Wives Submission, Husbands love...

Discussion in 'Doctrinal Discussions' started by christianbacktobasics, Jan 19, 2015.

  1. #21 Relentless, Feb 12, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2015
    Cturtle, please take what I'm about to say not as a personal criticism but as a general analysis of the argument that men in Christ reserve certain privileges or entitlements over women, especially husbands over wives.

    Not one scripture makes the man "head of the house". There is one that makes the woman "house despot": Titus 2:5. The Greek word is οικουργους. And Titus was written as specific instructions on how Titus should set up the community of believers on the island of Crete, where the men were lazy and the women were shirking home responsibilities. Paul was not telling the women to submit better to the "lazy" men but to take charge of their homes.

    As for a husband being the head of his wife, Paul used the body analogy to denote unity, not a chain of command; see Eph. 4:16 and Col. 2:19. Head never meant boss or authority in either ancient or koine Greek. The closest meaning to that was the "head" of an attacking force, which again did not mean the general but simply the leading point of the attacking force. Greeks believed that the body grew out of the head and was thus the source of the body. Yet the head and body were mutually dependent: the head fed the body, but the body supported and transported the head.

    Paul went on to describe the husband/wife relationship as mutually submissive; see 1 Cor. 7:4 and Eph. 5:21. And in the passage you mentioned, 1 Cor. 11, Paul ended it with vs. 11-12: "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."

    Now to Gal. 3:28. It clearly says what the situation is for those already "in Christ", not who can become "in Christ". Also, even before Christ, slaves and Gentiles and women could be "saved". Would anyone claim that Gentiles are not to be treated equally in the Body of Christ? Would anyone claim the same for slaves? Then there is no reason to make an exception for women. As Paul taught about the parts of the Body, no part rules over another part, and even the parts that are considered the weakest should be treated with special honor (1 Cor. 12:23-24).

    I have written an entire book on this issue, but this is just off the top of my head (an expression having nothing to do with authority). Teachings have consequences, and few have had as much harmful effect upon Christian women than the idea that men should rule over them, however benevolently. It denies the fully autonomy and personhood of women, even if only symbolically or in some kind of "role playing" manner. But this is a huge topic for another day.
     
    Euphemia likes this.
  2. Relentless,
    I appreciate all of the time that you took to study this topic. And i am certainly glad to hear that you have found scriptures that your family can live by, and feel blessed. However i really do not agree with most of your position on this topic. I do agree that husbands and wives should be respectful, and submissive to one another, but as Eph 5:22-33 says the husband has authority over the wife, Just Like Jesus has authority over the husband. Not in a demeaning manner, but in the respect that when a couple is married, God deals differently with the husband than the wife. In my opinion the husband is the covering of the wife, just like Jesus is the covering over the man and God is the covering over Jesus. In my opinion the husband should be the prophet or pastor over the house. Now if households such as yours operate better with the wife as equal or in authority over the husband than that's between them and God, and i respect that a smooth and peaceful household is blessed in God's eyes due to the unity.
    Now if for say a woman is not married, then by all means Jesus is viewed as her husband, and she answers directly to Him. But that is something totally different.
    Blessings to you and your book and household. I pray you all great peace and success.
     
  3. Thanks for your kind words, Cturtle. I really mean that. But please let me just say this, and I'll say no more:

    There is a conflict between mutual submission and one-way submission, between equality and hierarchy. Eph. 5:21 (and others) clearly stated that all Christians are to submit to each other, and such submission, being mutual, cannot entail authority. It is deference and humility. The next verse, 22, has no verb at all; it simply says "wives to your own husbands". The verb is carried over from vs. 21, which is clearly mutual. For anyone interested, here's how I see the Greek in Ephesians: http://bible.fether.net/index.php?book=10&pager=en

    Jesus both modeled and taught that the greatest must be like the least, and that those with privilege are to lay it down. Paul taught the same in many places. Paul also gave instructions on how Christians should behave in less than ideal situations such as slavery, or a Christian woman married to a non-Christian man. The letters he wrote were in response to specific situations and questions, which is a part of context we cannot ignore. But he never taught the opposite of Jesus. And neither of them made exceptions for this as long as the "chain of command" were done benevolently. It isn't eh quality of the chain that matters, but that there is a chain at all. One cannot benevolently violate "Not so among you" or "Submit to each other".

    I cannot fathom why any Christian would even want to have authority over another adult Christian. And as Jesus and Paul both taught, those with privilege are to lay it down and humble themselves. I also see exactly the same excuses and arguments made to retain male privilege as were once used to retain white privilege. I don't say this as a smear but as historical and theological reality. Here's a blog post I made examining that issue: http://fether.net/index.php?page=2009/11/02/sound-familiar/ . And per Gal. 3:28, since neither slaves nor Gentiles are treated as anything but full members of the Body of Christ, so also women are not to be treated as anything less. Paul also had many women as co-workers, and he praised them for their efforts.

    God is not a respecter of persons, nor has he started to look at the flesh instead of the heart. To split the body down the middle on the basis of the flesh before even considering spiritual gifting is, in my opinion, the teaching of a division that keeps the Body crippled and sickly. This is why I take this issue so seriously; it has far-ranging effects upon Christian relationships and service. So many women feel that God Himself holds their flesh against them, considering them intrinsically "less" or defective, since they are restricted solely due to being women. This sends the message that women are not in fact equal in being; a "role" played for life is not a role.

    All Christians can be prophets; all are priests. There is not a single scripture, even implied, that places a husband as an authority, prophet, or priest over his wife. If God is not a respecter of persons, such a situation cannot exist.

    I also cannot express adequately my revulsion at the idea of Jesus as anyone's husband. Remember that this would apply to the unmarried Christian man just as easily. We are not married to Jesus individually but only in the most symbolic sense collectively, as one Bride. Aside from that, the notion that a woman, but not a man, must be "covered" by a man, is another indication that she is "less" and "defective", not being able to completely grow up or be seen as a co-heir in Christ.

    I've said all I dare say about it in this forum, and can only offer my writings elsewhere to anyone wishing to know more of the reasons I hold this position. I pray for the day when all Christians stop being concerned about who is in charge of whom, and just let the Spirit lead. Women are adult human beings, fully responsible before both the laws of the land and God, and should be treated as such.
     
    Euphemia and Waggles say Amen and like this.
  4. #24 CCW95A, Feb 14, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2015
    God always has a divine order in how he works. The Father first, then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit. Jesus said , "my Father is greater then me..."(John 14:28) That does not mean that the Father is better, or Superior to the Son, for they are all co-equal, and each one is God in perfect unity. Even though the "man" is the head of his wife, he is surely not better! But God has placed man to be the head of his wife so there would be unity in purpose. Woman was made for man, and not man for woman, but, even though man was created first, man does not exist without the woman, for man is born from woman, so man has no rights to brag, that he is better because he was first.
    Adam and Eve are our perfect example since they were our first husband and wife team. The very first thing the Lord gave Adam to do, even way before God told Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was to tend, and keep the garden in which he was placed.

    Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

    The word, "keep" means " to watch, to keep, to preserve, to guard ". This was Adams full time job! Adam failed in his job, and he let the serpent into the garden in which he was suppose to be protecting. The end results was it caused Adam, and Eve's downfall. Adam was the responsible party because it was his job to protect his family. Adam is the very first "watchmen" we find in scripture. This is the same responsibility of every husband who has a wife, to be there watchmen. There was a prophet who was also given this same kind of responsibility, except his job was to be a watchmen for the nation of Israel. His name was Ezekiel.

    Eze 33:6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.
    Eze 33:7 "So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me.

    All husbands are required by God to be a "watchmen" over their family so as not to give the devil a place. If his family fails it would be his fault by not warning, and taking a stand against evil that would bring destruction to what God has brought together.
    If the husband does not take his place as the "watchmen" over his family, then most likely if not always the wife will take up this position to keep her family safe. On many occasions the Lord has taken the side of the wife over the husband because the husband was not doing what was right to do.
    Adam not only failed at not protecting the garden, he also failed in not warning Eve of the danger when she was talking to the serpent.
     
    Holycaves and Waggles say Amen and like this.
  5. Said just as it lay in my heart....
     
  6. 1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

    Something to think about.
     
  7. It's a shameful situation as God says, "Their children are rebellious, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path." Is 3:12

    By the way, children learn to be rebellious when women usurp male authority. Women teach subordination and men teach leadership.
     
  8. I would argue the converse, and the proof is seen in the culture over the last few decades.
     
  9. Brother Steve,
    Relentles is no longer here so she wont be answering you.
    Blessings
    Jim
     

Share This Page