Bible Question (I Think...) Wife to be in submission to husband...

[piratz]

Went to Church today... Regarding the Biblical directive for wives to be in submission to husbands... What is this really about? Is it there to provide a way of living together? Is it about sex? Is the word submission the best word used here? Just interested... seems nowdays everything is 50/50 in a relationship... is the bliblical directive a better way or what? My current disposition on this is that this thought is old-timey and can get you into trouble (in a relationship) real fast these days... So would welcome any thoughts on this. :)

[masonite]

This will shortly be moved to another forum, but don't worry about it.

I can see the reason behind the idea. C.S. Lewis summed it up by saying SOMEONE has to be head of the house if marriages are to be permanent alliances - if there is no head, the first irresolvable disagreement can result in divorce - as it often does today. This is not the New Testament idea of what a marriage is.

That said, it's difficult to carry out today. My poor Dad has always taken headship-of-the-husband overly seriously, and expects his wife to submit unconditionally. He had the misfortune of marrying two utter spitfires.* They didn't know what hit them until it was too late. Results varied in each case, fairly miserably.

THAT said, I think the idea is a sound one, virtually impossible to live out today because virtually no woman is prepared to do this. (Plenty of men seem to be.)

I am unmarried, permanently.

*Not at the same time.

[Freejack00]

[Just interested... seems nowdays everything is 50/50 in a relationship... is the bliblical directive a better way or what? My current disposition on this is that this thought is old-timey and can get you into trouble (in a relationship) real fast these days... So would welcome any thoughts on this. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

I think the 50/50 you speak of is mostly here in the states, you should travel abroad.Is is no wonder we have the highest divorce rate?

[Mangetout]

I think the pasage we're talking about is Ephesians 5; it's amazing how many people(men) stop reading at verse 24:

Ephesians 5:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as 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.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--
30 for we are members of his body.
31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
It's interesting that the in the Anglican church (where I was married), the 'Love, honour and obey' vows for the bride are optional, but if they are included, then the groom must vow to 'Love, cherish and worship' her.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Interestingly, the much older biblical writings (Genesis, for instance) take a more modern viewpoint.

They split responsibilities, the woman is clearly in charge of the home while the husband is responsible for dealings with the outside world (market, politics, war, sheepherding, etc), so there's not "equality" per se. However, in the home, the woman is clearly the one in charge, as in the market, the male is the one in charge.

So wives submit to their husbands in matters of politics, war, etc. and husbands submit to their wives in terms of raising children, passing on the Tradition/religion, etc.

[istara]

I think either party to a marriage having to submit is a fuck-stupid idea deriving from St Paul anyway, not Jesus.

[Mangetout]

Submission isn't such a bad thing; in the relationship between myself and my doctor, I willingly submit to her authority on health-related matters.

It's my feeling that much of the objection to the idea of submission is based on the assumption that the submitted one is made inferior in some way; this need not be the case.

[grimpixie]

Originally posted by Mangetout
I think the pasage we're talking about is Ephesians 5; it's amazing how many people (men) stop reading at verse 24
Likewise, how many never bother to read verse 21 beforehand - "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."
A successful marriage is all about mutual submission, each considering the needs and desires of the other over his/her own. Any relationship where one partner demands the submission of the other to his/her desires is doomed to failure.

Originally posted by piratzseems nowdays everything is 50/50 in a relationship...
I think that very few marriages are split 50/50 - ours ranges between 80/20 and 20/80 depending on which day of the week and what time of the month it is... e.g. For the first nine months after we got married, Mrs. Pixie had a series of chest infections which almost landed her in hospital - for those months it was all she could do to go to her lectures and crawl into bed, and the workload was split about 95/5 (It got better ;) ) and I had to re-adjust my expectations of what "sharing the load" meant!!

Gp

[istara]

Well, I guess if the husband and wife want to play doctors-and-nurses... ;)

[UDS]

This reminds me of a joke:

Social researcher (to woman): Who takes the decisions in your family, you or your husband?

Woman: (Thinks.) Well, I take all the small decisions and my husband takes the big decisions.

Researcher: Can you give me an example of the kind of smnall decisions you take?

Woman: Oh, you know. What clothes the children will wear, where the children will go to school, where we will live, what job my husband will have, that kind of thing.

Researcher (surprised): And the big decisions that your husband takes?

Woman. Whether the Israelis should get out of the West Bank, whether the US should invade Iraq . . . .

[Sofa King]

I have often pondered the language found in 1 Corinthians 11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1COR+11&language=english&version=KJV). It seems paradoxical to me, but I'm offering it simply as more information on the subject.

For a little more fun, perhaps taken a little bit out of context, check out the Brick Testament (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html) version!

[Mangetout]

IMO the 50/50 split should be an emergent phenomenon, not a target, it's better if it happens as a result of each of the partners being willing to do as much as it takes, but only being actually able to achieve about 50% of the work because the other partner has got there and done it first.

[Guinastasia]

Well, there's always www.ladiesagainstfeminism.org

Please be nice-the owner of the site is a friend of mine.

[LorieSmurf]

That's one of the reasons i don't believe in the Bible anymore. All that submission stuff I learned in the Southern Baptist Church. And in a non-denominational church. I think it's stupid, and I don't believe in documents and deities that tell me I have to submit to anybody (except my parents when I was underage and living in their house, but ya don't need a Bible to tell you that one) My husband and I are considered equal in our marriage.

[tomndebb]

A somewhat different interpretation of the passage links several similar passages (below). In each passage, a fairly common Hellenistic exhortation is used to call people to maintain their lives in civil decorum. In each, the "standard" expectation for society at that time is provided (in which wives were subject to their husbands, children to their parents, and slaves to their masters--indicating a desire on the part of the growing church to refrain from "rocking the boat" or becoming disruptive of social mores). Attached to each, however, is a further exhortation that the "superiors" in each relationship owe to their "subjects" love and consideration, emulating Jesus, in a way that was not expressed in the "standard" Hellenistic guidelines. Such calls for submission fall badly on our 21st century consciousness, but they were the norm for the late 1st century and were simply examples of the desire on the part of the church to reinforce that they were not advocating civil or domestic unrest.

In this view, Paul (or his pseudepigraphical follower(s)), as well as Clement and the author of 1 Peter are not laying down restrictive calls for limiting the rights of women (or others). Instead, the verses are seen as simply calls for the orderly comportment of Christians within society, strongly modified by the additional obligations that are placed on the husbands/parents/masters to behave in a manner not only ethical, but loving toward those who are naturally (according to the customs of the times) their subjects.

Collossians 3:18 - 4:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=col+3%3A18+-+4%3A1&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

Ephesians 5:22 - 6:9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=eph+5%3A22+-+6%3A9&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

1 Peter 2:13 - 3:7 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1+Pet+2%3A13+-+3%3A7&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

Titus 2:1 - 10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=titus+2%3A1+-+10&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

1 Timothy 2:8 - 15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1+Tim+2%3A8+-+15&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

1 Timothy 6:1 - 2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1+Tim+6%3A1+-+2&version=RSV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

And from the patristics, 1 Clement (gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/00/Religious/ChurchWriters/ApostolicFathers/1Clement%09%09%2B) 21:6 - 9:1Clem 21:6 Let us fear the Lord Jesus [Christ], whose blood was given for us. Let us reverence our rulers; let us honor our elders; let us instruct our young men in the lesson of the fear of God. Let us guide our women toward that which is good:
1Clem 21:7 let them show forth their lovely disposition of purity; let them prove their sincere affection of gentleness; let them make manifest the moderation of their tongue through their silence; let them show their love, not in factious preferences but without partiality towards all them that fear God, in holiness. Let our children be partakers of the instruction which is in Christ:
1Clem 21:8 let them learn how lowliness of mind prevaileth with God, what power chaste love hath with God, how the fear of Him is good and great and saveth all them that walk therein in a pure mind with holiness.
1Clem 21:9 For He is the searcher out of the intents and desires; whose breath is in us, and when He listeth, He shall take it away.

[Northern Piper]

Originally posted by Freejack00
I think the 50/50 you speak of is mostly here in the states, you should travel abroad.Is is no wonder we have the highest divorce rate? Cite, please, showing that the US has the highest divorce rate?

[grimpixie]

A quick Google finds this web page (http://www.infoondivorce.com/otherstats.html) which does indeed show the US at the "top of the league" as far as divorce rates are concerned, while this second site (http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml) shows that the US has the greatest rate of divorce per 1000 of population, but a lower percentage of marriages end in divorce than some other countries.

Take that FWIW - lies, damned lies, etc...

Gp

[Ms. Lois]

Originally posted by grimpixie

Likewise, how many never bother to read verse 21 beforehand - "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."
A successful marriage is all about mutual submission, each considering the needs and desires of the other over his/her own. Any relationship where one partner demands the submission of the other to his/her desires is doomed to failure.


Gp

So where, exactly are men told by God to submit to their wives in any way? They're only instructed to love them.

My dog must submit to me, and her reward is love from me - a lot like the biblical family heirarchy. There is no question who is the authority - just as there is no question who is supposed to be in authority according to scripture.

Biblical apologists try to inject modern themes such as "mutual submission" as the "real meaning" wihtout supported from the scripture. They choose to ignore this fact, just as they choose to ignore the distasteful child-raising instructiosn, support for slavery, and other parts they don't like.

LIke SuperLorie, I was raised in a reigious household (my fathers side was Shiite Baptist, and my mother's a conservative Methodist) and spent a lot of time in bible study. All this taught me was how far from Christ's teachings Paul led the Christian Church. Read the first 4 books of the NT, and then Paul's letters and you find two very different schools of thought.

Christ was loving and accepting of differences in people, as long as they (1) accepted him as the son of God and (2) treated each other with love & respect. Christ rejected superficial Judaic law which was outdated and oppressive.

Paul's messages are much more "my way or the high way", more control-oriented than Christ ever taught. He was a misogonist, and probably closeted homosexual who hated Christians while a Jew, and dispised women and relations with them while a Christian.

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< Christ rejected superficial Judaic law which was outdated and oppressive. >>

Well, no. Not if you read what he preached. Jesus said things like, [my paraphrase]: Jewish law says not to commit adultery, but I tell you not to even THINK about committing adultery.

That is, Jesus did NOT reject Judaic law, he in fact urged a more strict interpretation of it than did the Jews of the time.

It was Paul who rejected "superficial" Judaic law -- the bits he didn't like -- following his vision after Jesus was dead.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Ms. Lois
So where, exactly are men told by God to submit to their wives in any way? They're only instructed to love themIt says "submit to one another".

[toadspittle]

Originally posted by Ms. Lois


So where, exactly are men told by God to submit to their wives in any way? They're only instructed to love them.

Well, yes, but:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Paul is asking husbands not just to love their wives, but to love them with Christ-like devotion, sacrificing themselves for their wives.

When someone goes to the cross for someone else, I think it's a tough call re: who's the leader and who's the servant. A true leader should be a servant at the same time.

[Ms. Lois]

Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven
<< Christ rejected superficial Judaic law which was outdated and oppressive. >>

Well, no. Not if you read what he preached. Jesus said things like, [my paraphrase]: Jewish law says not to commit adultery, but I tell you not to even THINK about committing adultery.

That is, Jesus did NOT reject Judaic law, he in fact urged a more strict interpretation of it than did the Jews of the time.

It was Paul who rejected "superficial" Judaic law -- the bits he didn't like -- following his vision after Jesus was dead.

If we just went by your paraphrase, you might be correct. If we read the text of Matthew 15:1-20, a very different picture appears:

1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, `Honor your father and mother' and `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, `Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6 he is not to `honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 "`These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' "
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand.
11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him `unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him `unclean.'"
12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"
13 He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15 Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16 "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
20 These are what make a man `unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him `unclean.'"

In otherwords, he was turning the Judaic law, the "traditions of our fathers" contained in the Talmud, on its head. He was demanding that the Pharases return to the Tetrarch, God's law.

Jesus wasn't expanding the definition of the sins of adultery or lust. He was merely explaining that before one says something, he thinks it, and then it is expelled from the mouth - the reverse of Judaic law which said pollution or sin is cause by injesting certain things.

You are right in one respect about Paul. "Following HIS vision after Jesus was dead". Jesus was long dead before Paul's conversion. Even though he never met the man, never heard a single one of his sermons, Paul was so adament that HIS (Paul's) version of Christianity was right that he forced out Jesus' own brother, James.

[piratz]

Ok... So maybe this is a new question, but it does pertain to this thread... "Jesus said this...Paul said that..." etc. My Question:
Why are Paul's letters and others a part of the Bible? Would it have not been good enough to let Jesus own words and life (the Gospels) be the final part of the Bible? And interestingly enough...is it not the books that follow Matthew, Mark, Luke and John... that cause so many people today to take offense to what the Bible says?

[tomndebb]

Even though he never met the man, never heard a single one of his sermons, Paul was so adament that HIS (Paul's) version of Christianity was right that he forced out Jesus' own brother, James. Cite?

In otherwords, he was turning the Judaic law, the "traditions of our fathers" contained in the Talmud, on its head. He was demanding that the Pharases return to the Tetrarch, God's law.

Jesus wasn't expanding the definition of the sins of adultery or lust. He was merely explaining that before one says something, he thinks it, and then it is expelled from the mouth - the reverse of Judaic law which said pollution or sin is cause by injesting certain things.Your first comment seems to indicate a misunderstanding of the chronology of the creation of the Talmud.

Your second statement shows a rather poor understanding of the Holiness Code which is, indeed, a part of the Law traditionally handed down to Moses in the Sinai (that would be directly from God).

While Jesus was clearly making the point that sin originates from within a person, he made no claim that the Holiness Code was to be rejected--only that it was not to be worshipped (somewhat in the way that some people worship the bible, today). Paul's setting aside the Holiness Code for Gentile converts is couched in language that indicates that the Law has no specific power over the Gentiles, however, there is no indication that Paul actually set aside the Holiness code for Jews--and there are hints that he continued to follow it, himself.

[rocking chair]

lest we forget paul was not married. perhaps things may have been different if he were.

in a most generous reading of paul letter, he could be saying, wives take your husband's wishes and desires in to account when coming to a decision that will affect both of you, and perhaps just perhaps, give it a bit more weight because he will give his life for you. husbands just because it may be easy to ride roughshod over your wife, you should not. because what you do to her you do to yourself. if you abuse her, you abuse yourself, if you strike her, you strike yourself, if you tear her down, you are torn down.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by piratz
My Question:
Why are Paul's letters and others a part of the Bible? Would it have not been good enough to let Jesus own words and life (the Gospels) be the final part of the Bible? And interestingly enough...is it not the books that follow Matthew, Mark, Luke and John... that cause so many people today to take offense to what the Bible says?

Well, for one thing, Paul's letters are older than the Gospels. Paul also is one of the most remarkable figures in early Christianity. He took a small religious group and turned it into an almost empire wide belief system. I also find him a lot easier to understand than Jesus. A lot of times Jesus makes grand statements that are kind of hard to understand. Paul, on the other hand, is more concrete...he asks, "Ok, now we're Christians...how do we live...what does it mean to be a Christian?", and he tries to answer that.

[bibliophage]

Off to Great Debates.

[piratz]

Well then why in God's great plan were the gospel's writen with lessor communicatible authors than Paul who seems to communicate with all...?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by piratz
Well then why in God's great plan were the gospel's writen with lessor communicatible authors than Paul who seems to communicate with all...?

I don't fully understand the question. Why didn't Paul write any gospels? I dunno...Paul, from his writings and what the book of "Acts" says about him doesn't seem like the gospel writing type. He comes across as a Type A, confrontational type of person with a short attention span and a lot of wanderlust. He just doesn't seem to be the type of person to sit down and write a biography of Jesus' life and mission. Look at the writings we have of his. They're all letters, each one designed to focus on one or two specific topics that the various communities he had been visiting were debating.

[Bosswoman]

It seems that we're talking about Paul more and less about the subject, so I will give my opinion on the subject. I'm wilth toadspittle's comments above. Despite my name "bosswoman" :) I have to say that there does need to be a leader in a relationship. And the Bible instructs us that the man should be the head of the home. Funny, I was just reading that. I strongly believe in this. Now, there is no reason for me to. I came from a home where my dad took that overboard, and I was to learn to cook and clean like all good women. Of course because of this, I resented the whole "man being the head of the home" idea. I was actually quite against it, and quite anti-marriage because of how my dad was, and I wanted no man to domineer over me. But I forgot something. After the scripture says women submit to your husbands, it says husbands love your wifes. My question is, who wouldn't want to submit to someone that absolutely loves her, is looking out for her best interest, and is willing to lay down his life for her? If he's going to put me before his own agenda because he loves me, then it's all good! :) But in finding a husband one has to look for one that is totally in the right line of thinking about this passage.

Just my opinion,
Bosswoman

[Guinastasia]

Hmmm...well, maybe. But Jesus himself didn't say anything about wives and husbands...

[Liberal]

It was Paul who rejected "superficial" Judaic law -- the bits he didn't like -- following his vision after Jesus was dead.Correction of the record: it was, in fact, after Jesus' resurrection. Jesus is not still dead.

[andros]

Masonite sed:

SOMEONE has to be head of the house if marriages are to be permanent alliances - if there is no head, the first irresolvable disagreement can result in divorce - as it often does today

Huh?

Bosswoman said something similar, but I'm simply not getting it. If a disagreement is irresolvable, it won't be resolved. In my ten years of marriage I have never encountered anything my SO and I could not reach a consensus on, because we are committed to consensus. We compromise, and we discuss, and we come to a conclusion

Sure, at any given time someone will be dominant. I've had the same sort of experiences grienspace has. And there will always be different responsibilities (I mow the lawn because I enjoy it and my SO doesn't, we both change the litter box because we both despise it equally).

Anyhoo, why on earth does a marriage require a boss to whose decisions the rest of the household acquieses? Why a single General where two can work?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Hmmm...well, maybe. But Jesus himself didn't say anything about wives and husbands...

Yeah he did. In Matt. 19, he says that husbands and wives shouldn't divorce.

In Matt. 22, he says that people won't marry at the resurrection of the dead.

In Luke 28, he says that if a man leaves his wife to follow him, he'll be rewarded in heaven.

[grimpixie]

Originally posted by andros
Sure, at any given time someone will be dominant. I've had the same sort of experiences grienspace has. Umm - I guess you are talking about me?? ;)
Anyhoo, why on earth does a marriage require a boss to whose decisions the rest of the household acquieses? Why a single General where two can work? Anyhoo, I think that the point that Masonite is making is that if a couple reaches a point of irreconcilable difference, then they have two choices - one conceeds the point or they break up. In a Christian marriage, where breaking up should never be an option, it is the wife who should concede if they ever reach that point. BUT and zis iz a BIG BUT it is the husband's responsibility to try and ensure that the couple never reach that point of irreconcilibility. With open and honest communication, with an attitude of mutual submission, with love for one another, there are really very few problems that cannot be worked through without the need to reach a loggerhead position, as you have pointed out...

I think this may well simply be a recognition that many men are simply too stubborn and proud to back down when that final point is reached and that it is up to the woman to do something if the marriage is to be saved. :D

Gp

[andros]

Umm - I guess you are talking about me??

Indeed, grimpixie, and my apologies.

In a Christian marriage, where breaking up should never be an option, it is the wife who should concede if they ever reach that point.

Fair enough. I don't agree, but not being Christian I don't have to. ;)

it is the husband's responsibility to try and ensure that the couple never reach that point of irreconcilibility

Oh, I disagree with this one too. I think it is the responsibility of both to ensure such an impasse is never reached.

With open and honest communication, with an attitude of mutual submission, with love for one another, there are really very few problems that cannot be worked through

I'd argue that there are no such problems. Or at least, there shouldn't be.


There are two categories of household decision for me: those on which I'm willing to compromise and those on which I am unwilling to compromise. Simple enough.

But for me to be unwilling to compromise on an issue says in my mind that it is something I am willing to sacrifice my marriage for. If I am unwilling to bend, it must be something more important than my marriage.

There are very few things more important than my marriage. And if my SO disagreed with me on those things, I never would have married her in the first place.

So then, everything that is not worth ending my marriage over must be open to discussion and compromise, and therefore all decisions that must be made can be made by consensus.

This is how things are in my marriage, and how they always have been. And that's why I have trouble understanding other systems. I dunno, maybe I just have a wierd perception of what a marriage should be.

[andros]

Check that.

That's my view of my marriage. I have no problems with any other arrangements (short of abusive ones).

[grimpixie]

Originally posted by andros
I dunno, maybe I just have a wierd perception of what a marriage should be.
andros, if more people shared your vision of marriage, the world would be a happier place!!

Gp

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Libertarian
It was Paul who rejected "superficial" Judaic law -- the bits he didn't like -- following his vision after Jesus was dead.
Correction of the record: it was, in fact, after Jesus' resurrection. Jesus is not still dead. Paul's writings happened after Jesus' resurrection, which in turn happened after Jesus was dead, so...

::d&r::