... And the ability to appeal and TALK to your husband must give him pause. After all if you have a wife who is generally agreeable and capable and sweet and compassionate and she comes to you saying, "Honey, I love you, but truly, if you paint the house red, I will vomit," he would think twice would he not? :001_huh: Submission doesn't mean, "You are the master and I am your dog. Now I'll go sit in the corner." IMO, submission means, "I love you. I respect you. I love God. I will put your needs / wants before my own." And ideally, in every marriage, you would see the husband do the same. But ultimately I am responsible for MY accountability/actions/thoughts before God and I am NOT responsible for his or for nagging him into what I feel his role should be. Does that make sense?

 

Sure, we disagree at times. The person with the most knowledge or expertise makes the final decision.

 

It's funny but your description is pretty opposite in my relationship! lol

 

I'm not remotely nagging or any of that. If anything, I'm really blunt and hate any kind of nagging or control. In fact, my SO would probably like it if I were more controlling!

[Heather in Neverland]

So tonight I am going to the movies with my dh. I want to see a romantic comedy. He wants to see an action flick. One of us is going to have to give in to the other one. Or would it be better if we just don't go at all so we can say neither of us "submitted" to the other? :D

[twoforjoy]

I have no problem with the idea of submission. I've submitted to my husband's decisions, even when it hasn't been something I was thrilled about, many times. What I have a problem with is the idea that, in any given situation where husband and wife disagree and can't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement, it is always and only to be the wife who submits. My husband has submitted to my decisions, even ones he hasn't been thrilled about, many times. It's really a matter of who the decisions affects more, who is better equipped to make the decision (by virtue of their knowledge/experience, not gender), and who is more passionate about the issue at hand. I don't think we've ever had a situation where we were both equally affected by, equipped to make, and passionate about a given issue.

 

That said, I'm naturally a decision-maker, so my temptation is to make quick decisions without fully considering how they'll affect my DH. I really need to consciously pull back and resist the urge to make a decision immediately, because I just hate leaving things hanging. For example, the other day I got an e-mail offering me some teaching sections for the fall. My instinct was to immediately e-mail back saying I'd take both of them--after all, the school needed me, and I figured DH would want me to be earning some extra money. I had to stop myself and decide to wait until DH got home, and then sit down and discuss it with him, and then reply. After we talked about it, I realized that it really wasn't practical, with a baby coming in early August, for me to be out of the house two full mornings a week starting September 1st. It was more important to DH that we not have the added stress of that than that we had the extra money. He thought, though, that either my not teaching at all or teaching one class would be totally doable, and really didn't have much at stake in whichever decision I made between those.

 

So my instinct is to make quick decisions, always say yes, and take on more than I should. For me, it's really helpful to pull back and wait to make a decision until I've sat down and talked it through with my DH. I really, really resisted doing that for a long time, because it felt too much like asking his "permission" to do things, which as a grown woman I do not want or need, but more and more I realize that--especially since he is far more likely to see the reasons NOT to do something than the reasons to do them--he can give me a perspective on something that helps me make a better decision, and that I don't need to given an answer immediately to everything.

[Erica in PA]

Inductive reasoning concludes that there is a direct mathematical relationship between submission threads and likelihood of proselytizing, which increases as thread length increases.

 

 

Funny how differently I see this. I would explain what you're noticing as there is a direct mathematical relationship between submission threads and the likelikhood of actual biblical content being presented, which increases as more and more people post things related to, but contrary, to Scripture. It's also curious to me that people can disagree with certain biblical perspectives, using words like "misogynist" and "unhealthy," and that is encouraged and even celebrated, but when somone else says others "may be missing out" on something by a certain perspective, that is quickly condemned as "proselytizing" or "judging." It's amazing that people don't see that double standard, which exists so consistently and blatantly on this board.

[Marylou]

Funny how differently I see this. I would explain what you're noticing as there is a direct mathematical relationship between submission threads and the likelikhood of actual biblical content being presented, which increases as more and more people post things related to, but contrary, to Scripture. It's also curious to me that people can disagree with certain biblical perspectives, using words like "misogynist" and "unhealthy," and that is encouraged and even celebrated, but when somone else says others "may be missing out" on something by a certain perspective, that is quickly condemned as "proselytizing" or "judging." It's amazing that people don't see that double standard, which exists so consistently and blatantly on this board.

 

Yes. And of course we "judge" (aka form/express opinions). Isn't that what every OP wants?????? Why else would he/she make a public statement?

 

The sarcasm and accusations of "proselytizing" are so unnecessary in any thread.

 

I guess threads like this are just for cyber high fives, and if you can't give one you shouldn't enter. That's what I learned.

[Nakia]

Expressing an opinion is not the same thing as being judgmental.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Funny how differently I see this. I would explain what you're noticing as there is a direct mathematical relationship between submission threads and the likelikhood of actual biblical content being presented, which increases as more and more people post things related to, but contrary, to Scripture. It's also curious to me that people can disagree with certain biblical perspectives, using words like "misogynist" and "unhealthy," and that is encouraged and even celebrated, but when somone else says others "may be missing out" on something by a certain perspective, that is quickly condemned as "proselytizing" or "judging." It's amazing that people don't see that double standard, which exists so consistently and blatantly on this board.

 

 

And yet if those of us in equal partership relationships in which neither party gets the last word simply due to gender say,"I think you are missing out by not living your life the way I do" would we not get slammed for that? :confused:

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Expressing an opinion is not the same thing as being judgmental.

 

 

See, now THAT'S where you're wrong! :lol:

[Joanne]

And yet if those of us in equal partership relationships in which neither party gets the last word simply due to gender say,"I think you are missing out by not living your life the way I do" would we not get slammed for that? :confused:

 

I actually have expressed that I think wife-only submission is inherently unhealthy. That would be on a par with "missing out" type statements. :)

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I actually have expressed that I think wife-only submission is inherently unhealthy. That would be on a par with "missing out" type statements. :)

 

 

I have as well in other submission threads.

[LittleIzumi]

Personally, and this is just me, I think it speaks to wholeness and completeness of one's relationship, and the spiritual nature of it, when it does not depend upon one party imposing his or her will on the other, in order to reach a decision.

 

Perhaps it may not be pertinent to some, but my dh has done a lot of research into early church theology, especially with regards to the Orthodox Church. And one of the things he's shared with me, is that throughout Christian history, right up to today, the belief that there is a hierarchy in the Trinity is considered erroneous. That is to say, Jesus submitted himself when He became man, but when he returned to His Father's side, he was restored to his full glory, and that of equal status to Father and Holy Spirit. All "persons" are equal in glory, power, and together, created the cosmos.

 

It was Lucifer, in the beginning, who sought to exalt himself over others. When he failed, he went after humanity, and again, used the same tactic: exalt yourself, and be like God. The tragic truth is that Adam and Eve already were like God--they were made in his image. And like the Triune God in whose image they were made, they were One and equal.

 

We don't see the "headship" of man emerge until after the Fall. And then, it was spoken as a kind of sad prophecy, like God was explaining to Eve the full implications of her loss of status as Adam's equal. Because the Fall didn't just mean separation between God and Man; but man and woman. They lost their unity with each other, and then, and ONLY then, did authority suddenly become an issue.

 

But I believe Christ came as the Second Adam, and as the Perfect Adam, he restored the status of the daughters of Eve, when he restored fallen mankind through redemption. And that's when he began teaching submission to each other.

 

Christ's teachings are the ideal and the spiritual calling of every wedded man and woman. Paul's teachings are a concession to the reality of the times. Just because spiritually speaking, a new epoch had dawned on humanity, does not mean that humans, as a whole, recognized or registered the change. And redeemed Christians were still called to live in a fallen world, which included beliefs about the inequality of women. Those beliefs meant that women were still treated and considered less than men.

 

So, what should a fledgling church have done? Raised its arms in rebellion against society? Sent its women out to do the equivalent of bra burning on the streets of Rome (heh, now there's an image)?

 

No, because Paul and other apostles recognized that the outward conditions of society were not ready to recognize the inward spiritual reality of redeemed humanity. And that was the case for MANY issues, not just women's equality. That's why Peter and Paul taught that the ideal Christian was to show the Truth by submission to authority, even UNJUST authority, the way Jesus did. For the sake of orderliness and quietness, they called upon the women to obey their husbands (and in doing so, avoided bringing down the scorn and outright objection by patriarchal and misogynist groups, many of whom were Jewish).

 

But that concession was just that--a concession. In the same way Jesus' submission was a concession, but should in no way be taken to mean that Jesus is actually less than God--because He took a temporary reduction in rank, so-to-speak.

 

Likewise, I think it is the height of Pharisaicalism for church leaders and Christianity to call for Christian women to be in a subordinate position to men, as if that is still required for the peace of society (it's not), or that it is the ideal (that's heresy--the same as saying that Jesus is not equal to the Father or the Holy Spirit is heresy).

 

It is NOT the ideal, and it NOT reflective of a God who made us in "Their" (using the language of the Bible) image.

 

I apologize for this long-winded post--I just said all that to say this: if your marriage is such a partnership where submission to each other out of care and concern and charity, rather than out of rote obedience to a regulation that requires the subordination of one party for the sake of peace, then your marriage is based on a superior motive--LOVE.

 

Because you don't require someone to have the ultimate card of "I'm boss" to reach a consensus--filial love and respect between you ensures that such a conflict is alien, foreign, to your understanding of each other. That's how the Trinity works. That's how God works.

 

1 Cor. 13 tells us everything we need to know about love, how it operates, and what it looks like. And it looks like the Trinity. It looks like a Christian marriage--of equals.

 

I :wub: you. :D

 

So tonight I am going to the movies with my dh. I want to see a romantic comedy. He wants to see an action flick. One of us is going to have to give in to the other one. Or would it be better if we just don't go at all so we can say neither of us "submitted" to the other? :D

 

I like compromise better than submit. Or perhaps bribery will work? :tongue_smilie:

[texasmama]

Expressing an opinion is not the same thing as being judgmental.

 

I heart you for spelling judgmental correctly.:D

[Nakia]

I heart you for spelling judgmental correctly.:D

 

 

:lol:

[Nakia]

So tonight I am going to the movies with my dh. I want to see a romantic comedy. He wants to see an action flick. One of us is going to have to give in to the other one. Or would it be better if we just don't go at all so we can say neither of us "submitted" to the other? :D

 

 

For those type of situations, I promise my husband special favors for later, and then I get to watch whatever I want. That makes both of us :D.

[Rene']

Perhaps it may not be pertinent to some, but my dh has done a lot of research into early church theology, especially with regards to the Orthodox Church. And one of the things he's shared with me, is that throughout Christian history, right up to today, the belief that there is a hierarchy in the Trinity is considered erroneous. That is to say, Jesus submitted himself when He became man, but when he returned to His Father's side, he was restored to his full glory, and that of equal status to Father and Holy Spirit. All "persons" are equal in glory, power, and together, created the cosmos.

 

1 Cor 15 says to me that even in the end, when it's all said and done, Christ will "subject himself" (same Greek as submit/obedient) unto God.

 

1Co 15:23

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

 

1Co 15:24

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 

1Co 15:25

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

 

1Co 15:26

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

1Co 15:27

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

 

1Co 15:28

And when all things shall be subdued unto him,

then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him

, that God may be all in all.

However, your statement about Christ as a man on earth submitting himself to God is exactly why I see no contradiction between "no male or female in Christ" and "husband is head/wife should submit". "In Christ" - salvation, being part of the Bride - is open to all, there is no distinction. The context of Galatians 3 is salvation through Christ and not the law, and that we are all, through faith in Christ, Abraham's seed, whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female.

 

But here and now we have earthly family government. In Heaven we won't be married, we will be Christ's bride. But here, on this earth, God has a system of authority for the family. My husband is the head (authority, not source) of our family like Christ is the head of the church. I am to obey/submit to my husband, as the church obeys/submits to Christ.

 

 

It was Lucifer, in the beginning, who sought to exalt himself over others. When he failed, he went after humanity, and again, used the same tactic: exalt yourself, and be like God. The tragic truth is that Adam and Eve already were like God--they were made in his image. And like the Triune God in whose image they were made, they were One and equal.

 

We don't see the "headship" of man emerge until after the Fall. And then, it was spoken as a kind of sad prophecy, like God was explaining to Eve the full implications of her loss of status as Adam's equal. Because the Fall didn't just mean separation between God and Man; but man and woman. They lost their unity with each other, and then, and ONLY then, did authority suddenly become an issue.

 

I disagree. There are many indicators that from creation the husband would be the authority. First of all, Eve was created because "it's not good for man to be alone." - She was created out of Adam's need. God made her, not from her own pile of dust on the ground, but from Adam's own bone. God brought her to Adam, to present her to him. God did not name Eve - Adam did.

 

While we are equal in worth, even from the beginning there is an authority/submission structure in place between husbands and wives.

 

 

But I believe Christ came as the Second Adam, and as the Perfect Adam, he restored the status of the daughters of Eve, when he restored fallen mankind through redemption. And that's when he began teaching submission to each other.

 

All of the church is told to submit ourselves to each other. But the younger is specifically told to submit to the elder, the wife is specifically told to be obedient to her husband. The husband is never told specifically to be obedient to the wife.

 

Christ's teachings are the ideal and the spiritual calling of every wedded man and woman. Paul's teachings are a concession to the reality of the times. Just because spiritually speaking, a new epoch had dawned on humanity, does not mean that humans, as a whole, recognized or registered the change. And redeemed Christians were still called to live in a fallen world, which included beliefs about the inequality of women. Those beliefs meant that women were still treated and considered less than men.

 

Since I believe the bible is not just the Word of God, but the very words of God, I will have to disagree with you here. Paul was very clear when he was giving directions that were not directly from God.

 

Jesus Christ came revealing mysteries that had been kept secret from the foundation of the world. He said many radical things - as did Paul. I hardly think that they would have not only allowed but perpetuated the myth of wives submitting to their husbands just because it was a common belief of the times if that was not God's true will.

 

No, because Paul and other apostles recognized that the outward conditions of society were not ready to recognize the inward spiritual reality of redeemed humanity. And that was the case for MANY issues, not just women's equality. That's why Peter and Paul taught that the ideal Christian was to show the Truth by submission to authority, even UNJUST authority, the way Jesus did. For the sake of orderliness and quietness, they called upon the women to obey their husbands (and in doing so, avoided bringing down the scorn and outright objection by patriarchal and misogynist groups, many of whom were Jewish).

 

They had no problem speaking against following the Law, which brought down much scorn and outright objection by the Jews.

 

 

In the same way Jesus' submission was a concession, but should in no way be taken to mean that Jesus is actually less than God.

I totally agree - submitting to one's husband does not make the woman less than him.

 

 

Likewise, I think it is the height of Pharisaicalism for church leaders and Christianity to call for Christian women to be in a subordinate position to men, as if that is still required for the peace of society (it's not), or that it is the ideal (that's heresy--the same as saying that Jesus is not equal to the Father or the Holy Spirit is heresy).

 

Well, again, even when Christ was here he was not unequal to the Father - but he still subjected himself to the Father and said "Not my will, but thine be done."

Edited July 11, 2011 by Rene'

[Rene']

THIS.

 

Ephesians 5:22-24, KJV:

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

That submit is not there. I said that before. It's not. In the Greek, it's not there. It's a mistranslation. It actually says Wives unto your husbands. I really think they were smart enough to put in submit in there if it was meant to be.

 

Perhaps it is not in the Minority Text, but it is there in the Majority Text.

[Aelwydd]

1 Cor 15 says to me that even in the end' date=' when it's all said and done, Christ will "subject himself" (same Greek as submit/obedient) unto God.[/quote']

 

The problem with your interpretation of this and other scriptures is, that no Church, whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, ever named Christ as anything other but co-equal and God, Himself. Not until modern times has this been disputed. That verse, then, has other implications than what you, yourself, assign to it.

 

There are many verses through out the NT that speak of how Christ subjected himself--while on Earth. And then go on to speak of how Christ has been exalted, and already sits on the right hand of the Father. To understand the meaning of that phrase you have to understand the Hebrew context of it--to the Jewish mind, the "right hand" means to be fully empowered of the Father. As this Trinitarian commentator explains:

 

 

The term at

the right hand of God

points to his exalted position he now is active on. There is numerous things that need to be considered to understand this phrase. The phrase right hand is a metaphor, God exercises his

authority

by

his right hand.

 

 

The Bible is full of metaphors, and one of them is how Christ acts as the personification of God's authority, each time we read about him as being seated at the right hand of the Father. This is a necessary function of his office so long as there is conflict between God and creation. Why? Because conflict is what necessitates some sort of power to decide the outcome. That power is Christ.

 

But, what happens when the end of time is accomplished, and judgment is finished, and all that is to come, has been fulfilled? Then, all of the cosmos returns to God, and Christ "subjects" himself, so that God is all.

 

So, either you believe that Christ is not completely God, and must submit in order to eliminate the parts of him that are "not-God," or you believe He is fully God, and it is a function that He subsumes. I believe the latter; because once creation and God have become completely one again, and perfect peace, then the need to exercise authority at all becomes moot. Each piece of the puzzle is in perfect harmony with all other pieces. Christ, the Son, acting as the "right hand" lays down that authority, in the sense that it is superfluous, because God no longer requires that function anymore. God has answered all questions to His nature, and Creation is ready to rejoin with Him.

 

But here and now we have earthly family government. In Heaven we won't be married, we will be Christ's bride. But here, on this earth, God has a system of authority for the family. My husband is the head (authority, not source) of our family like Christ is the head of the church. I am to obey/submit to my husband, as the church obeys/submits to Christ.[/Quote]Certainly, that is scriptural, in the same way the Law is scriptural. Martha and Mary both served the Lord, and neither was "wrong" for the way that they chose to serve. But Christ told Martha that Mary had chosen the better way--and that way is to serve through communion (and oneness) with God, rather than through legalistic and outwardly ways.

 

I disagree. There are many indicators that from creation the husband would be the authority. First of all, Eve was created because "it's not good for man to be alone." - She was created out of Adam's need. God made her, not from her own pile of dust on the ground, but from Adam's own bone. God brought her to Adam, to present her to him. God did not name Eve - Adam did. [/Quote]Eve was not created after Adam. She was made together WITH Adam, as the Scripture testifies, "Male and female, he made them." Adam was never without Eve.

 

If anything, God's separation of Eve from Adam speaks against the "headship" argument. Because, if it was merely enough for Adam to have Eve as a submissive part of himself, then she never need have taken her own physical form, nor given her own consciousness and her own mind.

 

God pulled her out of Adam from his rib--not his head, and not his feet. But from his side--as an equal. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal.

 

While we are equal in worth, even from the beginning there is an authority/submission structure in place between husbands and wives.[/Quote] From the Fall, there is an authority/submission structure. Again, the issue of imposed submission never rears its head until the Serpent appears. In the same way Lucifer tempted and ensnared Adam (through his Eve) by using the desire for power and authority as bait, he tried again with the Last Adam in the wilderness.

 

He promised that Christ would rule all the cities of the world, if only he would submit himself to Lucifer. And in the Pharisees, whom Christ, Himself, called "children of Satan," we see them numerous times trying to condemn Christ because he wouldn't "submit" himself to this, or that regulation, or humble himself before their authority.

 

It is disharmony and conflict that breeds power struggles, and that is why when there is perfect peace, there is no power struggle. Amongst those who are equal, in love, the call for one to be lifted up and the other abased is as pointless, as much as it is a defilement of the relationship. That's why Christ will subject himself, as right hand, at the end of things. Because in the end, such authority not necessary.

 

 

All of the church is told to submit ourselves to each other. But the younger is specifically told to submit to the elder, the wife is specifically told to be obedient to her husband. The husband is never told specifically to be obedient to the wife.[/Quote]Yet, Christ called all of us to submit to each other. And since Paul told the husbands to lay their lives down, as Christ laid his life down (IN SUBMISSION), that is the ultimate surrendering of power. You can't get much more submissive than dead in the grave.

 

Furthermore, Paul's meanings are not always "explicit" to the degree you seem to require. Much of God's wisdom is not laid out like that, and I think it is a rather like trying to express the multidimensional nature of God through a linear equation, to think that every lesson God has for us, is clearly and simply laid out for us, in such elementary fashion.

 

Since I believe the bible is not just the Word of God, but the very words of God, I will have to disagree with you here. Paul was very clear when he was giving directions that were not directly from God. [/Quote]Yet, everything Paul taught the Christians of his time is not written down. He also said he preferred teaching them in person, to writing them, because in person, he could be so much more clear. We only have a record of what he said to the churches when he was not present with them. We don't have a record of the surely countless things he taught and said while actually present with the churches.

 

Because Christ is the ultimate example, and because in all his ministry, he never once made an appeal to the submission of women to men, but only called us all to submit to each other, I'm inclined to interpret Paul via Christ's teachings, rather than via the latter. Christ is the model; Paul is merely tasked with growing and protecting His Church. And to do so, he made concessions to the times, by asking Christians to accept degradations and sometimes unjust punishments, in order to avoid besmirking Christ's name.

 

Jesus Christ came revealing mysteries that had been kept secret from the foundation of the world. He said many radical things - as did Paul. I hardly think that they would have not only allowed but perpetuated the myth of wives submitting to their husbands just because it was a common belief of the times if that was not God's true will. [/Quote]Paul, as Peter wrote, had many hard things to teach. It's not so simple as "It's God's will for wives to be equal." It's God's will for all to be reconciled to Him, and sometimes, that goal has required individual and corporate sacrifices since the beginning of time.

 

Both Christ and Paul actually make the mind of God clear--to those who are willing to see it. They give insights throughout the NT, such as "neither male nor female," and "submit to each other," and "lay down your lives for your wives as Christ did for the Church."

 

Those truths are only possible in a paradigm that rests on the mutual love and mutual submission of both sexes, and in all believers.

 

 

 

I totally agree - being under the authority of a husband does not make the woman less than him.[/Quote] It does not make her less than him; it only does injustice to her, as a restored, redeemed daughter of Eve. Christ's submission was not eternal, nor was it ever meant to be. I think that is the reason why Christ was so gentle with women when he was here; he, more than any other man, was uniquely situated to understand the loss of position that Woman had suffered, due to the Fall.

 

I think that's also why it was so important for it to be women who first learned of his resurrection. As He was being raised back up, so was Woman being restored to Her former glory. The parallels are striking.

 

 

Well, again, even when Christ was here he was not unequal to the Father - but he still subjected himself to the Father and said "Not my will, but thine be done."[/Quote]Yes, when he was here, he subjected himself. But then, he died, rose to life, and was restored to his former glory. And each of us who have been crucified, buried, and risen again with him, are likewise restored to our full communion with Him--and with each other.

 

And there will be no more tears, for the former things are passed away.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

:iagree: Rebekah, you're awesome! :D

 

Ditto the sentiment!! :)

[8circles]

The problem with your interpretation of this and other scriptures is, that no Church, whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, ever named Christ as anything other but co-equal and God, Himself. Not until modern times has this been disputed. That verse, then, has other implications than what you, yourself, assign to it.

 

There are many verses through out the NT that speak of how Christ subjected himself--while on Earth. And then go on to speak of how Christ has been exalted, and already sits on the right hand of the Father. To understand the meaning of that phrase you have to understand the Hebrew context of it--to the Jewish mind, the "right hand" means to be fully empowered of the Father. As this Trinitarian commentator explains:

 

 

The term at

the right hand of God

points to his exalted position he now is active on. There is numerous things that need to be considered to understand this phrase. The phrase right hand is a metaphor, God exercises his

authority

by

his right hand.

 

 

The Bible is full of metaphors, and one of them is how Christ acts as the personification of God's authority, each time we read about him as being seated at the right hand of the Father. This is a necessary function of his office so long as there is conflict between God and creation. Why? Because conflict is what necessitates some sort of power to decide the outcome. That power is Christ.

 

But, what happens when the end of time is accomplished, and judgment is finished, and all that is to come, has been fulfilled? Then, all of the cosmos returns to God, and Christ "subjects" himself, so that God is all.

 

So, either you believe that Christ is not completely God, and must submit in order to eliminate the parts of him that are "not-God," or you believe He is fully God, and it is a function that He subsumes. I believe the latter; because once creation and God have become completely one again, and perfect peace, then the need to exercise authority at all becomes moot. Each piece of the puzzle is in perfect harmony with all other pieces. Christ, the Son, acting as the "right hand" lays down that authority, in the sense that it is superfluous, because God no longer requires that function anymore. God has answered all questions to His nature, and Creation is ready to rejoin with Him.

 

Certainly, that is scriptural, in the same way the Law is scriptural. Martha and Mary both served the Lord, and neither was "wrong" for the way that they chose to serve. But Christ told Martha that Mary had chosen the better way--and that way is to serve through communion (and oneness) with God, rather than through legalistic and outwardly ways.

 

Eve was not created after Adam. She was made together WITH Adam, as the Scripture testifies, "Male and female, he made them." Adam was never without Eve.

 

If anything, God's separation of Eve from Adam speaks against the "headship" argument. Because, if it was merely enough for Adam to have Eve as a submissive part of himself, then she never need have taken her own physical form, nor given her own consciousness and her own mind.

 

God pulled her out of Adam from his rib--not his head, and not his feet. But from his side--as an equal. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal.

 

From the Fall, there is an authority/submission structure. Again, the issue of imposed submission never rears its head until the Serpent appears. In the same way Lucifer tempted and ensnared Adam (through his Eve) by using the desire for power and authority as bait, he tried again with the Last Adam in the wilderness.

 

He promised that Christ would rule all the cities of the world, if only he would submit himself to Lucifer. And in the Pharisees, whom Christ, Himself, called "children of Satan," we see them numerous times trying to condemn Christ because he wouldn't "submit" himself to this, or that regulation, or humble himself before their authority.

 

It is disharmony and conflict that breeds power struggles, and that is why when there is perfect peace, there is no power struggle. Amongst those who are equal, in love, the call for one to be lifted up and the other abased is as pointless, as much as it is a defilement of the relationship. That's why Christ will subject himself, as right hand, at the end of things. Because in the end, such authority not necessary.

 

 

Yet, Christ called all of us to submit to each other. And since Paul told the husbands to lay their lives down, as Christ laid his life down (IN SUBMISSION), that is the ultimate surrendering of power. You can't get much more submissive than dead in the grave.

 

Furthermore, Paul's meanings are not always "explicit" to the degree you seem to require. Much of God's wisdom is not laid out like that, and I think it is a rather like trying to express the multidimensional nature of God through a linear equation, to think that every lesson God has for us, is clearly and simply laid out for us, in such elementary fashion.

 

Yet, everything Paul taught the Christians of his time is not written down. He also said he preferred teaching them in person, to writing them, because in person, he could be so much more clear. We only have a record of what he said to the churches when he was not present with them. We don't have a record of the surely countless things he taught and said while actually present with the churches.

 

Because Christ is the ultimate example, and because in all his ministry, he never once made an appeal to the submission of women to men, but only called us all to submit to each other, I'm inclined to interpret Paul via Christ's teachings, rather than via the latter. Christ is the model; Paul is merely tasked with growing and protecting His Church. And to do so, he made concessions to the times, by asking Christians to accept degradations and sometimes unjust punishments, in order to avoid besmirking Christ's name.

 

Paul, as Peter wrote, had many hard things to teach. It's not so simple as "It's God's will for wives to be equal." It's God's will for all to be reconciled to Him, and sometimes, that goal has required individual and corporate sacrifices since the beginning of time.

 

Both Christ and Paul actually make the mind of God clear--to those who are willing to see it. They give insights throughout the NT, such as "neither male nor female," and "submit to each other," and "lay down your lives for your wives as Christ did for the Church."

 

Those truths are only possible in a paradigm that rests on the mutual love and mutual submission of both sexes, and in all believers.

 

 

It does not make her less than him; it only does injustice to her, as a restored, redeemed daughter of Eve. Christ's submission was not eternal, nor was it ever meant to be. I think that is the reason why Christ was so gentle with women when he was here; he, more than any other man, was uniquely situated to understand the loss of position that Woman had suffered, due to the Fall.

 

I think that's also why it was so important for it to be women who first learned of his resurrection. As He was being raised back up, so was Woman being restored to Her former glory. The parallels are striking.

 

 

Yes, when he was here, he subjected himself. But then, he died, rose to life, and was restored to his former glory. And each of us who have been crucified, buried, and risen again with him, are likewise restored to our full communion with Him--and with each other.

 

And there will be no more tears, for the former things are passed away.

 

Bless you for taking the time to explain this all. I never have the time to even *try to be so detailed. Thank you.

[justamouse]

Bless you for taking the time to explain this all. I never have the time to even *try to be so detailed. Thank you.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

that was incredibly awesome.

 

I think I'm printing that one out...

[lovelaughs_times_three]

You can't get much more submissive than dead in the grave.

 

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Still reading through all of this, but this made me laugh! :D

[Mrs Mungo]

So tonight I am going to the movies with my dh. I want to see a romantic comedy. He wants to see an action flick. One of us is going to have to give in to the other one. Or would it be better if we just don't go at all so we can say neither of us "submitted" to the other? :D

 

We take turns. So, we saw Green Lantern, next we'll see Larry Crowne. That's submitting to each other. I go see Green Lantern with him, he goes to see Larry Crowne with me.

[lovelaughs_times_three]

It does not make her less than him; it only does injustice to her, as a restored, redeemed daughter of Eve. Christ's submission was not eternal, nor was it ever meant to be. I think that is the reason why Christ was so gentle with women when he was here; he, more than any other man, was uniquely situated to understand the loss of position that Woman had suffered, due to the Fall.

 

 

Beautiful!

[Veritaserum]

Bless you for taking the time to explain this all. I never have the time to even *try to be so detailed. Thank you.

 

:iagree: :hurray: for Rebekah! :)

[6packofun]

That submit is not there. I said that before. It's not. In the Greek, it's not there. It's a mistranslation. It actually says Wives unto your husbands. I really think they were smart enough to put in submit in there if it was meant to be.

 

They didn't need to put it in there because v. 22 is a continuation of v.21 where it says to be subject to or to place yourself under one another in the fear of Christ. Then it continues the thought/idea of subjecting oneself in the verse about the wife. Similarly, when speaking, one doesn't need to say, "Subject yourself to one another, subject yourself to your husband, subject yourself to Christ, subject yourself to..." It's understood because it's all said/read *together* and makes sense.

 

And it is there in v. 24, correct?

[6packofun]

But I think what is important is which examples are given in the Bible, held up for us to see, and shown as desirable or not.

 

Just one example: Hannah decides that since God gave her Samuel after praying for him, she's going to dedicate him to the Lord and take him to go live with Eli. She doesn't ASK her dh, "Hey, do you mind if I take *OUR son* to go live somewhere else for the rest of his life after he turns just three?", she just tells him what's going to happen because it's something between her and the Lord, period. This is a great example of how a wife can have her own relationship with God (of course), and make decisions based on that ALONE.

[Heather in Neverland]

We take turns. So, we saw Green Lantern, next we'll see Larry Crowne. That's submitting to each other. I go see Green Lantern with him, he goes to see Larry Crowne with me.

 

That is how we typically handle it as well but i didn't want to be accused of "submitting". :lol:

[Rene']

The problem with your interpretation of this and other scriptures is, that no Church, whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, ever named Christ as anything other but co-equal and God, Himself.

Let me state very firmly that I believe Jesus was, is, and always will be God. You accuse me of denying Christ's deity while at the same time admitting that being in submission to the Father did not take away or lessen His deity. ???

 

You even say the same thing I did:

Then, all of the cosmos returns to God, and Christ "subjects" himself, so that God is all.

Do you understand what "subject" means? You put it in quotes as if here it means something different than the way it's used throughout the rest of the New Testament.

 

The Bible is full of metaphors, and one of them is how Christ acts as the personification of God's authority, each time we read about him as being seated at the right hand of the Father. This is a necessary function of his office so long as there is conflict between God and creation. Why? Because conflict is what necessitates some sort of power to decide the outcome.

Was there/has there every been conflict between God and Christ? Did they disagree, and so Christ had to be made "beneath" the Father so that the Father could have the last word?

 

The term at the right hand of God points to his exalted position he now is active on. There is numerous things that need to be considered to understand this phrase. The phrase right hand is a metaphor, God exercises his authority by his right hand.

 

This is a Oneness teaching, which I reject. The bible is clear that Jesus sits ON/AT the right hand of the Father. While being stoned Stephen looks up and sees Jesus standing on the right hand of God. In Revelation the Lamb (Christ) takes the book out of the Father's right hand. Jesus sits on the right hand making intercession for us, He is our advocate with the Father.

 

(Mark 16:19)

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and

sat

on the right hand of God

.

 

 

 

(Acts 7:56)

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and

the Son of man

standing

on the right hand of God.

 

 

 

(Romans 8:34)

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again,

who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us

.

So, either you believe that Christ is not completely God, and must submit in order to eliminate the parts of him that are "not-God," or you believe He is fully God, and it is a function that He subsumes.

Again, if submitting means he cannot be completely God, then Jesus could not have claimed to be God, to be one with the Father, while on earth. Did Jesus not submit to the Father's will while in Heaven, before becoming flesh, in the plan to save man?

 

Certainly, that is scriptural, in the same way the Law is scriptural. Martha and Mary both served the Lord, and neither was "wrong" for the way that they chose to serve. But Christ told Martha that Mary had chosen the better way--and that way is to serve through communion (and oneness) with God, rather than through legalistic and outwardly ways.

Mary and Martha don't apply to the instructions for marriage in the bible.

[Rene']

Eve was not created after Adam. She was made together WITH Adam, as the Scripture testifies, "Male and female, he made them." Adam was never without Eve.

The Bible says otherwise. God formed Adam and breathed into him, making him alive and awake. God makes a Garden and places Adam there. God says "It is not good for man to be alone." and brings to Adam all the animals for Adam to name. During this process it becomes clear that there is no helper found for Adam. So God then puts him to sleep and takes out a rib to make Eve.

 

During this time that Adam was awake and naming animals, he was without Eve and was alone. Now if you want to say that Eve was present in his body, and was therefore with him, that's fine. But God makes the point that he is alone, without a suitable helper, and God makes him one.

 

If anything, God's separation of Eve from Adam speaks against the "headship" argument.

 

God pulled her out of Adam from his rib--not his head, and not his feet. But from his side--as an equal. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal.

The bible is clear that man is the head of the home, the head of the woman.

 

(Eph 5:23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 

(1Co 11:3) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

 

(1Co 11:7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (This one speaks to the creation of the woman)

 

From the Fall, there is an authority/submission structure. Again, the issue of imposed submission never rears its head until the Serpent appears.

As I have posted, I believe the scriptures show otherwise.

 

It is disharmony and conflict that breeds power struggles, and that is why when there is perfect peace, there is no power struggle.

Are you saying there was a power struggle and conflict between the Father and the Son?

 

Amongst those who are equal, in love, the call for one to be lifted up and the other abased is as pointless, as much as it is a defilement of the relationship.

Headship and submission in marriage is not about one being lifted up and the other being abased. It if was then the same would apply to the Father and the Son - at any point in history when the Son was in submission to the Father - and the same would apply to Christ and the Bride.

 

Yet, Christ called all of us to submit to each other. And since Paul told the husbands to lay their lives down, as Christ laid his life down (IN SUBMISSION), that is the ultimate surrendering of power. You can't get much more submissive than dead in the grave.

You cannot but admit that when the the topic of submission in marriage is raised, it is the wife who is told to submit and be obedient. A husband is never given direct instructions to be subject to his wife. I know that many who don't believe in wifely submission say that verse 21 in Eph 5 is speaking to specifically to husbands and wives. I see it as Paul's instructions to the Church in general - it's a continuation of what he has been saying from verse 18 about being filled with the Spirit.

 

He says "be filled with the Spirit":

 

 

• Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,

• singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

• Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

• Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

 

Then the focus shifts to marriage in verse 22.

 

I am not trying to diminish the husbands role. But he is never told to submit or be obedient to his wife. The instructions to submit to one another are to the church in general. If the verses directing a wife to submit were not important, or were overturned by the verses for all Christians to submit to one another, then they would not be there at all.

 

Furthermore, Paul's meanings are not always "explicit" to the degree you seem to require. Much of God's wisdom is not laid out like that, and I think it is a rather like trying to express the multidimensional nature of God through a linear equation, to think that every lesson God has for us, is clearly and simply laid out for us, in such elementary fashion.

Except when it is laid out in such a clear and elementary fashion.

 

Yet, everything Paul taught the Christians of his time is not written down. He also said he preferred teaching them in person, to writing them, because in person, he could be so much more clear. We only have a record of what he said to the churches when he was not present with them. We don't have a record of the surely countless things he taught and said while actually present with the churches.

And I will believe and agree with the letters we do have, believing that the Word of God that I hold in my hand contains exactly what God wants it to contain.

 

Because Christ is the ultimate example, and because in all his ministry, he never once made an appeal to the submission of women to men, but only called us all to submit to each other, I'm inclined to interpret Paul via Christ's teachings, rather than via the latter.

Jesus hand-picked his 12 apostles. Why did he not chose 6 women and 6 men? Why no women at all? Nothing Paul taught is in conflict with anything Jesus said or did in regards to women and marriage.

 

Christ is the model; Paul is merely tasked with growing and protecting His Church. And to do so, he made concessions to the times, by asking Christians to accept degradations and sometimes unjust punishments, in order to avoid besmirking Christ's name.

Paul wrote what he learned from Christ. There is a difference between telling a believer to turn the other cheek, and perpetuating a lie about women. I cannot believe that Paul, being inspired to write by the Holy Spirit, would lie about such things regarding women.

 

Both Christ and Paul actually make the mind of God clear--to those who are willing to see it. They give insights throughout the NT, such as "neither male nor female," and "submit to each other," and "lay down your lives for your wives as Christ did for the Church."

To believe as you do, though, I would have to throw out other verses, and I'm not willing to do that. I believe them all, and see how they do not contradict each other.

 

It does not make her less than him; it only does injustice to her, as a restored, redeemed daughter of Eve.

Christian women are told that we are the daughters of Sarah, who obeyed Abraham. We are never told that we are the restored daughters of Eve. Adam is also never mentioned as being restored. In Adam all die. In Eve all die. In Christ, being Abraham's seed and the daughters of Sarah, we live. Edited July 12, 2011 by Rene'

[Mrs Mungo]

(Complete tangent: And I am continuously baffled by the use of the word 'legalistic' as a pejorative on some threads.... though since y'all don't seem to have a clear Law, I can see how it could get weird having people pick out certain things and *make* them laws, but passion for following *G-d's* Laws with precision and care... I can't see how that could be a *bad* thing... anyway....)

 

Legalistic has a different implication that is not so literal. It doesn't mean you have a passion for following the law. It implies that you over-emphasize how and when *other people* should be following the scripture based upon your interpretation.

 

For examples, look at the times the Pharisees (sorry, I don't have a better term here, although I am aware of their scholarship) chose to chide Jesus for "working" on the Sabbath. It is implied that they are wrong for following the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law.

[simka2]

Uhmm....

 

Sarah, of whom G-d said to Avraham, whatever she says, obey her?

 

(Bereishis (Genesis) 21: 12 : "Vayomer Hashem el Avraham... kol asher tomaer elecha Sarah, shma bekolha"

"And G-d said to Avraham... all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice"

 

The idiom 'listen to the voice" = obey.

 

 

...I am making no assertions about theological implications for y'all, but Sarah seems the *oddest* example I have encountered for a support text for this particular view of marriage.

 

 

I love your posts!!! ;) You and Ester Maria have made me reconsider much of what I "assumed" about Judaism. I wish I understood more about what you (general you) believe.

 

Thanks for butting in! :D

[texasmama]

Legalistic has a different implication that is not so literal. It doesn't mean you have a passion for following the law. It implies that you over-emphasize how and when *other people* should be following the scripture based upon your interpretation.

 

For examples, look at the times the Pharisees (sorry, I don't have a better term here, although I am aware of their scholarship) chose to chide Jesus for "working" on the Sabbath. It is implied that they are wrong for following the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law.

 

:iagree: "Legalism" among Protestant Christian denominations (of which I have always been a part) has a negative connotation because it relates to man imposing regulations/judgment on other men. ("Man" meaning people in general, not only males.) IME, some Protestant denominations are rife with this, and I have walked away from two of them. I cannot speak for Catholicism or Judaism, as my church experiences are limited to Protestantism. The church itself will sometimes preach against legalism out of one side of its mouth and practice it out of the other side.

[Aelwydd]

Now if you want to say that Eve was present in his body' date=' and was therefore with him, that's fine. But God makes the point that he is alone, without a suitable helper, and God makes him one.[/quote']

 

That is exactly my point. God did not make Eve from a separate pile of dust. He took her from Adam. She was already pre-formed, and known of God, the same as David when he was still in his mother's womb.

 

That Adam did not "know" her yet does not change this fact: Eve was already present. Christ did not say, "He made man, and then later, made female." He quoted Scripture, as it says, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

 

When Man was created, he was not yet separate from his female. But, once he was, he recognized her, because she had already been part of him. Which is why he called her Woman, being selfsame. She was not part of a later, separate creation. She is the fulfillment and completion of the creation of Man.

 

Therefore, Eve was created in Adam, in God's image, and after Adam realized he was not fully complete (because She had not emerged yet), then she was drawn from his side. Her emergence satisfied Adam's longing for a companion (not an inferior subordinate) equal and the same to himself, not a creature created from a different line. Because she was part of him, she was created for the same reasons he had been--to reflect the image of God.

 

And again, as I stated before, as she DID exist as part of Man, were it the intention of God to make Eve subordinate, then He need never have drawn her from his side. She would have remained hidden, unseen, protected inside of Adam, a part of his flesh and spirit, and lacking her own consciousness and intellect. To give her her own form was to give her her own power.

 

The bible is clear that man is the head of the home, the head of the woman.

 

[/Quote]I have already explained the purpose of Paul's writings in these and other locations. Was Eve required to cover her head in the Garden? Or any part of herself? No. What changed? The Fall.

 

Was authority/submission required in the Garden? No. What changed? The Fall.

 

Was Christ's submission on Earth a requirement of his position in the Trinity? No. The Trinity was and is coequal. What required his submission? The Fall.

 

Paul is a master of double-meaning. He says on one hand, Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands. And then in the next breath, tells husbands to "lay down their lives" as Christ laid his life for the Church. To give up one's very life force is the ultimate sublimation of one's own desires, needs, and power for another.

 

Paul understood that the need for the exercise of authority and submission is inextricably tied to the Fall of mankind. His teachings on this are not simple, because it is not a concept that is well-understood by mankind, which has been rife since the beginning, with struggles for power and authority.

 

Furthermore, Christ spoke of submission as a universal requirement of believers, not as something one sex owed another. When He spoke about marriage, He spoke about the mutual care and fidelity owed by each party to the other. No difference. He did not say, "To aid in avoiding being divorced, wives need also submit themselves to their husbands to..."

 

And He appealed to the Creation of mankind as well!

 

Are you saying there was a power struggle and conflict between the Father and the Son?[/Quote]No. The conflict is being God and creation. Once the end of all things has been accomplished, and all questions about the nature of God, and of his love for mankind, have been answered with finality, then God will be perfectly reconciled with all of Creation, and God will be All. Christ will be subjected to God, meaning God's right hand, or "exercise of authority", will cease to have a meaningful function. It will be shed, like all the rest of the temporary effects of the Fall, as God tabernacles in and with His Creation, thereby erasing the boundaries.

 

God never desired to merely rule over creation. If that was all He required, or wanted, He never need have sent Christ. He desired to join with it, with us, and to dwell in companionship that mirrors the communion of the Trinity.

 

Headship and submission in marriage is not about one being lifted up and the other being abased. It if was then the same would apply to the Father and the Son[/Quote]I'm not sure we are reading the same NT then, because throughout the NT, Christ's sacrifice is referred to as a lowering of Himself ("He was made a little lower than the angels"). He is God; to go from being Creator to being subjected to the indignities and realities of fallen creation is beyond abasement--it's the ultimate humiliation.

 

As part of the Triune nature of God, the Son is of equal stature and equal power to the Father and the Holy Spirit. For as long as He was on earth, humbled and reduced to such a lowly position, it WAS an abasement of Who He is.

 

When He was risen and returned to His rightful place at the right hand of the Father (as God's authority, God's power), that subjection of the Son to the Father ended. It was a temporary condition necessary to fulfill the conditions of reconciliation between God and man.

[Aelwydd]

You cannot but admit that when the the topic of submission in marriage is raised, it is the wife who is told to submit and be obedient. A husband is never given direct instructions to be subject to his wife.[/Quote]You cannot foist your interpretation onto my understanding, and attempt to illicit agreement. No, I admit no such thing. And Paul's instructions to "husbands and wives" in Ephesians 5 are exactly that: instructions. A prescription on how to interact with each other.

 

The Bible never directly says many things. It never directly names the Trinity. It never directly condemns abortion. It never directly names itself (or even indirectly) as the rule or basis for the Christian faith. In fact, it never even names which books should be included in its canon. In the Old Testament, it never clearly named Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ.

 

Just because there is no verse which spells out that husbands need to submit to their wives, does not mean the message isn't present. Using a little God-given logic:

 

1. Christ obeyed unto death, Paul tells the Phillippians.

2. Paul tells the Ephesian husbands "Love your wives as Christ loved the church, and lay down his life for her."

3. Christ's obedience = death, therefore husband's death = a form of submission or obedience

 

I think it's significant that Paul did not say to husbands, love your wives, and lay down your lives for Christ. While he made general calls to Christians throughout his letters to do exactly that, when it came to advising husbands how to interact with their wives, Paul told husbands that it needed to look like Christ's obedience.

 

How to reconcile that with the verses elsewhere that speak of wives quietly submitting? Well, quiet submission is something Peter required of all his flock, for one thing. And for another, as I mentioned before, the inward condition of the restored relationship between husbands and wives did not match up with the outward, cultural expectations of the society they lived in.

 

Rather than advise Christians to attempt to change society to reflect their own enlightened understanding, Paul advised Christians--all Christians--to do as Christ did, when He was faced with a situation that demanded a lowering of Himself to a position that is not natural to His Person: He humbled Himself, and loved others selflessly.

 

 

I am not trying to diminish the husbands role. But he is never told to submit or be obedient to his wife. The instructions to submit to one another are to the church in general.[/Quote]And husbands are not part of the church, in general? He is called to submit, but only to people who are not his wife? He is called to lay down his life for her, meaning his desires, wants, needs, cares, concerns, expectations--his LIFE--but that is not a call to submission?

 

You say, a husband is acting in a godly function if he uses his "authority" to require his wife to comply with a decision. I say, such a function is inferior to a truly godly union, because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not interact that way.

 

Like the Law, the issue of "headship" is like a taskmaster, requiring servitude and less than a total sharing in the inheritance. One may cling to it, but it only serves to enslave him to pale imitation of divine communion, and worse, to deprive him of the consensus and oneness that is possible only when two are coequal and on even standing.

 

Jesus hand-picked his 12 apostles. Why did he not chose 6 women and 6 men? Why no women at all?[/Quote]Why did He not choose any Gentiles? Why did He not call Paul as an apostle while He walked the Earth?

 

Perhaps for the same reason Eve was not "called" out of Adam, until the proper time? Until the fulfillment of what needed to be done?

 

I cannot claim to know the mind of God, where He doesn't choose to reveal it. I can say this, however: before Christ died and was resurrected, He was revealed to the world first, through a woman. Then, he was proclaimed to an entire community through the evangelistic message of a Samaritan woman at the well. Then, he was anointed for death, not by a high priest, but by a woman at his feet.

 

When he was crucified, and buried, it was women again, who handled the remains of his body, and who prepared it for burial. When He was raised from the dead, His resurrection was revealed to women first, and through their testimony, to the men.

 

His birth, ministry, death, and resurrection are all indelibly tied with the work and ministry of women, whose office could be argued to be greater than that of apostles. Because while it was the apostles who were chosen to minister to the Church, it was Woman who was chosen to minister to Christ, Himself.

 

Directly. Not through a man or priest.

 

Her submission was always linked to Christ's submission here on earth. Her ministry linked to His--giving life, gathering young to her wings, nurturing and healing. Not taking charge of armies, killing or raising arms, setting up political offices, or anything else usually regarded as the realm of the masculine.

 

Christ's ministry was much more like that of a woman, than what most people expected and wanted of their Messiah. That He should be raised up and exalted and given all authority until the end of things only reinforces to me, the fact that Woman is also redeemed, raised up, and restored to Her former position.

 

Paul wrote what he learned from Christ. There is a difference between telling a believer to turn the other cheek, and perpetuating a lie about women. I cannot believe that Paul, being inspired to write by the Holy Spirit, would lie about such things regarding women.[/Quote]It is not about lies or deceptions. It about people seeing what they want to see. Because they are "ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding."

 

People always seem to want the Law. They want their own kingdoms, too, modeled as they think, after God's kingdom. How nice, they imagine, setting up marriage like a little microcosm of divine authority. How neat, orderly, and clean.

 

God's kingdom, it turns out, is always exactly opposite of what people expect. It's not about being on top, but being on the bottom. It's not about being rich, but being poor. It's not about the husband acting as "head" of his wife, but surrendering any claim to power, and submitting to her, as she submits to him.

 

To believe as you do, though, I would have to throw out other verses, and I'm not willing to do that. I believe them all, and see how they do not contradict each other.[/Quote]I don't expect you do any such thing, and I especially don't expect you to go against your conscience. You must work out your faith in fear and trembling, as any of us do.

 

Christian women are told that we are the daughters of Sarah, who obeyed Abraham. We are never told that we are the restored daughters of Eve. Adam is also never mentioned as being restored. In Adam all die. In Eve all die. In Christ, being Abraham's seed and the daughters of Sarah, we live.[/Quote]Christ was called the Second, or Last Adam. Adam, as I established, included Eve. As the first Adam brought sin and death and disharmony into Creation, the last Adam brought life and redemption.

 

Through Him, we are sons of God, redeemed sons of Adam (and redeemed daughters of Eve).

 

 

 

But, to end this behemoth post, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that your translation is correct, and it is God's ideal for women to be subject unto their husbands. I am reminded that Christ told us we would know a tree by its fruit. Likewise, we know that God gives good gifts to His children, and would not give something that is harmful or inimical to the well being of humanity.

 

Consider then, those societies where women are considered equal to men, and egalitarianism is the rule. And compare these societies where women are less equal, and then again, to societies where women are still more inferior, and finally to those societies where women are practically beasts of burden and have no rights.

 

You will find, invariably, that as women's position increases, so does her education, the education level of her children, and her overall health is improved as well. Similarly, there is an inverse relationship between infant mortality and the position of women. The same for crime. That's true even when you compare our nation to other more egalitarian countries.

 

Put simply, the less equal women are in a society, the more disease, illiteracy, crime, and so forth, increases. I cannot recall a single society that has ever been improved by taking away or reducing the status of women to a position inferior to men's. And before you argue that headship in marriage is different from society at large, remember that both are predicated upon the same paradigm of inequal power, inequal authority.

 

I believe the testimony of scripture AND I also believe the evidence of the physical world.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

Jewish Law from that period was *not*, in any way, more "patriarchal" than the Xtian viewpoint nor do I think it can be fairly characterized as misogynist.[/Quote]

Jewish law wasn't more misogynist than Christian law, and certainly not the majority of Christian history. When I mentioned the misogyny of Paul's time, I refer to how certain Greeks and Romans viewed the provincialism of the Jews, because they didn't tend to educate their women, or even eat in the same room as the men. To the surrounding society of the time, the Jewish society seemed somewhat backwards in this regard.

 

Women weren't equal in the Roman/Greek world either; they merely enjoyed a more elevated position than some of their sisters. Also, my argument wasn't that early Christian churches were less misogynist than the Jews (they were raised in the same culture, after all), but rather the new theological understanding that underlie Christ's message called for a total and complete restoration of woman's position. I believe Christ (and Paul) considered the inequalities rampant throughout both Jewish and (Gentile societies) were at odds with the spiritual reality.

 

 

In the context of the above, this phrase really grates on me... the Pharisees, so maligned in your text, are the direct source of modern day Torah Judaism. ...so I see them very differently than you do![/Quote]

 

I know, and when I use the phrase "Pharisaicalism" I mean in the context of those who gave Jesus trouble. I don't think every Pharisee was evil or never contributed anything good or wise. Paul, himself, was the recipient of the best education of his day from Pharisee teachers.

 

Please forgive me for offending you!

 

(Complete tangent: And I am continuously baffled by the use of the word 'legalistic' as a pejorative on some threads.... though since y'all don't seem to have a clear Law, I can see how it could get weird having people pick out certain things and *make* them laws, but passion for following *G-d's* Laws with precision and care... I can't see how that could be a *bad* thing... anyway....)

 

Oh, there's a lot of regulation and laws and precepts in Christianity. Just google "church law" some time. When you have many hours to kill, or you just suffer from insomnia. Christian law is a combination of scripture, oral, and written traditions. In that sense, I don't think it's really all that different from Judaism. You have Moses' law, but after the Temple, obviously a sacrificial-based system became problematic, so the shift went to oral and rabbinical Judaism. So, you have centuries of tradition and wisdom being laid on top of scripture, and the result is sort of an amalgam of many things.

[Rene']

Uhmm....

 

Sarah, of whom G-d said to Avraham, whatever she says, obey her?

 

(Bereishis (Genesis) 21: 12 : "Vayomer Hashem el Avraham... kol asher tomaer elecha Sarah, shma bekolha"

"And G-d said to Avraham... all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice"

 

The idiom 'listen to the voice" = obey.

 

 

...I am making no assertions about theological implications for y'all, but Sarah seems the *oddest* example I have encountered for a support text for this particular view of marriage.

 

Yes. That Sarah. God did not say "whatever she says, obey her." The context is Sarah wanting Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her son. In this regard, Sarah was right. Submission doesn't mean the man is always right and the woman is always wrong and it doesn't mean a man never considers the wisdom of his wife.

[Rene']

That is exactly my point. God did not make Eve from a separate pile of dust. He took her from Adam. She was already pre-formed, and known of God, the same as David when he was still in his mother's womb.

 

That Adam did not "know" her yet does not change this fact: Eve was already present. Christ did not say, "He made man, and then later, made female."

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

 

Paul is a master of double-meaning. He says on one hand, Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands. And then in the next breath, tells husbands to "lay down their lives" as Christ laid his life for the Church. To give up one's very life force is the ultimate sublimation of one's own desires, needs, and power for another.

There is no double meaning here! A man should be willing to die for his wife, to love her so deeply he would give up his own life for her. I know that my husband loves me with a deep and cherishing love. That does not negate my responsibility before God to recognize him as my earthly head and to obey him.

 

Paul understood that the need for the exercise of authority and submission is inextricably tied to the Fall of mankind.

But you said we were redeemed, and no longer in a fallen state. :confused1: Why would Paul be pandering to it?

 

Paul is the one who brought us the truth about our death in Christ, that we are no longer in the flesh and are now free to serve righteousness and walk after the Spirit. We aren't simply pre-fall anymore. Adam and Eve could not serve righteousness. Adam and Eve were created with flesh and a spirit just like we have when we are born.

[Joanne]

I don't want to get involved in an internal Xtian discussion about marriage, power, and gender, or hijack a passionate thread, but, for the sake of accuracy, I wanted to respond, very briefly, to the implication in the above paragraph.

 

Jewish Law from that period was *not*, in any way, more "patriarchal" than the Xtian viewpoint nor do I think it can be fairly characterized as misogynist.

 

I do not see support for the position that these texts are in the context of less equal marriage views among Jews of the period. ...in the broader culture, perhaps, but not w/in the Jewish world of the time.

 

This isn't the place to debate it, but I wanted to make clear that your perception is... contested. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, IMO, Jewish culture/practice *elevated* the status of women, made marriage less hierarchical, and elevated the tradition of the nuclear family.

[Slartibartfast]

We call it the "give a cr@p factor". I am not submissive...neither is he. We are equal team mates. If one cares more than the other about an issue...that is how we go. If we care equally....we discuss and decide.

 

Faithe

 

We do that too!! :lol:

 

Usually one of us doesn't really care that much.

[Rene']

You cannot foist your interpretation onto my understanding, and attempt to illicit agreement.

You are right, I apologize for that.

 

No, I admit no such thing. And Paul's instructions to "husbands and wives" in Ephesians 5 are exactly that: instructions. A prescription on how to interact with each other.

I see them differently. For my own self. When I read the Word and want to find out what God's will is for my life. I see them as God's perfect will for me in my marriage.

 

You say, a husband is acting in a godly function if he uses his "authority" to require his wife to comply with a decision.

I said no such thing. I never said a man was to force his wife to submit to him. As a Christian woman, believing this is what God wants from me, I submit to God and my husband willingly. My submission is between me and God. Jesus willingly submitted to the Father, and I willingly submit to my husband.

 

Why did He not choose any Gentiles? Why did He not call Paul as an apostle while He walked the Earth?

Well, he didn't initially come for the Gentile, but for the Jew. And I believe the way Paul was called out was unique on purpose.

 

But, to end this behemoth post, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that your translation is correct, and it is God's ideal for women to be subject unto their husbands. I am reminded that Christ told us we would know a tree by its fruit. Likewise, we know that God gives good gifts to His children, and would not give something that is harmful or inimical to the well being of humanity.

 

Consider then, those societies where women are considered equal to men, and egalitarianism is the rule. And compare these societies where women are less equal, and then again, to societies where women are still more inferior, and finally to those societies where women are practically beasts of burden and have no rights.

I would say it's not headship/submission that is the problem, but sinful man that is the problem.

 

Christ was called the Second, or Last Adam. Adam, as I established, included Eve. As the first Adam brought sin and death and disharmony into Creation, the last Adam brought life and redemption.

 

Through Him, we are sons of God, redeemed sons of Adam (and redeemed daughters of Eve).

Jesus is not called the Second Adam because he is the First Adam in a redeemed state. There was no Eve present in Christ and the bible says nothing about a second Eve or about being the daughters of Eve (or the sons of Adam for that matter).

[lovelaughs_times_three]

And for another, as I mentioned before, the inward condition of the restored relationship between husbands and wives did not match up with the outward, cultural expectations of the society they lived in.

 

Rather than advise Christians to attempt to change society to reflect their own enlightened understanding, Paul advised Christians--all Christians--to do as Christ did, when He was faced with a situation that demanded a lowering of Himself to a position that is not natural to His Person: He humbled Himself, and loved others selflessly.

 

 

 

 

I think this is a very important reason to consider. God, ulitmately, cares more about the condition of our relationship with Him and our Spiritual redemtion than He does about social change. If Christ had come to right every social wrong, and had created the social upheaval to make those changes at that time in history, there would have been such a chaos of distraction. People would have been upset and angry over the social issues and miss the more important spiritual issues.

God did not want people to miss the most important thing of all - that Christ came to redeem us FIRST from the inside and THEN that would change the outside. There is a verse that talks about letting the weeds grow up with the plants. That if you take the weeds out too early, that it will uproot the healthy plants. That there is a time when the plants will be harvested and the weeds will be burned. God did not want to uproot the important redemtion with the distraction of social upheaval.

But - there was a time and a place for the social change as well. God did not want slavery. There was a time and a place for that change too.

Does this make sense? I think you could say it better, Rebekah! I wish you could get in my head and word this sentiment. You have such a wonderful insight into this issue.

 

This issue has been a heartbreak for me for most of my life. I have dealt with such pain over people's, and my own, interpretation of scriptures. These scriptures have been used as a weapon against me at times. It kept me from truly understanding how much God loved me, and how important I was/am to Him. Your words, Rebekah, reflect some of the same things, and some new things :D, God has been showing me for years. They are healing words and bring me closer to Him in trust and knowing my value in Him.