# Bible Question (I Think...) Wife to be in submission to husband... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2002, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680 "2002-05-12T20:45:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/21 "2002-05-14T14:14:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Ms.Lois](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Ms.Lois](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms.Lois)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/22 "2002-05-14T20:45:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 Christ rejected superficial Judaic law which was outdated and oppressive.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. ---
**Author:** ![piratz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@piratz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/piratz)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/23 "2002-05-14T21:12:10Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/24 "2002-05-14T21:43:14Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/25 "2002-05-14T23:40:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/26 "2002-05-14T23:50:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/27 "2002-05-14T23:59:29Z")
Off to Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![piratz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@piratz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/piratz)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2002, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/28 "2002-05-15T00:31:29Z")
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…? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2002, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/29 "2002-05-15T03:56:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosswoman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Bosswoman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosswoman)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2002, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/30 "2002-05-15T04:48:19Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2002, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/31 "2002-05-15T21:51:16Z")
Hmmm…well, maybe. But Jesus himself didn’t say anything about wives and husbands… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2002, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/32 "2002-05-15T22:23:45Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/33 "2002-05-16T01:49:49Z")
**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? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/34 "2002-05-16T02:20:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![grimpixie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@grimpixie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grimpixie)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/35 "2002-05-16T07:57:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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** [python]and zis iz a BIG BUT[/python] 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. 😃 Gp ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/36 "2002-05-16T17:15:43Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/37 "2002-05-16T17:40:13Z")
Check that. That’s _my_ view of _my_ marriage. I have no problems with any other arrangements (short of abusive ones). ---
**Author:** ![grimpixie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@grimpixie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grimpixie)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/38 "2002-05-17T07:32:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680/39 "2002-05-17T10:21:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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:: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-question-i-think-wife-to-be-in-submission-to-husband/108680.md?page=1)