***
Husbands with Rebellious Wives
***
“Be considerate as you live with your wife, with respect” 1 Peter 3:7
***
The other day, I read a Facebook status from a friend whose wife had gone overseas for a week and left him with three young children. His words were so sweet as he made notes of what it was like for him as a temporary stay-at-home dad. Here were some of his key points:
- there is no privacy (he repeated this phrase a handful of times during the list – I think he really missed his privacy)
- there are always more dishes to do
- he could not keep up with the house cleaning before a destruction-minded toddler came through a room again
- there is no time for exercise
- nothing gets finished because of constant interruptions
- getting someplace on time with kids in tow is practically a miracle
This sweet dad/husband publicly praised his wife for what he didn’t realize she had been doing each and every day. Of course he likely had an idea, but to actually do her job and do it well was a huge challenge to him.
Their marriage reflects mutual respect and sacrificial love. He does not lord over her, he values her. They both work hard at their jobs. They take time for each other and their relationship and it’s beautiful.
Right around the same time I read my friend’s Facebook status, I also read a blog article by Ken Alexander entitled, Wimpy Husbands with Rebellious Wives. The “rebellious” word in the title sent shivers down my spine. What would cause someone to use such a harsh word when talking about wives?
The article starts off very negatively against women, “how to best deal with the antics and emotions of a difficult wife.” Right off the bat, I am reading control. It’s like he is assuming the worst in women. Ken believes husbands must have complete control over their wives and in this article, he challenges “wimpy” husbands who don’t control their wives and their rebellious behavior. Patriarchy, much? Check this out:
I have personally heard from far too many Christian husbands how frustrated they are with a wife who can’t discipline herself enough to get some of the basics of the home, family and marriage completed in any normal way, yet the wife wants nothing to do with their husband’s attempts at correcting a bad situation. The husband can beg a wife to please try to have the house picked up and dishes done by the time he gets home, yet she is just far too busy to be able to get these basics of life completed. In her mind, he just does not understand and now she has her girlfriends agreeing with her, so he must be a jerk. After all, how can ten women with half the facts not come up with the right answers?
If he questions her lack of discipline, her inability to get to the gym, to have a home cooked meal on the table every evening, or have the laundry done once a week, she calls him not understanding or unloving. And when the claws come out and tears start, the husband is put back into his corner as the “unloving jerk who is way too picky and demanding!”
He talks about how he picks up the slack in the home with meals, taking care of kids and helping with homework but asks:
I am curious what the readers of this blog would counsel a husband to do when he is married to just such a wife. Accept as a premise that she lacks any modicum of self-discipline; she is a stay at home Mom with plenty of time spent relaxing and being online each day. [JA note: and he knows this how?]
And he continues:
Does love demand that he seek his wife’s best interest in training his rebellious wife in self discipline, even if she cannot see how this is indeed true love in meeting her needs?
Ok, what a contrast between two husbands, huh? Ken’s article really concerns me because we are seeing him use the word “love” as a means of control. Love is not about controlling someone. I am very concerned about women living in these environments where their husbands must control them. I’m also concerned about the children in these homes who think it’s normal for dads to control their wives. Ugh. We can do better than this as Christians.
***
Spiritual Sounding Board 
J A. The total picture of that verse is explained thereafter fully.
Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
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. Note this states position of authority.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. *Note this states position of authority.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
This clearly states the responsibilities and authority for both wife and husband. We must go back to the basis of authority God for which He clearly states the position of the establishment of His authority In Genesis 1.1 and all thereafter and then established the authority between man and woman in the garden from Genesis 3:1 thru 19 of which I submit in clarity:
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
That is the line of authority established by God in 3:16 “and he shall rule over thee.” Whether a person agrees with it or not does not change it for God is we are and it is what it is. Therefore the scriptures disagrees with you statement in this matter “not one using any authority over each other”
THE GREATEST STATEMENT OF THE .MAN HAVING AUTHORITY OVER A WOMAN IS IN NUMBER 30:1-16. AS GOD DIRECTED.
Num 30:10 And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath;
Num 30:11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
Num 30:12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.
Num 30:13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
Num 30:14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.
Num 30:15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.
Num 30:16 These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.
THE FIRST 9 VERSES APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE DAUGHTER/FATHER RELATIONSHIP IN THE SAME MANNER.
There is a warning in this for the Husbands – take your authority and use it Godly or suffer the consequences, Wives and Daughters – do not make vows without your Husband or Fathers’ approval. Options are simple, Submit to God, resist the devil and he will flee or rebel against authority and live in lawlessness under the devil. Our Jesus died for telling the truth about forgiveness of sins so why wouldn’t we die to ourselves and join Him?
Bless you all.,
Barb
LikeLike
Barb, your understanding of head is incorrect. It does not mean authority. Husbands are not in authority over women. Both husbands and wives are to submit to each other in love. This is how Jesus loved us, too. He laid down his life for us. That is how we are to submit to each other.
If you think that using Numbers as proof that men are in authority, then I have a lot of questions to ask you about how you are living your life according to the law back then. Jesus came and did away with the law and gave the commandment to love.
LikeLike
Barb: Read this on “head.” https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/head-does-not-mean-leader-in-1-cor-11-3/
LikeLike
And here’s more info on the Ephesians 5 on submission: http://www.craigkeener.com/mutual-submission-ephesians-521/
LikeLike
Juie Anne,
Mat 5:17
(KJV+) ThinkG3543 notG3361 thatG3754 I am comeG2064 to destroyG2647 theG3588 law,G3551 orG2228 theG3588 prophets:G4396 I am notG3756 comeG2064 to destroy,G2647 butG235 to fulfil.G4137 Remember Jesus said He is NOT COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR PROPHETS:
As you know the G numbers represent the Greek definition of the English words above. Let us look at destroy G2647. kataluo kat-al-oo’-o from 2596 and 3089; to loosen down (disintegrate), i.e. (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively); specially (compare 2646) to halt for the night:–destroy, dissolve, be guest, lodge, come to nought, overthrow, throw down.
Here is fulfill in the Greek4137. pleroo play-ro’-o from 4134; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:–accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.
Let us look at Law G3551. nomos nom’-os from a primary nemo (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), genitive case (regulation), specially, (of Moses (including the volume); also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle):–law.
So Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets. How did He fulfill the law? By becoming the perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind thus we have no practice of sin offering sacrifices for he fulfilled that. How did He fulfill the prophets? Simply by His coming fulfilling the messianic prophecies.
Mat 5:18
Mat 5:18 ForG1063 verilyG281 I sayG3004 unto you,G5213 TillG2193 heavenG3772 andG2532 earthG1093 pass,G3928 oneG1520 jotG2503 orG2228 oneG3391 tittleG2762 shall in no wiseG3364 passG3928 fromG575 theG3588 law,G3551 tillG2193 allG3956 be fulfilled.G1096
Lets look at pass G3928. parerchomai par-er’-khom-ahee from 3844 and 2064; to come near or aside, i.e. to approach (arrive), go by (or away), (figuratively) perish or neglect, (causative) avert:–come (forth), go, pass (away, by, over), past, transgress.
Lets look at fulfilled G1096. ginomai ghin’-om-ahee a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen”-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):–arise, be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.
Jesus statement here states emphatically that heaven and earth will pass but not one jot or one tittle from the law shall in no way pass till all be fulfilled. ***Note Fulfill and fulfilled have different meanings do to the tense of present and future tense as demonstrated by heaven and earth will pass.
Paul States, “Are we, then, abolishing law through faith? MAY IT NEVER BE! Rather, we are establishing law.” (Romans 3:31).
Paul states, “Therefore, the law is indeed holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good . . . For I delight in the law of God” (Romans 7:12, 22)
Timothy states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; So that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16)
Peter states,
“And bear in mind that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, exactly as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has also written to you; As he has also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things; in which are some things that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable are twisting and distorting, as they also twist and distort the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2Peter 3:15 – 16, Holy Bible a Faithful Version (HBFV) throughout unless stated)
Sadly, your statement “Jesus came and did away with the law and gave the commandment to love” is in error. “The same as this statement of yours We are both to submit to each other in love, not one using any authority over each other.”
You simply ignore submission to authority in your responses and further exemplifies my opening statement of my first comment – I must say I am amazed at the comments which directly expresses the worldly Christianity of The USA. My dear Sister your intentions may be honorable but I warn you for your sake take heed of your counsel for we all are are subject too:
Revelation 22:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
When error is found we are all called to confess, repent with all our heartand get restored.
Blessings to You All,
Barb
LikeLike
Barb,
When you have some time, please read:
Boundaries by Dr. Cloud and Dr. Townsend
Man and Women One in Christ by Phillip Barton Payne
Those books do a much deeper Scriptural study on this topic than we can do on a blog comment.
LikeLike
Hi Julie Anne
Yes, Much agreement when you write…
“Jesus came and did away with the law
and gave the commandment to love.”
“Jesus came and did away with the law…
For WE, His Sheep, His Kings and Priests, His Ambassadors…
His Friends, His Bride, His Servants, His Redeemed…
His Ekklesia, His Called Out Ones, His Church…
His Body, His Followers, His sons…
His Disciples…
Mat 5:17
Think NOT that I am come to destroy The Law, or the prophets:
I am NOT come to destroy, but to Fulfill.
I’m-a-thinkn… Jesus, did NOT destroy The Law,
Because The Law is still needed to bring unbelievers to Christ.
Gal 6:23-25
But before faith came, we were kept under the law,
shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore The Law was our schoolmaster
to bring us unto Christ,
that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come,
we are NO Longer under a schoolmaster.
Seems, for WE, His Sheep, His Ekklesia, His Body, His Church…
After The Law, the schoolmaster, brings us unto Christ…
WE, His Redeemed, (Redeemed by the BLOOD of Jesus.)
Are NO Longer under The Law, the schoolmaster.
WE, His Sheep, His Church, His Disciples, His Followers…
“…are NOT under The Law, but under grace. Rom 6:14.
1 – WE, His Sheep, His Church, are – Delivered from the law. Rom 7:6
2 – WE, His Sheep, His Church, are – Dead to the law. Rom 7:4
3 – WE, His Sheep, His Church, are – NOT under the law. Rom 6:14
4 – WE, His Sheep, His Church, are – Free from the law. Rom 8:2
5 – The law is NOT of faith. Gal 3:12
6 – WE, His Sheep, are – Redeemed from the curse of the law. Gal 3:13
7 – WE, are – NO longer under a schoolmaster. ( The law.) Gal. 3:25
8 – The law is NOT made for a rightous man. 1 Tim 1:9
9 – By the deeds of the law there shall NO flesh be justified. Rom 3:19
10- …and the strength of sin is the law. 1 Cor 15:56
11- The law worketh wrath. Rom 4:15
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barb, perhaps “did away with the law” could have been worded better. Christ fulfilled the law so that we are no longer bound to it. He gave us a new commandment to love. I hope that better explains my comment.
LikeLike
Julie Anne
Much agreement when you write…
“Jesus came and did away with the law
and gave the commandment to love.”
“Jesus …gave the commandment to love.”
For WE, His Sheep, His Kings and Priests, His Ambassadors…
His Friends, His Bride, His Servants, His Redeemed…
His Ekklesia, His Called Out Ones, His Church…
His Body, His Followers, His sons…
His Disciples…
Mat 5:17
Think NOT that I am come to destroy The Law, or the prophets:
I am NOT come to destroy, but to Fulfill.
Hmmm? How did Jesus Fulfill The Law?
Mat 5:44, But I say unto you, LOVE your enemies…
I’m-a-thinkn, Jesus, was big on LOVE…
On TWO commandments, LOVE God. LOVE your neighbour
hang all The Law and the prophets.
I’m-a-thinkn, His LOVE, for WE, Fulfilles The Law.
And, Paul, and James says, Our LOVE, also, Fulfilles The Law.
Mat 22:35-40
Then one of them, which was a lawyer,
asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is The GREAT commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him,
**Thou shalt LOVE
the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and GREAT commandment.
And the second is like unto it,
Thou shalt LOVE
thy neighbour as thyself.
On these TWO commandments
hang all The Law and the prophets.
Rom 13:8
Owe no man any thing, but to LOVE one another:
for he that LOVETH another hath Fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:10
LOVE worketh no ill to his neighbour:
therefore LOVE is the Fulfilling of the law.
Gal 5:14*
For all The Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;
Thou shalt LOVE thy neighbour as thyself.
James 2:8
If ye Fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt LOVE thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
God is LOVE…
LikeLike
Folks……Julie Anne, Avid Reader, A. Amos Love and you as well, Barb….
Thank-you for the wonderful Bible lessons posted here; I am literally in tears. The timing of the Law verses Jesus’ Fulfillment/Grace is perfect as we honor His Resurrection for the remission of our sins. What a freeing message the Gospel offers us in knowing that our true and final authority is in Him per Matthew 28.
Never in a bazillion years could I ever fulfill all of the laws under the old covenant and personally, I really enjoy a good pork chop and enjoy being adorned in fabrics of mixed fibers (check out the fabric restriction under the law!). In my former religious institution, there were “law keepers” lurking around the fellowship in “pointing out our sins under “THE LAW,” and I must say, these individuals are some of the most unhappy folks that I have ever met, let alone fellowship with and frankly, I don’t miss them a bit. To be criticized for making an awesome Klub potato dish filled “with ham” or loving pepperoni on my pizza (there’s pork in those tasty meat wafers) is no longer a “sin” under the New Covenant.
And as far as submitting to my husband in ALL things……Hee, Hee, well, we just had this discussion with our complementarian lawyer….AND…..both were speechless when I mentioned that Jesus doesn’t care which gender shares the Gospel bearing His Name for our faith is about souls, not genders and NOT authority (because Jesus has ALL authority), and the tractor, trucks and combines in the field DON’T care which gender operates them just as long as the work gets done before the snow flies….the grain is out of the fields and the fall tillage is complete. The tractor doesn’t shut down because a woman had to operate it, nor does the operating room call it quits because there’s women surgeon in the room working on me! PTL! Was not Jesus, our LORD and Savior, all of mankind’s (both genders thank-you very much), the Greatest Servant?
And Barb, I truly understand the points you are relating here for I have heard those same arguments using those very same Scriptures in an oppressive manner by those who have had poor marriages and witness to me not. And because I believe in the inherent Word of God, with absolutely nothing added to it per Revelation 22, I find peace, comfort, and joy, literally, in knowing that Jesus’ Ways and Teaching are contrary to what we see and experience in the worldly ways of the Christian industrial complex here in the U.S. as you say. And the Apostle Paul’s teachings are in accordance with the teachings of Christ in not lording over people for we do not have Jesus teaching One Way and the Apostles teaching opposite doctrines. That would not make any sense to the average believer receiving two opposing messages.
I am reminded how Jesus came to set the captives free……what a Glorious Savior we have the privilege of knowing and knowing to the full!
Thanks again Julie Anne, Avid Reader and A. Amos Love…….
I feel so loved today! What great fellowship!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Katy,
Thanks for sharing. We’ve always enjoyed hearing your experiences too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy, thank you for sharing. I am encouraged that you have been encouraged here. I have been under the OT law, male headship, submission, teachings and squelched for too long, too. It’s ridiculous. When you see what Christ did and look at the real meaning of Paul’s words from the original languages, it’s pretty clear that he wasn’t talking about any hierarchy between genders at all – he was talking about love, which of course was Jesus’ new commandment that He gave. It doesn’t make sense that Jesus would come, tell us the new commandment to love, and then bind up women under laws. Nope – not buying it – especially when you see how Christ treated women, went beyond cultural barriers to show them love, grace, etc.
I have never felt so free. For once, these verses make sense to me. It really didn’t make sense to pull a handful of verses from the NT and then claim that women were beneath men.
Katy, we can eat our pepperoni, salmi, pork, and bacon in peace!! Oink, oink! 🙂
LikeLike
Barb, you quoted a lot of Bible verses but that doesn’t solve anything, because different people have different ways of understanding and interpreting those same verses, and not all of them agree with yours.
I’m sorry if I already offered this link in this thread; I know I posted on here before, but I don’t recall which thread:
_MUTUAL SUBMISSION IS NOT A MYTH_
LikeLike
Barb,
I’m also curious to hear how you expect married women who are married to abusers, irresponsible idiots, or disabled men to “submit” to them.
In some of these marriages, for example, the husband has dementia and cannot function and therefore the wife must of necessity take over all the roles or duties that complementarians such as yourself say belong to the husband only:
_Gender Complementarianism Does Not Adequately Address, or Address At All, Incompetent, Loser, Or Incapacitated Men_
My ex fiance’ was as dumb as a box of rocks.
Had I married him (which I did not), Barb, there is no way I could’ve submitted to him, and have allowed him to make all the decisions in the marriage, otherwise all bill payments would’ve been late, we would have been evicted from apartments, etc. etc. etc.
I also do not see how any of this (unilateral wifely) submission (as taught by complementarians) hogwash applies to never-married women such as myself (or to divorced women or widows).
You have to ask yourself why it is you and other complementarians harp so much about wives submitting to husbands, when plenty of single women such as myself make it through life just fine not submitting to men or male leadership.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Submission (obedience) in a Christian marriage should be mutual to some extent, and that has absolutely nothing to do with Eph 5:21.
ALL SCRIPTURE is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). Therefore, we are not limited to Eph 5.
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens (Ec 3:1). With that being said, there are times and seasons in a marriage when a husband should submit to (listen and obey) wisdom (NOT FOOLISHNESS) from his wife.
As Christians, men and women have a duty to cultivate wisdom. That’s part of the Christian lifestyle, and husbands are not exempt.
If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking. James 1:5
The beginning of wisdom is this: GET WISDOM. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. Pr 4:7
The book of Proverbs tells us how a wise man will behave:
A wise man will LISTEN and increase in learning, And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel. Pr 1:5
A wise man is he who LISTENS to counsel. Pr 12:15
LISTEN to advice and accept instruction, and in the end you will be wise. Pr 19:20
One of the definitions or synonyms for LISTEN (shama 8085 in the Old testament) is “to obey, be obedient.”
Source: KJV dictionary
NAS exhaustive concordance
Strong’s Hebrew lexicon
One of the primary functions of a virtuous wife (NOT FOOLISH – there’s a difference) is to “speak with wisdom, and faithful instruction.” Pr 31:26
With that being said, Christian husbands have a duty to cultivate wisdom and LISTEN to (obey) wisdom from their wives when necessary. There are examples of that in scripture.
Abraham listened to (obeyed) the wisdom of his wife.
But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. LISTEN to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned” (Gen 21:12).
Hannah’s husband listened to her about the vow that she made to the Lord (1 Sam 1:11, 21-23). This is especially relevant since an OT husband could lawfully cancel a vow made by his wife. Hannah’s husband didn’t do that; he didn’t pull rank. Instead, he listened to wisdom from his wife.
Xerxes listened to Esther’s plea about reversing Haman’s order to destroy the Jews (Es 8:5, 9:13). This is significant because after the king had signed and sealed a decree or given his permission for a decree to be signed and sealed, it was not to be repealed or revoked (Es1:19, Es 3:9-12). However, Xerxes listened to wisdom from his wife and revoked the decree to kill the Jews.
Unlike Abraham, Hannah’s husband and Xerxes, Nabal (Abigail’s husband) was foolish. The book of Proverbs also tells us how a foolish man like Nabal behaves:
… fools despise wisdom and instruction (Pr 1:7b).
Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words (Pr 23:9).
Therefore, we know that Nabal “despised wisdom and instruction” because he was foolish, and that’s why his wife, Abigail, didn’t discuss her plan of action with him beforehand. As a wise woman, Abigail understood that Nabal would “scorn her prudent words.” Unlike Nabal, David acknowledged and affirmed Abigail’s capacity to ” speak with wisdom, and faithful instruction.” (Pr 31:26, 1 Sam 25:24-34) David LISTENED to Abigail and decided not kill Nabal and the men in his house. What’s the point? Nabal illustrates what can happen when a husband is unapproachable and unwilling to listen to wisdom from his wife when necessary.
That’s why I don’t buy into the comp assertion that a husband always and/or automatically has the right/duty to make the final decision. That’s not what we see in scripture. Scripture records a time when God himself allowed the wife (Sarah) to make the final household decision, and God told the husband (Abraham) to listen to and obey his wife. God could have given the instructions directly to Abraham, but God chose to have Abraham listen to and obey Sarah instead.
We also have an example in scripture where a husband’s final decision almost got himself and other men in his household killed. Who? Foolish Nabal. 1 Samuel chapter 25
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the OT, husbands the power to confirm or nullify vows made by their wives. In the OT, we also have at least 2 examples of men in authority making foolish vows:
King Saul made a foolish vow that almost got his son Jonathan killed. 1 Samuel 14:24-30
Jephthah made a foolish vow. Jephthah—described as a mighty man of valor—made a foolish vow that he would give to the Lord whoever first came out of doors to meet him if he returned home as the victor. When the Lord granted him victory, the one who came out to meet him was his daughter. As a result of Jephthah’s vow, his daughter was not allowed to marry or have children which would have been very devastating to a woman in a culture that was so heavily focused on marriage and childbearing. Judges 11:29-40
Hannah’s husband listened to her about the vow that she made to the Lord (1 Samuel 1:11, 21-23). This is especially relevant since an OT husband could lawfully cancel a vow made by his wife. Hannah’s husband didn’t do that; he didn’t pull rank. Instead, he listened to wisdom from his wife.
What’s the point? Even the Bible illustrates that men in authority don’t always make wise decisions. Sometimes, the make foolish vows and foolish decisions.
The Bible also illustrates that wives can make wise decisions and wise vows. Hannah is a prime example. Samuel, the child who Hannah vowed to give to the Lord, grew up to become a great prophet for the Lord.
Comps love to use the fact that Old Testament husbands had the authority to confirm or cancel vows made by their wives. However, here’s what Jesus has to say about vow making in the New Testament.
You have also heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not break your vows; you must carry out the vows you make to the LORD. 34
BUT I SAY, DO NOT MAKE ANY VOWS! Do not say, ‘By heaven!’ because heaven is God’s throne. 35 And do not say, ‘By the earth!’ because the earth is his footstool. And do not say, ‘By Jerusalem!’ for Jerusalem is the city of the great King. 36 Do not even say, ‘By my head!’ for you can’t turn one hair white or black. 37 Just say a simple, ‘Yes, I will,’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ ANYTHING BEYOND THIS IS FROM THE EVIL ONE.
Matt 5:33-37
In the NT, Jesus tells the body of Christ which consists of both men and women, husbands and wives, “Do not make any vows!” That’s a verse and a fact that comps like to overlook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kim N.
Great points. Continuing on that same thought—Judges 13 describes how Samson’s mother received very specific instructions from God on how to raise their child.
Think about that for a moment. God sent the info directly to her. Why didn’t God follow Comp theology and speak only to her husband, then have him transmit the instructions to her?
God trusted her to receive instructions directly. Then when she told her husband about those instructions, her husband didn’t get offended. He had an open heart, willing to listen and follow those directions from her. This follows the same Biblical pattern that you were describing earlier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s important to note that some of these stories of God speaking to women are before Christ came, in the Old Testament. So that should say something.
LikeLike
Avid Reader,
Good point! I need to add that example to my notes too. Thanks!
LikeLike
It’s not that difficult. Do you want to follow Christ? Then you submit to him and do His will. Now, wives, submit to your husbands as the Church submits to Christ.
Now, was that hard to understand?
LikeLike
It’s not hard to understand, Paul, but it’s the wrong thing to do. The Bible never commands wives to submit to abuse. Christ does not abuse the church and He would never want the church to submit to abuse, either. In fact, Ezekiel 34 talks about abusive shepherds and how God hates it when shepherds abuse their sheep.
LikeLike
I love that you used Proverbs to discuss wisdom because I think wisdom and love are where comp theology fails the most. If a man has dismissed and overriden everything I say simply because he is male, he has displayed neither wisdom nor love.
That’s not right. Furthermore, men who focus on their power in the relationship to the exclusion of anything else are not men to be trusted in the first place.
Ha. Paul, you’re not up to this discussion if that is all you have to say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Per Ken, 4 long years ago (after discussing how marital rape is wrong but not rape. Because reasons)…
Fantastic, so long as it is understood that neither does the wife have put up with the antics of a ‘difficult’ husband without calling him out on it.
We are all adults and should be honest with each other. If only the patriarchal sorts believed that we would all get along much better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, “Now, wives, submit to your husbands as the Church submits to Christ.”
The church submits to Christ BECAUSE Christ loves the church and died for it. If a husband loves his wife enough to die for her and that is demonstrated in the marriage, then surely she will respond accordingly.
Paul, the problem that you conveniently ignore is, what if Christ ABUSED and HATED the church? Should we submit to a god who hates and abuses us? Of course not. In fact, abuse and hatred comes from Satan, not God. Now, a wife who submits to a husband who abuses and beats her, is submitting to the will of Satan, then and not of God. A wife submitting to a Satanic husband is doing whose will? God’s or Satan’s?
So, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of Christ, who loves and died for his bride, or are you on the side of Satan who wants all people to suffer, to be abused, and die unjustly? I think the answer is obvious!
LikeLike
Interesting comments, all trying to avoid the issue. Let’s start with
@Julie Anne: “It’s not hard to understand, Paul, but it’s the wrong thing to do. The Bible never commands wives to submit to abuse.”
The wrong thing to do what the apostle Paul tells us to do? And indeed, wives are never to submit to abuse because that is not what it says, they are to submit to their husbands.
@Mark: “Paul, the problem that you conveniently ignore is, what if Christ ABUSED and HATED the church?”
I do not ignore anything, I’m just repeating what the apostle Paul commands wives to do: to submit to their husband. And it is heretical to claim that Christ would abuse and hate the church. If you have a problem with submission in general, take it up with God.
Both Mark and Julie Anne quickly divert by talking about abuse, to try to discredit God’s command. The problem is that some people call husbands requesting their wives to submit by definition abuse.
So let’s simplify: do you agree a wife should submit to a husband who does not abuse his wife? And if a husband requests his wife to submit to him, that it is not abuse?
LikeLike
Paul said: “The wrong thing to do what the apostle Paul tells us to do? And indeed, wives are never to submit to abuse because that is not what it says, they are to submit to their husbands.”
Men and women are to submit to each other. I’m unclear why you are putting more emphasis on women. The model is Christ and the church. Christ laid down his life for all, and we are to do the same.
Eph 5:21 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
LikeLike
Once a husband has gotten to a point of telling his wife to submit to him, he has hurdled over all of the requirements listed for husbands…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I feel like I have the perfect gif for this…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ooooooooo……Paul is ignoring all the Bible verses that tell men to submit! Here’s one:
1Peter 5:5
“ALL OF YOU (men included) be submissive to one another and be clothed with humility…..”
Did that verse include a disclaimer to make sure that men never submit to women? NOPE! ALL means all. So Paul, how are you doing on keeping God’s command for men to submit as well? Or do you just want submission to be a one way street that only benefits you?
Sorry pal, the Bible is pretty clear that submission is mutual. Get over your need to be in control.
Learn what it means to submit to each other in reverence to Christ. Let go of that pride because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.
LikeLike
@Avid Reader: 1Peter 5:5 “ALL OF YOU (men included) be submissive to one another and be clothed with humility…..”
It’s pretty pathetic to you resort to twisting scripture.There is NO major bible version that translates 1 Pet 5:5 like that.
LikeLike
@Julie Anne: Men and women are to submit to each other.
Sorry, that is not what the text says. Literally it says “submitting yourselves to one another out of fear of Christ”. It is NOT talking that ALL individuals should submit to each and every individual, it is talking about different forms of submission: wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters. You can compare with comparable texts in 1 Peter 2 and 3, Colossians, 1 Timothy, and Titus (“Haustafeln”).
Even without these texts, the key is the comparison between husband and wife as Christ and the Church. Yes, the Church submits to Christ, THEREFORE a wife submits to her husband.
And why talk about women here? Because nobody seems to have difficulties endlessly pointing out that husbands should sacrificially love their wives, while NOBODY is telling wives they should submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ, as you yourself are a witness to. You clearly have no trouble dictating husbands to lay down their lives for their wives, or to submit to their wives. You never talk about abuse of husbands by their wives. But you show a rebellious attitude that you do not want to submit a wife to her husband, even though it is repeated more often in Scripture than most other things we’re commanded to do.
And you also have not answered my question. Apparently the ‘abuse’ was just to camouflage your unwillingness to let wives submit to husbands.
LikeLike
This one.
BTW, they hate these mutual submission passages because that means that submission is also not ‘just do what I tell you do, always, without thought or comment’. Because that would be stupid.
And it is stupid. Stupid when applied to any of us. Submission is obviously more nuanced than people like Paul are willing to admit.
LikeLike
Paul,
Nice dodge. Pull your Strong’s Concordance off the shelf and look at all the Scriptures with the Greek word “Hypotasso” in it. Turns out that God commands men to submit too. Once again you are still ignoring God’s command.
Now here’s a question for you—Do you believe that “submission” is defined as obedience? Are you demanding that wives be obedient?
LikeLiked by 1 person
1Peter 5:5 in the original Greek says that ALL (including men) have to “Hypotasso” the exact same word translated as submit in Eph 5. The problem is that Paul wants to suddenly change the meaning of Hypotass when it applies to himself. When God commands Paul to Hypotasso then suddenly Paul decides that Hypotasso doesn’t really mean submit! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, Paul. Submission is not something a husband can demand. If he is demanding submission, it’s not submission. Submission has to do with voluntarily yielding.
This is what I agree with:
“When “submit” is taken to mean “under the authority of another” and “head” is understood as “leader” instead of “source,” it is easy to continue advocating hierarchy in relationships as the”natural reading” (pace Grudem) of Ephesians 5. What we must not assume, Payne suggests, is that the notion of authority is what Paul intended when using ὑποτάσσω (hypotassō) in Ephesians 5:21ff. Instead, what we should discern from the context is that submission means “voluntary yielding for the sake of love.” [It’s noteworthy that 1 Corinthians 16:15 shows τάσσω (tassō), the root ofὑποτάσσω (hypotassō) indicates “devotion,” not “under the authority of.”]
Payne’s proposal, that we take “submit” to mean “voluntary yielding for the sake of love,” fits all relationships addressed in Ephesians 5:21-6:4: everyone to each other (5:21); wives to husbands (5:22), the Church to Christ (5:24), husbands to wives (5:25-33), children to parents (6:1-4), and slaves to masters (6:5-9). Incidentally, the logic of this suggests: 1) If Paul’s injunction for every believer to submit to one another involves husbands (and clearly it would), then 2) husbands loving their wives is tantamount to submitting to them, given Payne’s definition of submission as “voluntarily yielding for the sake of love.” The basis for and grounding of Paul’s appeal beginning in 5:21 and extending through 6:9, therefore, is not authority but love. Thus, all acts of Christian love expressed toward Christians must be mutual with no hint of “under the authority of another.” Otherwise, Christian teaching hardly offers anything unique for house codes, since it does not extend past the cultural mores of the day.”
https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/some-more-remarks-submission-compliments-phil-payne
LikeLike
Luke 2:51 Jesus was “Hupotasso” to his parents. Yet we know that Jesus didn’t ask for their permission to stay behind at the temple.
1Cor 16:16 Paul tells men (and women) to submit (Hupotasso) to “every fellow worker and laborer.”
James 4:7 tells us to submit (Hupotasso) to God.
Eph 5:21 (KJV) “Submitting (Hupotasso) to one another in the fear of God.”
1Peter 5:5 “Younger submit (Hupotasso) unto the older….”
1Peter 5:5 “All of you (Hupotasso) to one another….”
Wonder why no one ever wants to discuss God’s command for men to submit too? 🙂
LikeLike
@ Paul said, “Even without these texts, the key is the comparison between husband and wife as Christ and the Church.”
3 Facts that the husband represents Christ and the wife represents church Comp doctrine fails to acknowledge:
Woman represents God too. God has many names and many attributes. God Himself is called our Helper (Ezer in Hebrew):
Behold, God is my helper (Ps 54:4a).
In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is also called our Helper: John 14:17, 26. Considering God’s role as Helper puts things in perspective. God, Almighty Sovereign Lord of the Universe, is our Helper, and women are created in his image to be helpers in their marriages, families and communities. What’s the point? Women ALSO represent God. Helper is one of God’s many names and characteristics.
Men also represent the church – bride of Christ. After all, the church (bride of Christ) is made up of men and women – not just women. Male believers are also part of the bride of Christ (church). That symbolism isn’t restricted to women and wives. It also applies to male believers too. Christian men don’t stop representing the church when and if they become husbands.
Ephesians 5 is not a stand -alone passage of scripture. ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). The Bible (and it is not limited to Ephesians 5) teaches that BOTH men and women are supposed to be “like Jesus” (Christlike): Phi 2:5, 1 John 2:16, John 13:15, 1 Pet 2:21. Christ-likeness is not a masculine mindset or instruction given solely to men. As Christians, BOTH men and women are admonished to be “like Jesus” (Christ-like). A woman isn’t somehow absolved of her responsibility to be “like Jesus” (Christ-like) if or when she gets married and becomes a wife.
lf we want to talk about Biblical symbolism, BOTH man (in his duty to be Christlike) and woman (in her duty to be Christlike and Helper)represent God, and BOTH man and woman represent the church a.k.a the bride of Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the second conversation I’ve witnessed today of a man adamant in a wife’s submission to her husband without addressing that a husband should submit to his wife as well.
The issue that I have with using any of these verses as stand alone commands is that the letters were not meant to be read this way. There were no chapters and verses at the time of writing. The letters were meant to be read as a whole and in one sitting.
Ephesians 5 starts off with, “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” This alone sets off these rest of the reading of the letter. By the time you get to “wives, submit to your husbands,” Paul has set up that we all are to do everything in love.
What is unique about verses 21-33 is not that he tells wives to submit to their husbands. This would not have been anything new to say to the church during this time. This was everyday life for women; they expected this. What is unique is that he tells husbands not once, but three times to love their wives. He over emphasizes this because he is calling men to a higher standard than what is acceptable culturally.
Paul does the same in the letter to the Colossians. It is not surprising that Paul would tell wives, children, and slaves to obey. What was unique was that he called out husbands, fathers, and masters to a higher standard. This would have been shocking to the intended audience – those who held power in society. He set a higher standard for those who were Christ followers. Paul shows in Ephesians and Colossians that all are placed on an even level.
Those who choose to only focus on the submission of wives, do a disservice to the rest of God’s word which states that all believers are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
LikeLike
Here is where I read about husbands, fathers, and masters relinquishing power as well as the over emphasis of husbands loving their wives. I have read these chapters more often recently as I have seen people uphold their views of wives submitting to their husbands and these stuck out to me. As I searched for writings on these chapters and verses I found this one which confirmed what I was seeing. It made me thankful that I wasn’t the only one reading scripture and noticing these parts that stood out.
I want to give credit in my comment above for the writing in this article. It stuck out so strongly to me because I could see the same things. I just couldn’t put it into words as this author did.
https://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/mutuality/understanding-submission-context-pauline-epistles
LikeLike
@Avid Reader
You’re mistaken on 1 Pet 5:5. The subjection part talks of “younger” to “elder” (and NOT elder to younger!). The next part of the verse has a different verb (enkombōsasthe, gird on).
.Furthermore you’re assuming a lot of me, and falsely accuse me of improper intentions, for which you have no proof.
All the while you have avoided to deny that wives should submit to their husbands, as the Church submits to Christ. You’ve still not put forward one single argument that wives should NOT submit to their husbands.
LikeLike
@Kim M
Of course the bible is rich in its symbolism. But you seem to have troubles understanding how to interpret it:
“Men also represent the church – bride of Christ. After all, the church (bride of Christ) is made up of men and women – not just women.”
That both men and women are part of the church is obvious. But the bride of Christ is the Church, the collective, not individual believers. Your mixing up categories.
And by affirming other symbolism in the bible, you are not denying the symbolism I pointed out: the Church follows and submits to Christ, THEREFORE wives are to submit to their husbands.
LikeLike
@Lea: “Once a husband has gotten to a point of telling his wife to submit to him, he has hurdled over all of the requirements listed for husbands”
A requirement like this one, in case a wife wants to know how to interpret the bible if she should submit to him or not?
1 Co 14:35 “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
LikeLike
@Kathi: “The issue that I have with using any of these verses as stand alone commands is that the letters were not meant to be read this way.”
2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
First of all, I did not single out a single verse, I referred to the imagery of Christ and the Church, a very rich symbol, as well as to several chapters in several letters. Second, I disagree about that the letters were not to be read this way. Of course context counts, but ALL scripture is useful, that includes each verse. As you know we have several verses that stand in perfect isolation. We use them. As they were meant to be used
@Kathi: “It is not surprising that Paul would tell wives, children, and slaves to obey.”
Thank you!
LikeLike
@Julie Ann: “Submission is not something a husband can demand. If he is demanding submission, it’s not submission. Submission has to do with voluntarily yielding.”
So you are just discussing how we should interpret this submission and if a husband can demand it, but you do agree a wife should submit to her husband as the Church should submit to Christ?
LikeLike
To all those countering that wives should submit to their husbands as the Church should submit to Christ, by claiming that submission should be mutual:
First of all, such a claim only affirms that wives should submit to their husbands.
Secondly, “mutual submission” is an interpretation of the bible text, it is nowhere literally stated, whereas submission of wives to husbands IS literally stated, even multiple times
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
1 Pet 3:1-2 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
NOWHERE are husbands literally told to submit to their wives.
Thirdly, the text used to claim “mutual submission”, that is submission of husbands to wives (as submission of wives to husbands is clear enough), is Eph 5:21 which literally states (NA27) “hypotassomenoi allēlois en phobōi Christou”, “submitting yourselves to one another in fear of Christ”. Now although punctation is of a later date (although some early fragments do have it), Eph 5:18-20 ends in a comma, and Eph 5:21 ends in a point, showing that v.21 is part of a single sentence spanning vv. 18-21, so it “binds” more strongly to the preceding verses, than the following verses, specifically the next sentence vv. 22-23. And notice that the “submission” extends to 6:9, and includes commands for children to obey their parents and slaves to obey their masters. Now, if “submitting yourselves to one another” means “mutual submission” as in “each one of you must submit yourselves to each other”, than also parents should submit to their children, masters should submit to their slaves, and Christ should submit to the Church. The text does NOT suggest such an interpretation, as all the mentioned examples are asymmetric in their relationships.
Is there a different interpretation of “submitting yourselves to one another”? Yes there is. The Greek is in the plural, a similar construct can be found in Rev 6:4 “Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make people kill each other (allelous).” Does “kill each other” mean that each and every one mutually kills the other one? That is absurd.
So, that “mutual submission” means husbands should submit to their wives is a questionable interpretation that does not seem to fit the context of 5:21, nor of 5:22-6:9, is not supported by the asymmetry in relationships of child-parent, slave-master, and Church-Christ, is not supported by any other direct NT command (whereas submission of wives to husbands is), and is better understood as to describe relationships between groups of people.
I did not yet venture into the exact meaning of submission (which in itself assumes an asymmetric relationship), nor of the other instructions on obedience, nor on the relationship to the head-body symbolism, which in my view are further supporting pieces of evidence.
For now, I stick to the simple symbolism of wife and husband as the Church and Christ. And yes, I highlight the role of the wife, as all seem to agree that husbands should sacrificially love their wives, but submission of the wife to her husband is heavily contested.
LikeLike
This from Paul:
Ooooh, Paul is mansplaining now. Is anyone surprised?
So if a husband tells his wife to interpret the Bible such that she’s supposed to “submit” to beatings or withholding of money, should she yield to his teaching then?
I do. As long as that husband recognizes that he should submit to his wife as well.
LikeLike
@Julie Ann: ““When “submit” is taken to mean “under the authority of another” and “head” is understood as “leader” instead of “source,” it is easy to continue advocating hierarchy in relationships as the”natural reading” [..] What we must not assume, Payne suggests, is that the notion of authority is what Paul intended when using ὑποτάσσω (hypotassō) [..] what we should discern from the context is that submission means “voluntary yielding for the sake of love.”
So we’re now talking about the MEANING of submission, NOT if wives should submit to their husbands. And you agree that if “head” is understood as “leader” and “submit” as “under the authority of another”, then there is hierarchy in the husband-wife relationship.
Now I do not disagree that there’s an aspect of free will involved in submitting, the Greek has “submit yourselves”. It is also stated as a command, and all commands can be disobeyed, and require a free will decision to be obeyed. And I fully agree that all Christians are called to love “their neighbours”, especially if they are fellow Christians. Therefore I can agree with “voluntary yielding for the sake of love.”
However, as the wife is multiple times commanded to submit to her husband, we can call it sin if a wife does not submit. And as Christians we are commanded to point out the sin in our brother or sister (of course the necessary precautions and warnings apply). Furthermore I think we can interpret “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word” to mean that husbands are called to cleanse their wives by the washing with water through the word, that is, to apply the bible onto their lives. Therefore, it is not far-fetched that husbands are allowed to address refusal of their wives to submit to them. And ‘address’ does not mean ‘abuse’, as the command to ‘love your wives’ can never include ‘abuse’.
Now as for the ‘authority’ part, a LOT of people are having trouble with authority, and are rebelling against it, although in several texts, Christians are specifically commanded to submit to authorities (e.g. 1 Pet 2), but we should always obey God more than men (Ac5:29)! Are these people in authority flawless or without sin? Absolutely not! But there’s nothing wrong with honoring relationships that have an aspect of authority and an aspect of hierarchy to them, Christians are instructed to do so.
Now is there a notion of authority in the husband-wife relationship?
To answer that question, let’s ask, is there a notion of authority in the Christ-Church relationship? That I will address in the next comment.
LikeLike
@SKIJ: “Paul is mansplaining now”
Don’t be so sexist.
LikeLike
IOW, ‘Shut Up, Woman’, says Paul. (this Paul, not the actual Paul who was clearly talking about order in church in that passage).
And as I said, in order to get to submission, which you love because you believe it benefits you, you hurdle over the call to love others. In addition to displaying poor understanding, nothing you have said is loving towards women. You would not be a man who could be trusted, imo, because you are too focused on this.
LikeLike
Paul,
There you go again. Still rejecting God’s commands to keep your opinion because you can’t accept all the Bible verses requiring men to submit. Now apparently you don’t know this group really well.
We’ve been walking with the Lord for years. We’ve been studying the Word for years before you came along and decided that you need to teach it to us. The mansplaining is getting rather amusing.
So time for you to do your own research. Here’s an easy place to start:
Man and Woman One in Christ by Philip Barton Payne
Discovering Biblical Equality by Gordon Fee
Those books have a much deeper Scriptural study on the original Greek that Paul wrote.
Jesus said that its the traditions of man that make the word of God have no effect. This is one of the biggest sacred cows in the church. Yet God is raising up a new generation of Josiahs who will rip down all the idols, smashing into bits every high thing that raises itself against the knowledge of God.
LikeLike
Of course! And make his dinner, clean his house, basically perform all duties a slave would do. Because bible. Bah.
What he didn’t mention is that in that passage it says ‘IF she wants to inquire about something’. This doesn’t include situations where she has it all figured out.
LikeLike
To continue: is there a notion of authority in the Christ-Church relationship?
Authority is “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior” (Merriam-Webster). Does Christ have the power to command behavior of the Church? I think every Christian can agree He has. Thus by that definition Christ has authority over the Church. You could even claim that the Church consists of those who accept and do not reject Christ’s authority in their lives, e.g.
John 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love.
1 John 5:2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world.
1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
Any man never has absolute authority, only God has, but God delegated (limited) authority to man, to keep order in His creation. And if Christ has authority over the Church, then a husband has authority over his wife, insomuch it is delegated to him by Christ.
So yes, there is a notion of authority in the husband-wife relationship. Therefore Payne is incorrect to claim there is no notion of authority. About the nature of this authority we can further discuss.
LikeLike
@Lea: You don’t have any ground for your accusations against me. You’re even a poor reader when you claim “What he didn’t mention is that in that passage it says ‘IF she wants to inquire about something’. ”
Anybody can simply check that I DID mention that. You’re a liar and a false accuser.
LikeLike
This is rather dramatic eyeroll
Most people can follow these lines of thought without having lines drawn for them.
LikeLike
I am reading your words. I do not trust men whose entire focus is on getting women under their thumb. You are too focused on authority and submission.
Maybe show that you care about something else and I would judge differently.
LikeLike
“As you know we have several verses that stand in perfect isolation. We use them. As they were meant to be used”
Yes, especially when they are used in a way to control one specific gender. I’ve heard this before, Paul, for 40 yrs. Are you married? Do you tell your wife to submit to you?
LikeLike
Yes, a wife should submit to her husband just as a husband should submit to his wife. That is the model: yield and love all. That is the message of Christ.
LikeLike
@Avid Reader: again you’re using a lot of big words and even sexist remarks against me, yet you’re the one distorting scripture with your 1 Pet 5:5 misquote. And you still cannot bring yourself to confirm that wives are called to submit to their husbands. Sorry to have disturbed your echo chamber.
LikeLike
@Julie Anne: Yes, a wife should submit to her husband just as a husband should submit to his wife. That is the model: yield and love all. That is the message of Christ.
At least we can agree on that a wife should submit to her husband. I argued against a husband submitting to his wife, I welcome any arguments against my position, and will try to address these fairly if possible, but hate lies, false accusations and sexist remarks.
LikeLike
LOL. Dude. Just.
Just for funs, what is it you think this submission looks like that you want women to commit to, regardless of the actions of their husbands?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am thinking five things:
1) Juile Anne, I think it is pretty cool how you allow different views to be expressed.
2) Paul, I can see you have put much effort into understanding this matter, that is pretty cool as well. Check out Instone-Brewer and Keener, they are godly scholars who have also put much effort into understanding this matter.
3) For all Christians, abuse is our problem, this is our family. I encourage everyone to speak graciously one to another. Abusive speech is at the heart of all abuses!
4) We are all servants and slaves. We fix things by sacrifice. Love has scares. This life style of humility is only possible when we think more about what we will be than what we are now.
5) Did someone say “mutual abuse?” No… it was “mutual submission”. I am intrigued by the thinking, “abuse is never mutual” but submission always is.
LikeLike
Of course you argue against a man submitting to his wife. You want power and control over her. Just like Jesus used power and control over all! NOT!!!!
LikeLike
Paul, how did Jesus treat women who were not his wife? If you are to be Christ-like, I’d suggest you follow Jesus’ example who elevated women and brought them to an equal level with men, which was radical in his culture.
LikeLike
(Avid Reader is rolling with laughter right now at how the oh so very “sexist” Paul commentator is trying to label everyone else as “sexist.”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
He skipped right over the whole sacrificial love part of the Christ/church analogy and jumped to washing of the word – to control. That’s an unfortunate interpretation that I’ve seen several places, but imo its taking the analogy too far. I think Paul was just talking there about Christ, not about marriage. The important part was the sacrificial love and it is disturbing to see men just ignoring that part, or limiting it solely to some grand sacrifice that will never happen. Maybe deferring to your wife, and not telling her what to do, is a good sacrifice for the control freak types. Why don’t they try that?
LikeLike
Not only that, Avid. If I’m counting right, I got hit with the “sexist” label first — and I’m a guy. XD
Sorry, Paul. I don’t have to be a woman to know mansplaining when I see it. You barged on here acting like you have all the answers, and these arrogant, uppity, “rebellious” wimmin must bow to your superior wisdom. You don’t seem to realize that they’ve come to their conclusions about St. Paul’s teachings from a lot of study. And some of them have suffered terribly under patriarchy and its just-as-ugly cousin gender complementarianism — a kind of suffering which you and I will probably never understand.
Do not look down your nose at these women, Paul, or attempt to boss them around on Julie Anne’s blog. We both have a lot to learn from them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt that’s the only way Paul is getting it wrong, Lea. He keeps harping on “authority” and “hierarchy”, as though those are the concepts that St. Paul seeks to establish in Christian marriages. The fact is, the passage in Ephesians doesn’t mention hierarchy at all, and especially not in connection with the relationship between Jesus and the church. St. Paul’s focus in that whole passage is on unity — the notion that a husband and wife should be “one flesh” is in some way analogous to the ideal unity between believers and Jesus. And (likely not incidentally) that was also Jesus’ focus whenever he taught about marriage. As far as I can tell, He never made a point of making the husband the boss over the wife; He appealed to the statement that they’re to be “one flesh”.
Whereas Paul (our visitor here) seems to fixate on the mention of “Christ and the church” in Ephesians, and then ride the analogy to death, forcing all kinds of extraneous concepts into the husband/wife relationship which aren’t even in that passage. From what I can tell, he’s reading hierarchy and authority into an illustration, when St. Paul likely never intended to convey those things.
LikeLike
And amusingly running around trying to make us agree with him! Pass.
Even more amusingly, accusing Avid Reader of using ‘big words’ lol.
And then telling us we are sexist. Bless him. Maybe he’ll grow out of this philosophy one day.
LikeLike
Paul,
Go and learn what this means: Jesus said “I did not come to be served, but to serve….”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serving Kids,
Thank you!!! Good to know that chivalry isn’t dead after all. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Paul said, “Of course the bible is rich in its symbolism. But you seem to have troubles understanding how to interpret it.”
I could say the same thing about you.
Paul said, “That both men and women are part of the church is obvious. But the bride of Christ is the Church, the collective, not individual believers. Your mixing up categories.”
The Bride of Christ is the church. The collective body of Christ – Church – Bride of Christ is made up of individual members BOTH men and women. Nothing about your response refutes or negates the FACT that men ALSO represent the church – bride of Christ. The church -bride of Christ is made up of BOTH men and women – not just wives.
That’s just 1 reason why the husbands represent Christ while wives represent the church comp doctrine is so short sighted. It fails to acknowledge that BOTH men and women represent the church and not wives alone.
Paul said, “… you are not denying the symbolism I pointed out: the Church follows and submits to Christ, THEREFORE wives are to submit to their husbands.”
Absolutely, I don’t deny that wives should submit to their husbands as long as the husband isn’t commanding/demanding his wife to do something sinful, foolish as defined by the book of Proverbs or destructive.
However, like others on this forum, I also completely believe in a husband’s duty to LISTEN (obey) wisdom from his wife. Some call it mutual submission. I prefer to call it listening to wisdom from his wife, but it amounts to the same thing. I already commented on a husband’s duty to listen to (obey) wisdom from his wife in an earlier comment.
LikeLike
@ Paul
No doubt, submission is hard work. Submission is hard for men too. So many MEN DON’T SUBMIT to God or earthly authorities. The Bible is full of examples and histories about men rebelling against God and legitimate, earthly authorities. Comps like to emphasize the ways in which they believe women and wives fail to submit, but turn a blind eye to the plethora of examples of unsubmissive men in scripture and the news.
With that being said, it’s extremely difficult for wives to submit to their husbands LIKE THE CHURCH SUBMITS TO CHRIST. How so? The church is fortunate. The church submits to a sinless, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and loving Christ.
On the other hand, wives are not that fortunate. Wives have to submit themselves to sinful, imperfect, weak, very often unloving husbands who pretend to know it all, but don’t. (And some husbands are more sinful, imperfect, weak, unloving and illiterate than others.) Submitting to a perfect Savior and submitting to a fallen, sinful, imperfect man are entirely different things. There’s a huge disparity there.
As I said before, it’s hard for human beings (men have trouble submitting too) to submit to our perfect God. It’s not hard to see why wives would have a difficult time submitting to sinful,fallen and imperfect husbands.
Talk about correction, a Christian wife might need to go to her husband and respectfully point out his sin if or when he sins against her. If her husband doesn’t listen to her, she may have to employ the help of others depending on the sin (Mt 18:5, Luke 17:3). However, the church NEVER has to go to Christ and point out his sin because Christ is sinless – perfect, but the same is not true of husbands (or wives).
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Paul said, “You clearly have no trouble dictating husbands to lay down their lives for their wives, or to submit to their wives.”
No doubt, husbands should die for their wives. That’s biblical.
At the same time, my Bible teaches that wives should die for their husbands. Laying down our lives for others is a Christian mandate, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gender. As Christians, we are instructed to lay down our lives for others (1 John 3:16) and die to sin (Rom 6:11-12). That’s part of the Christian lifestyle. A Christian woman’s responsibility to lay down her life doesn’t end when she gets married; it flows into the marriage.
There’s a tendency among those who have a myopic view of Eph 5 and a few other so-called marriages verses to treat them as if they exist in a vacuum, but they don’t. They are part of the whole counsel of God. Other passages in the Bible tell us that laying down our lives for one another is part of the Christian lifestyle, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gender.
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And WE ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters (1 John 3:16).
In a Christian marriage, husbands and wives should lay down their lives (die to sin) for each other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kim said:
Kim, I had never thought of it that way. That is so good!
LikeLike
Another great comment, Kim.
LikeLike
To all who are questioning my intentions and my integrity (such as Julie Anne’s: “Of course you argue against a man submitting to his wife. You want power and control over her.”): it is between you and the Lord, if necessary I will call it out. I will not go into discussions about it, as my main concern is with the correct hermeneutics and exegesis of the biblical witness regarding the relationship between husband and wife. Any criticism using arguments I will seriously consider.
LikeLike
Paul,
No. Your main concern is that you believe that you have the right to discipline your wife if she doesn’t submit to your whims.
Paul wrote:
“We call it sin if a wife doesn’t submit….therefore it’s not far fetched that husbands are allowed to address the refusal of their wives to submit…..”
That’s called entitlement mentality. You feel entitled to having control of your wife. That’s not the same thing as having healthy boundaries to protect yourself from the unhealthy decisions of another person. Boundaries belong in marriage. Manipulation and control don’t.
Listen to the definition of abuse: A pattern of coercive control (ongoing actions or inactions) that proceeds from a mentality of entitlement to power, whereby, through intimidation, manipulation and isolation, the abuser keeps his target subordinated and under his control. This pattern can be emotional, verbal, psychological, spiritual, sexual, financial, social and physical. Not all these elements need be present, e.g., physical abuse may not be part of it.
The definition of domestic abuser: a family member or dating partner (current or ex) who has a profound mentality of entitlement to the possession of power and control over the one s/he chooses to mistreat. This mentality of entitlement defines the very essence of the abuser. The abuser believes he is justified in using evil tactics to obtain and maintain that power and control.
(From Crying out for justice)
LikeLike
Paul,
The root issue here is what Jesus described as “no one can serve two masters.” Yet nothing short of being a master who’s orders are instantly obeyed with joy will satisfy you.
Please take the time to really study what the Bible says about boundaries—starting with reading the book Boundaries by Dr. Cloud and Dr. Townsend.
LikeLike
Yes. I can think of no loving relationship that involves telling the other person to obey you. Submission is used in many space in the bible where we submit to each other, submit to elders, etc…It so obviously does not mean ‘always do what I say’. But that’s what they want you to think it means in marriage.
That is slavery, not marriage.
LikeLike
Paul,
Double standards are an abomination to God. (Prov 20:10) Yet you want that double standard. You feel entitled to disciplining your wife if she doesn’t obey your every whim, but Paul would never allow another adult to discipline him when he disobeys God’s command to submit!
Eph 5:21
1Peter 5:5
1Cor 16:16
and more verses all command Paul to submit too.
Now watch—Paul is going to keep trying to change the meaning of the Greek word Hupotasso every time it applies to him!
LikeLike
@jc: thank you for your kind remarks. I haven’t read Craig (?) Keener (on feminism?), but I’ve studied Instone-Brewer. I find his premises that the early Church quickly forgot all Jewish context not convincing.
LikeLike
@SKIJ: “St. Paul’s focus in that whole passage is on unity — the notion that a husband and wife should be “one flesh” is in some way analogous to the ideal unity between believers and Jesus.”
In the whole Eph 5:22-33 passage, St.Paul only mentions a single time that “the two will become one flesh”. That is not even a command, but a statement of fact, just as the unity between Christ and the Church is a fact. The passage contains 6 commands, 3 for wives, 3 for husbands. WIves submit to your husbands in everything (2x), wives respect/fear/revere you husbands (1x). Husbands love your wives as you love yourself (3x). That is not a passage with a focus on unity, but a focus on husbands and wives how to treat each other.
@SKIJ: “he’s reading hierarchy and authority into an illustration, when St. Paul likely never intended to convey those things.”
Well apparently you have extraordinary mind reading abilities to know what st.Paul’s intentions were, even though he appears to be talking about something that looks a bit like “hierarchy and authority” (not my words btw).
“22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
Christ is the head, the Church is the body. The husband is the head, the wife is the body. Now head (Gr, kephale) does NOT mean “source” here as some claim, because it is in the singular, and is directly coupled to body (Gr. somatos). The image is of a head and of a body. And just like the body submits to the head — FOR the husband is the head of the wife — (very similar to “follow its lead”, because they are a one-flesh unity), so the Church should submit herself to Christ and follows him in one-flesh unity, and so the wife should submit herself to her husband and follows him, because they are one flesh.
Husbands and wives are not both heads or both bodies, again showing an asymmetry in “submitting”. It also shows that “mutual submission” cannot fit this text.
Because if submission was completely symmetrical, we could exchange the roles of husband and wife:
husbands, submit yourselves to your own wives as you do to the Church(??). For the wife is the head of the husband, as the Church is the head of Christ.
We all know the text does not say that, and it cannot make sense.
LikeLike
Paul,
The NT uses the imagery of a human body because that’s symbolism that doesn’t require a hierarchy. Think about it. Is your heart more important than your lungs? Does your liver matter more than your colon? The human body can’t live without heart/lungs/etc. The human body can’t survive with the head seperated from the torso thus man doesn’t exist without woman and woman without man. It takes both for the human race to continue. The first woman came out of a man. Then every other person born came out of a woman. So God shows us a beautiful picture of mutuality even down to how a new life is birthed.
Now there are plenty of other answers to the other questions that you raised. However, there’s no way to squeeze years and years of heavy duty research into a blog comment. So instead let’s visually diagram some of these arguments to make them easier to understand.
Here’s how Comp theology keeps changing the meaning of the Greek word Hupotasso to maintain a double standard:
1Peter 5:5: They interpret Hupotasso as meaning “I just need to be nice to people.”
Eph 5:21 (submit to one another) They interpret Hupotasso as “I just need to be nice to others.”
1Cor 16:16 They interpret as “I just need to be nice to people in ministry.”
Eph 5:22 They interpret Hupotasso as “She has to do everything I want when I want it or she’s sinning.”
See the double standard?
Do we live by every word that proceeds out of God’s mouth? Yes, of course. Do we live by every word that proceeds out of man’s mouth? If man wills it, does that mean that God wills it? Is every thing that man wants the same thing as what God wants? Nope. The Bible warns us that there’s a way that seems right to a person but the end is death. So we know that man’s will isn’t always at all times equivalent to the will of God, yet Comp theology demands that woman instantly follow it or they are sinning. That logic is actually putting man’s whims on the same level of authority as God’s will.
Jesus gave women to ability to say “no” in Matt 5:37. Yet Comp theology refuses to allow women to say “no.”
Anyway, there’s a lot more to this that we can share but this is plenty to think about for now.
If anyone wants an in depth study on the Greek word for “head” read the book Beyond Sex Roles by Gilbert Bilezikian. He provides overwhelming evidence that the Apostle Paul was teaching mutuality in marriage not manipulation and control.
LikeLike
@Avid Reader: “The NT uses the imagery of a human body because that’s symbolism that doesn’t require a hierarchy.”
Again an example of inserting your own theology into the presumed intentions of St.Paul. It’s called eisegesis, and is theologically bad practice.
And trying to argue against hierarchy based on trying to separate head and body resulting in death, is not proper. First of all it does not disprove any hierarchy or authority (think of e.g. an owner/manager and his company/employees, it is hierarchical, but still separation will result in ‘death’ of both). Secondly, it is stretching the symbol beyond its applicability; Christ and the Church, and husband and wife are one, separation is not in view, it is ASSUMING oneness as an argument FOR submission. (FOR the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body – which assumes connection between head and body)
@AR: “Here’s how Comp theology keeps changing the meaning of the Greek word Hupotasso to maintain a double standard”
Well, I’m not ‘Comp theology’ and I did not yet even appeal to the meaning of hypotasso. So I do not consider it a response to my arguments.
@AR: “1Peter 5:5: They interpret Hupotasso as meaning ‘I just need to be nice to people.'”
Are you still sticking to your faulty ‘translation’ of that verse? NIV has “In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, ‘God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.'”
@AR: ‘Jesus gave women to ability to say “no” in Matt 5:37. Yet Comp theology refuses to allow women to say “no.”’
That’s a ridiculous argument. It is bad exegesis of Mt 5:37, and it is even a bad application to submission of wives to husbands. Saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is in no way directly related to submission. E.g. 1 Pt 3:1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives
LikeLike
I cannot seem to post comments anymore.
LikeLike
***Moderator note: This comment was stuck in spam and I just released it 4/14. ~ja
@Avid Reader: “The NT uses the imagery of a human body because that’s symbolism that doesn’t require a hierarchy.”
Again an example of inserting your own theology into the presumed intentions of St.Paul. It’s called eisegesis, and is theologically bad practice.
And trying to argue against hierarchy based on trying to separate head and body resulting in death, is not proper. First of all it does not disprove any hierarchy or authority (think of e.g. an owner/manager and his company/employees, it is hierarchical, but still separation will result in ‘death’ of both). Secondly it is stretching the symbol beyond its applicability; Christ and the Church, and husband and wife are one, separation is not in view, it is ASSUMING oneness as an argument FOR submission. (FOR the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body – which assumes connection between head and body)
@AR: “Here’s how Comp theology keeps changing the meaning of the Greek word Hupotasso to maintain a double standard”
Well, I’m not ‘Comp theology’ and I did not yet even appeal to the meaning of hypotasso. So I do not consider it a response to my arguments.
LikeLike
@AR: “1Peter 5:5: They interpret Hupotasso as meaning ‘I just need to be nice to people.'”
Are you still sticking to your faulty ‘translation’ of that verse? NIV has “In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, ‘God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.'”
@AR: ‘Jesus gave women to ability to say “no” in Matt 5:37. Yet Comp theology refuses to allow women to say “no.”’
That’s a ridiculous argument. It is bad exegesis of Mt 5:37, and it is even a bad application to submission of wives to husbands. Saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is in no way directly related to submission. E.g. 1 Pt 3:1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives
LikeLike
@AR: “The human body can’t survive with the head seperated from the torso thus man doesn’t exist without woman and woman without man.”
This is a distortion, as the text is talking about marriage, not about a generic relationship between men and women. At best you can say this is a very good argument against divorce.
@AR: “So God shows us a beautiful picture of mutuality even down to how a new life is birthed.”
Well, not by the imagery of head and body. Nowhere in the Eph section is ‘birthing new life’ even alluded to. And you’re cleverly shifting from ‘mutual submission’ to ‘mutuality’. No one is claiming any form of mutuality cannot exist. A good example of mutuality in marriage is in 1 Co 7 regarding having authority (!!) over your spouse’s body for sexual pleasure. Showing a form of mutuality does not deny my argument against “mutual submission”. My argument is about denying submission of the husband to the wife as the Church should submit to Christ.
But we’re now gradually shifting from denying submission of wives to husbands towards the interpretation of what submission means. I conclude most here agree that wives should submit to their husbands, but there is disagreement about the meaning of that submission. I think I can safely say the discussion on the meaning of submission is centered around the question of any presence/absence of authority and/or hierarchy and its implications.
LikeLike
(apparently my comment was too long and got blocked)
LikeLike
@Kim M: Thank you for your thoughtful replies, especially on submission, I can agree with many things you say. Here are some remarks.
@K: “it’s extremely difficult for wives to submit to their husbands LIKE THE CHURCH SUBMITS TO CHRIST. [..] Wives have to submit themselves to sinful, imperfect, weak, very often unloving husbands who pretend to know it all, but don’t.”
Yes it is difficult, hence be wise who to marry; which man would you WANT to submit to?
As noted, men need to submit too, but also to sinful, imperfect, weak, unloving authorities who pretend to know it all but don’t. And often men can NOT pick those authorities, whereas a wife can pick a husband.
You submit BECAUSE of Christ, NOT because of your husband
I think you should be more obedient to God than to men, hence obedience and submission has it limits, just as authority (given by God! Rom 13:Let every soul [psychē] be subject [hypotassesthō !!] to the authorities [!!] being above [!!] him. For there is no authority except by God; but those existing are having been instituted by God.) has limits.
Your attitude should be such that you should trust Christ, which will expel fear
1 Pet 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening
@K: ” I don’t deny that wives should submit to their husbands as long as the husband isn’t commanding/demanding his wife to do something sinful, foolish as defined by the book of Proverbs or destructive. However, like others on this forum, I also completely believe in a husband’s duty to LISTEN (obey) wisdom from his wife. Some call it mutual submission. I prefer to call it listening to wisdom from his wife, but it amounts to the same thing.”
Well, I’ll postpone the discussion on mutual submission, but I think it is of course part of loving your wife to listen to her. I disagree that a husband should obey his wife. Christ will listen to requests of the Church made through prayer, but is not called to obey our prayers, although He will often reward them.
As a warning for husbands we have the examples of Eve and of Sarai.
Eve sinned first and Adam listened to his wife and ate too, for which he was cursed (Gen 3:17 To Adam He said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.)
And Sarai proposed Abraham to father a child through Hagar, although God’s promise was He would give Abraham his own son, and Abraham listened. (Gen 16
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. [.] so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said.)
LikeLike
They are interconnected. JA has said many times that we submit to each other. That is a consistent reading from multiple other passages. It fits with all the ‘love one another’s’ in the rest of the bible.
What ‘submission’ is matters. Submission in the form of hierarchy, authority and obedience? No. I don’t agree with that at all. Submission as a ‘I love you and will yield to you on this thing you care about, as you yield to me on that thing I care about’ is biblical. Woman go make me a sandwich, cause I’m the man and you are my employee/slave? No. That is not consistent with the general concept of a good relationship between any believers in the bible.
That ‘winning him without a word’ thing I think has been sorely misused. It is for non-Christian husbands and related to salvation. It doesn’t mean send him mind beams so he can figure out what you want without using the mouth that god gave you. Sheesh.
So if your husband is a successful liar, you are stuck? IF he cheats. If he hurts you? No. Wrong.
You fail to address any of the issues regarding how love actually works between two people! I think you’re too happy playing word games and trying to get people to agree with you to care about the participants in an actual relationship.
LikeLike
@Kim: “That’s just 1 reason why the husbands represent Christ while wives represent the church comp doctrine is so short sighted. It fails to acknowledge that BOTH men and women represent the church and not wives alone.”
You still have it wrong regarding symbolism.
1. Nowhere is it explicitly stated that ‘the bride of Christ’ is the Church, whereas the symbol of husband-wife standing for Christ-Church is explicitly mentioned in Eph 5, multiple times. To call it short-sighted is denying the authority of scripture.
2. Your example of the bride of Christ versus the Church does not add anything significant, men and women are part of the Church, and part of the bride.
3. You’re still confused about the significance of a symbol and its application by analogy. That men and women are part of the Church is irrelevant to the symbol of Christ and His Church being analog to a husband and his wife.
4. A subclass being part of a larger class does NOT mean the subclass represents that class. In this case, the arbitrarily chosen “men and women are part of the church”, no more represents the church, as “younger and elder” or “Jews and gentiles” or “children and parents” represent the church.
5. Eph 5 even explicitly mentions how to apply the symbol of Christ-Church to the relationship of husband and wife. You cannot discard that, certainly not with a bad analogy.
6. You use “men and women” as categories to reason these “represent the Church”, whereas Eph 5 is talking about husbands and wives, NOT men and women in general.
7. The analogy is between husband and wife (singular), not between husbands and wives, or men and women (plural).
LikeLike
Paul,
Let’s be clear. The problem here is that you feel entitled to disciplining your wife if she doesn’t do what you want—exactly when and how you want it. You think it’s a sin if she doesn’t obey everything you demand.
What you can’t see is that you are actually usurping God’s authority. If she has to obey everything you say or she’s in sin—then you’ve just made yourself into god. Only God has that kind of authority. Not you.
Jesus did give women the power of “no” in Matt 5:37. But you can’t accept that because you want total control.
Jesus said no one can serve two masters. Yet you still want to be the master. Nothing less will satisfy you.
We could keep going on this subject for days. I do have answers to all the objections that you raised. I could post all kinds of answers and totally shred all your arguments. But no matter how much evidence we present—you will deny all of it because it doesn’t give you the control that you want.
So I’m going to leave you now and go back to my reading. Meanwhile, you are welcome to continue this discussion as long as you want.
LikeLike
@ Paul said, “Christ will listen to requests of the Church made through prayer, but is not called to obey our prayers, although He will often reward them.”
Again, the analogy between Christ’s relationship with the church and the husband and wife relationship is limited. There are things that take place in Christ’s relationship with his church that do not take place in the husband and wife relationship, and vice versa. Why? Because unlike earthly husbands, Christ is sinless, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and ALWAYS loving.
Christ has absolutely no reason or NEED to obey the church. On the other hand, the same is not true for earthly husbands. Earthly husbands can greatly benefit from obediently listening to wisdom (not foolish) from their wives a.k.a helpers.
Our sovereign God told Abraham to obey his wife, Sarah. God in his sovereignty could have given the message and instruction directly to Abraham, but God chose to have Abraham obey Sarah instead. Gen 21:12
But God said to Abraham: Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. OBEY Sarah, no matter what she asks of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants will bear your name. Gen 21:12 NABRE
Some translations say, “listen,
harken or do whatever she tells you.”
The Hebrew word used there is Shema (8085) and it means to listen obediently. It’s the same word used in Jer 10:1.
LikeLike
@ Paul
Again unlike Christ, earthly husbands can benefit from obediently listening to wisdom from their wives a.k.a helpers. With that being said, if it’s ok with Julie Ann, I would like to link some newsworthy examples:
Former Cedar Hills Mayor Eric Richardson plead guilty to bank fraud and had to resign. He was sentenced to 366 days in prison and ordered to pay $110,000 in restitution. He publicly admitted that his wife told him not to get involved in the loan deals.
This husband could have benefited from obediently listening to wisdom from his wife.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865566692/Prison-bound-ex-Cedar-Hills-mayor-says-he-should-have-heeded-wife.html
You keep overstretching the analogy of Christ’s relationship with the church
to describe a husband’s relationship with his wife, yet in day-to-day life, we can see countless examples of husbands behaving in UNchristlike ways. I’ve never read about Christ committing bank fraud and causing this kind of hardship for his church.
A husband fell to his death trying to remove Christmas decorations from a roof. His wife asked him to refrain from this activity because the roof was slippery, but he completely ignored wisdom from his wife. This husband exercised poor judgement, and Christ doesn’t exercise poor judgement. This husband could have benefited from obediently listening to wisdom from his wife.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262977/John-Kershaw-Company-director-died-fall-slippery-roof-took-Christmas-decorations-down.html
LikeLike
@ Paul
Lee Klein plead guilty before a federal judge. He admitted that his wife warned him not to get caught up in the mob. “I should have listened to my wife,” Klein said. Unlike Christ who has absolutely no reason or need to obediently listen to the church, this husband would have benefited by obediently listening to wisdom from his wife.
https://nypost.com/2009/10/14/6-fla-members-of-bonanno-crime-family-admit-guilt/
Gregory Earl’s defrauded his investors. Ken Jones gave Earls nearly $300,000, most of his retirement savings. Earls promised to return the money within two months but began avoiding his calls, he said. “I should have listened to my wife,” Jones said. Unlike Christ who has no reason or need to obediently listen to the church, this husband could have benefited by obediently listening to wisdom from his wife.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54820-2005Feb25.html
LikeLike
@ Avid Reader,
I suspect that you are right. We are not going to change Paul’s mind. On the flip side, I also highly suspect that Paul isn’t going to change our minds either. I didn’t post merely to respond to Paul. I also thought some of the folks here might enjoy reading about husbands who could have benefited from obediently listening to wisdom from their wives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, you are picking and choosing what you want to interpret based on your preconceived notions of what you want scripture to say.
I will point you back to Proverbs 26:
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
Now you have a problem. If you want to treat the Bible as a microscopic black and white document, you have to internally contradictory statements, and the Bible is false. If you want the Bible to be true, then you have to understand that these statements, in and of themselves do not provide wisdom, but they are referring to a greater principle that, as the situation demands, we should respond one way or the other.
So, the prooftexting you are doing makes no sense. Paul is dealing with specific people in specific situations and we have to be careful not to apply the teaching more broadly than it was intended.
Another example, like you, the Pharisees took a microscope to the Bible. Their argument, based on their misconceptions was that Moses’s allowance of divorce gave them carte blanche to financially abuse women. Jesus said… wait for it… the divorce law is bogus. It was given to Israel because Israel couldn’t handle what it meant to be faithful to the wife of their youth, and, as a result, God protected women by giving them the option of divorce.
So, in the same way, you microscopically look at Paul’s teaching, and instead of seeing sacrificial love, you see ‘the man is the king of his castle’.
I think Peter is speaking about you here: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”
It seems you are still stuck on using the oracles of God (e.g. Eph 5) to justify your fleshly desires to be served by women. Interestingly, Jesus set that example. Even though he was the head, the authority, and the groom, he washed his disciples’ feet. Then he goes on to say, “No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.”
Maybe you need to consider your wife your friend and not your slave?
LikeLike
Kim,
I’ve really enjoyed reading all your posts. You have so many great points, especially on the imagery between Christ and the church. Thank you for taking the time to articulate all of that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, another question I like to ask. You say the husband has the authority. In every authority relationship in the Bible, parents/child, Church/member, State/citizen, the Bible is prescriptive about what form of discipline is used to correct disobedience.
Pray tell, what form of discipline does the Bible prescribe for the husband and his insubordinate wife?
It’s not surprising that some of the most extreme comps (e.g. RC Sproul Jr.) take their lead from the parent/child relationship and feel it’s their right to physically “discipline” their wives. But, in absence of that, there really is no precedent nor command.
Not only that, but it is intriguing that taking Paul’s teaching microscopically leads to contradictions elsewhere in scripture. For example, Westminster subtly applies the terms “superior” and “inferior” to these relationships, and interestingly, that becomes the pattern by which comps denigrate women. They “claim” that women are not inferior, and wives are not inferior, but then in all circumstances, they treat them exactly this way. Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit is impeded from working in women the same way he works in men? Are women somehow inferior in their ability to hear the voice of God to men? In that case, what do you say when a woman must choose between the voice of her savior telling her to take one path when her husband commands her to take another?
LikeLike
Sorry, Paul, I found the comments in the spam box. I released it. Sometimes that happens from time to time. Sorry about that.
Avid Reader, FYI, I put a Moderator Note in bold at the top of the newly released comment. Paul was addressing you in his comment. When I release a comment, Word Press puts it in the thread according to the time it was originally posted.
LikeLike