Male submission to women

1. Gina, all I did was complete the text. If you keep reading in Ephesians, you will see the three kinds of relationships I listed. All I did was include the context.

2. You must be referring to Galatians 3:28. When you read that verse along with the preceding and after, you will see that the context is not about roles, but justification. I don't know of anyone who thinks there is a level of justification.

3. In what way Gina? If you are talking about salvation, sanctification, glorification, indwelling of the Spirit, etc., then I would agree. If you are talking about roles, you insert a contradiction and confusion into Scripture. Besides, submission existed prior to the fall. Therefore, salvation in Christ does not undo it.

4. I have outlined it in two texts, Eph. 5 and I Cor. 11.

5. No. As I pointed out, there is submission within the Godhead. Why do you think that is? I know.

6. No one is allowed to sin. If sin is involved, one must choose Christ. Except for that one reason, the wife is to submit to her husband in every way.

7. The cowards are those who hide behind "mutual submission". I love my wife. I talk with her about just about everything. The decision though is mine.

8. I neither cringe at the thought nor consider myself a king. There is no fear in the way God established the roles.

 

I would have to disagree. Scripture does not teach that kind of natural response. In fact it teaches quite the opposite. Everyone is worthy of respect by the simple fact they are God's creation. But also none of us are worthy by the fact we are sinners.

In scripture when it speak about the wife's responsibility to her husband it is not earned by the husband but given by the wife. The word used there is the same word for fear. If some women evaluated their husbands first, before carrying out their responsibility, it would be a lifetime of evaluation first, or maybe never before he got any respect. What man is worthy of the kind of respect scripture commands? None.

The husband-wife relationship is not a conditional natural response. It is supernatural. That's what makes it so far superior to the ways of man. For a man to love his wife it is supernatural. For a wife to submit herself to her husband is supernatural. The natural thing for both is power and control. Look at the first problem in Genesis--wanting power and control.

 

“Men are NEVER commanded to submit to their wife. NEVER”

Really??? The liberal who wrote the previous quote chose to ignore specific passages. He forgot to read his Bible. He needs to read Phil 2. I wonder how he would you apply the commands in Phil. 2?

Only a liberal would neglect the true meaning of Ephesians 5:21. Only a true liberal would not understand that Eph. 5:21 is not a sentence either. Only a true liberal would try to connect 5:21 with only the passage that follows.

But let’s start off with point one of your liberalism in not understanding things basic to the Greek text. Ephesians 5:21 is a participial phrase. It has no verb. It was a stylistic device to connect the passage before and the passage following. Only a liberal would ignore that.

What did Jesus do in the following pericope?

“Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.”

What did Jesus do? What did Jesus do for us in Jn 3:16.

Does not the following verse apply to you and your wife. Or are you exempt?

“Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.”? Or is your wife not included?

Submission does not mean that you are not to lead. It does mean that you are to treat her as the weaker vessel. It means you don’t run over her like a bully and bull dog. It means that love is patient.

 

But that's exactly what the Greek word for submission does mean -- that you are not to lead. You are to arrange yourself under the authority of another. Why call what the Bible commands the husband to do "submission" when that is not what that Greek term means?

Andy

 

You are not using the words God uses in these passages. Eph 6.1 and 6.5 says
1. Children, obey your parents, in the Lord.
2. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling.


In both cases, "obey" is Strong's word 5219.

For wives, Eph 5.22 (also in Titus 2) has

1. Wives, be subject to your husbands (or some versions say, "submit to") as you are to the Lord.

Eph 5. 21 says
1. Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

The Strong's word for "be subject" (or "submit") is 5293.

So God uses two different words here. I think this shows the difference between the parent/child and master/slave relationship with the husband/wife relationship.

This is the point that I was trying to make earlier -- the husband/wife relationship is NOT like the parent/child relationship and the wife is not told to obey the husband the way children are told to obey parents. We can't just ignore the fact different words are used here in these passages.

 

But that's exactly what the Greek word for submission does mean -- that you are not to lead. You are to arrange yourself under the authority of another. Why call what the Bible commands the husband to do "submission" when that is not what that Greek term means?

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]You don't Jesus was a leader?

 

Marcia, if you obey someone over you, are you submitting to them? Yes.

The wife is to submit.

The other relationships must obey. I agree that the relationship is different because the wife is the man's helper, not child/slave.

 

I would hardly call Jesus and the New Testament writers a “worthless group”.

Mark 9:33-35

They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

Philippians 2:3-8

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death on a cross.

Ephesians 5:21
Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

The “liberals” should use scripture.

For what it is worth, I demonstrated my position with Philippians 2 and Ephesians 5-6. As far as “proving” my point, it is impossible to prove something to another unless the other person is willing to examine their own beliefs. What would be acceptable “proof” for you?

See Ephesians 5:21 along with the teachings of Jesus on submission. Furthermore, since in marriage, the man and the woman become “one flesh” physically, emotionally and spiritually (Paul notes this in verses 29-30), the husband and wife are obviously supposed to work together in all aspects of life – including decision-making.

For the most part, I agree, although I’d stress the need for these relationships to be dominated and energized by the life of Christ in each believer.

Too many people take these verses out of the context of Christ’s teachings on servanthood and the energizing life He has given believers who follow Him in active discipleship and thereby interpret Paul as establishing a hierarchy instead of overturning the status-quo of a pagan social structure. They read these verses to find out “Who is in charge?” instead of trying to find out “How should I serve others in my relationships?”

1 Corinthians 2:11-16

For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

A Christian man who is confident in his masculinity knows that he can submit to other people according to the call of Christ. Submission is not an expression of femininity, but of power and confidence in Christ. A man who submits to others can easily also be a man of action and leadership.

You must have a very twisted concept of submission.

See my quote of Philippians 2 at the top of this post as well as Matthew 20:27b-28 – ...and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

 

So where do you fit in with what Jesus said to his disciples in Mark 9:35?

'Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all."'

How one can lead without serving? Serving requires a certain degree of submission just to be able to serve. If you do not serve then you have no business being in any ministry.

Titus 2:4,5, "so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored." Looks like the older women are to teach the younger to love and submit. In Eph. 5 it says that the husbands are to love their wives. So it seems both are to learn to love each other.

My take on the whole thing is that the husband and wife are to be subject to one another and that the husband is to lead his wife by loving her and the wife loves her husband by submitting to him. Submission is a wilfull decison to honor the other person.

I have seldom seen an older women who does not submit herself to her husband after he has loved her for a number of years. A wife who honors and respects her husband will help him to be more loving. It is a mutual support and working together to honor God in their relationship. It is not so much who rules the roost, but who rules the rooster. It's like one lady said, "He may be the head but I'm the neck that moves it."

One thing I have noticed is how many young men seem to have it all worked out until they get married. Then when they get married they quickly find out their bully, bull dog approach does not work unless they have a wife that acts like a door mat.

 

What is what you described if it is not mutual submission?

Ever thought about letting God lead the way first? Ever thought about praying when your wife disagrees with you? Ever thought about submitting to God first before making a decision? Ever thought about both you and your wife seeking God first?

I have seen many times where God has prepared the way beforehand. Too many Christian men think they must be bulldogs before waiting upon God to work.

Is. 40:30,31, "Though youths grow weary and tired, And vigorous young men stumble badly, Yet those who wait for the Lord Will gain new strength; They will mount up with wings like eagles, They will run and not get tired, They will walk and not become weary.

 

gb and bb are always good for a laugh.

Where do I begin?

Okay, BB said tried to bring in Mark 9 and Phil. 2 for support. Wow, that is a tough one. Submission is not the same as service. In Phil. 2, Christ laid aside his glory becuase he was subject to the Father, not man. Christ was NOT subject to man, only the Father. So much for that twist job. Now, onto Mark 9. Again we see the attempts to redefine submission into service. Christ said that the greatest would be the servant of all. He wasn't teaching on submission, but greatness in the kingdom. At least try to use a text that resembles the discussion please. Submission implies putting oneself under another's authority. Christ NEVER did that to anyone but the Father.

Now, BB, you again have tried to wrench Eph. 5:21 out of its actual meaning into some feminized view of Scripture. I have already pointed out that Paul was outlining the kinds of submission within the body of Christ.

You have Paul saying to submit to each other and then tells wives to submit to their husband. Why? That would be repetitive nonsense, if verse 21 was a command limited to the husband/wife relationship.

Normally, this is how is goes for your ilk:

The life of Christ elevated women. Paul subjects women. The Spirit of Christ emphasizes verse 21 over verse 22. Hilarious if it weren't so sad that people actually believe that.

THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN CHRIST AND PAUL.

Back to verse 21 for a second, "working together in decision making" is not the same as mutual submission.

As far as masculinity goes, alot of queers are confident in their masculinity. Their masculinity though is lacking. They have just been more feminized than mutual submission practitioners. Ifeminate would be the ideal word.

People who I am commanded to submit to:
1. God
2. Government
3. Elders in Church
4. Boss at work

BB, I know I cannot convince you of the obvious biblical truth, because your view of Scripture is so low, it has no real authority over you. We can go round and round about what the text says. It doesn't matter, because you have opted for the liberal view of Scripture. Therefore, my continued posting in this is only to encourage those who believe in truth to follow through in obedience.

 

Try making a commitment to tell the truth about those with whom you disagree.

You are technically correct, but the two are tightly related in practice. Service motivated and empowered by Christian love does not happen without submission.

Normally, this is how is goes for your ilk: [/qb][/quote]

My “ilk”? Your contempt is showing.

That’s nonsense. You know I’ve never advocated such a position. If you are a disciple of Christ, you are obligated to tell the truth about people with whom you disagree – even if you are convinced that your opponent is an unbeliever (as you have so frequently claimed I am).

Don’t you have the courage to actually discuss another person’s position fairly?

You are correct. (And I have never held any other position.)

Paul was a disciple of Jesus and the writings of Paul that are preserved in the Bible are fully compatible with Christ’s teachings. The writings of Paul presuppose that the readers of Paul are already believers who are following Christ in discipleship. Therefore, Christ is the criterion by which all scripture is to be interpreted.

It is a crucial part of it. Many of those who advocate a strict view that the husband “leads” (that is, makes all the decisions) and the wife “submits” make this error.

But lots of men tie their confidence in their God-given masculinity to “dominating” their “submissive” wives.

Actually, “effeminate” would be the proper word.

Yet another personal attack. Your allegations are contemptible and are based on your delusions and biases rather than any reality regarding my views of scripture or its authority.

“The liberal view”? Nonsense.

Those who are obedient to Christ will tell the truth about others.

 

Submission is a part of discipleship. Many women followed Jesus and the twelve. I can look up the references in the Gospels if you like.

The very nature of the Triune God is an expression of mutual submission and love.

I don’t have a problem with your statement. The husband submits in love but has greater responsibilities to his wife than she has to him.

 

The problem with Mark 9:33-35 (who is the greatest), Phil. 2:3-8 (considering others better than oneself, humbling oneself), and other similar passages is that they have nothing to do with submission (hupotasso). Putting oneself last, serving others, considering others better than oneself, showing deference to others, loving, showing kindness, etc – these are all great qualities that can and should work both ways in an hierarchical relationship. The Bible, however, does establishe hierarchical relationships in the home (husband over wife, parents over children), at work (master over servant), in the church (Jesus over church, elders over members), and even in the Godhead.

One of the terms that the Bible uses to teach this concept is the word hupotasso, normally translated “submission.” As far as I can tell, hupotasso is never used in the NT outside its main idea of arranging oneself under the authority of another. No one has answered this basic objection of mine that idea of husbands submitting to wives (or parents submitting to children, etc) runs contrary to the NT usage of hupotasso. What is the justification for expanding its semantic range beyond its Biblical usage?

Andy

 

What is what you described if it is not mutual submission?

 

BB, their is NO mutual submission within the Godhead. Please demonstrate this or take back your nonsensical statement.

I have proven the exact opposite of your ridiculous notion.

For everyone else, read I Cor. 11.

THE HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD.

Please tell me where the Father submitted to the Son. You can't because it doesn't exist. Your position again appeals to a faulty understanding of submission and love.

Btw, I knew it was only a matter of time before someone brought up how some men abuse their position.

Here is the egalitarian solution: burden women with yet another responsibility that God never gave them.

Here is the complimentarian solution: teach both men and women their proper roles. Men must not abuse their role and women must submit. End of discussion.

Further, your liberal view of Scripture comes out again. Everything we know about Christ comes from the Scriptures. Everything the Holy Spirit inspired is equally authoritative in the N.T. The Gospel accounts do not take superiority over the epistles of Paul.

Again, this is for those who believe truth exists, not embittered former SWBTS students who whine continually.

 

I talk with my wife because I value her. It is MY choice to make decisions. I do not HAVE to consult my wife. Further, the Bible never says I have to. That is a decision I make. I am not less loving if I don't consult her. Don't insert your own idea of love into the actual teaching.

Christ loved the church. He didn't ask what she wanted or what she thought was best. Again, the very fact that I choose to talk with my wife proves that I have the authority to also NOT talk to my wife.

I am the only one held responsible on such decisions. Even the cowards who burden their wives with more responsiblity will be held responsible.

Note to all egalitarians: the local chiropractic center usually has an extra skeleton around for you to get a spine.

 

Daniel David:

I would not want to stoop to your low view of Phil. 2 and its application. So I will try to refrain from such childish ways often seen on the school ground of an elementary school at recess.

Let me just state up front that I have no problem with Eph. 5:22-33. I think I understand it quite well.

Let me assure you that if I heard you talk to your wife the way you have addressed some on the BB you would not be standing there too long like that. You would hear from me quite quickly. I now what it is like to grow up in a home where my dad beat my mom declaring that she needed to submit herself. The abuse ended when I got a little bit older and little tougher and stood up to him. Only a coward would hit another woman and especially his wife. It amazes me how my brother in law who is a retired police officer has heard the bull dogs many times blame their spousal abuse on their wives lack of submission while they sit in jail.

Again if you could just comprehend the idea that verse 21 is a link in Greek to link the former pericope with the following pericope tying them together. So that being the case, how would you interpret verse 21? I think any idiot can explain verses 22-33 apart from verse 21. But the fact verse 21 is there right in the middle of the previous passage and the one following.


Instead of trying to us a snow job why don’t you explain how Phil. 2:3-4 is not applicable to every believer? I believe it applies to every believer not just a select few.

 

Seems to me almost all of these threads on submission are started by women who want to argue about why the Bible doesn't mean what it says. I must love my wife as Christ loves the church whether she submits or not. The way I love her indicates my true level of love for God. She must submit to me whether I love her or not. Her level of submission is indicative of her relationship with God. That's the point so many people miss. I MUST love her BECAUSE GOD SAID SO. She MUST follow my leadership (submit) BECAUSE GOD SAID SO. My loving her may make it easier for her to obey God, but my lack of loving her does not make it right for her to disobey God. It's about God.