Wives should submit to their husbands????

If you take this to mean that husbands are to submit to their wives and wives are to submit to their husbands, then the next verse (Eph. 5:22) is a complete contradiction. More likely the meaning is submit one (wife) to another (husband), or, in this group to whom I'm talking there is to be submitting going on, i.e., wives are to be submitting to their husbands.

 

John

I was wrong in my quoting of scripture, but still, as I look all around the bible, I see that my husband is to rule over me. The bible tells me to obey. The bible tells me to please. The bible tells me that I am to be a helper. (help-meet...perhaps our definition of help meet is where we are not agreeing.

I believe personally that I am obeying the bible. What other couples choose to do is their own business.

Can you give me an example of where you believe wives are to aubmit? It feels very much like you are expressing 2 different viewpoints.

 

Where does it say in scripture that the head is the "top", or that the head is the order-giver? No where. It is the contention of those who say the husband commands and the woman obeys who lack scriptural support. You'd think it would be easier for them to provide scripture for their claims if they were true.

Scripture tells us that the husband and wife are one flesh. There is no "top" or "bottom" in one flesh.

In order for your claim to be valid, husbands are akin to Jesus. You and I both know that's heresy. But you can't have it both ways. If the husband and wife are one flesh, then they are equal parts of that flesh. If this were not so, then scripture lies.

 

Scripture called for all Christians to submit to one another. In then also calls for wives to submit to their husbands. No where can it be inferred that this absolves the husband from submitting to his wife as he would to any other Christian. If that were so, as some claim, then Scripture contradicts itself. No, husbands and wives are to continue to submit to each other as they are to do if they were not married. However, upon marriage, the wife is called to submit to her husband in accordance with the spiritual covenant of marriage.

If husbands are not required to submit, then wives must therefore not be required to love, since the same chapter tells husbands to love their wives. Again, that is a ridiculous conclusion. Both husbands and wives must love each other and submit to each other. However, wives are called to submit out of respect for Christ.

 

Chapter? Verse?

You are not obeying the bible. You are applying the bible in a manner that works for you and your husband (which is perfectly permissible). You must avoid any suggesstion that couples who do not do as you are in scriptural disobedience.

 

"However, upon marriage, the wife is called to submit to her husband in accordance with the spiritual covenant of marriage."


What does this mean practically speaking?

Here are some scriptures

(1cor 11:8-9)
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman;but the woman for the man "

(I take this to mean that I was created literally to be a helper for my husband.)

(Titus 2:3-5)

The aged women..may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands , that the word of God be not blasphemed"


Here is where I misquoted that scripture about wives obeying their husbands in everything.. It does still say that, but it is written differently.


Ephesians 5:22-24

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing "


1 Cor 11:3

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."


Genesis 3:16

"Unto the woman He said...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee


This one is interesting, because this scripture pretty much assumes that the husband is NOT saved.. therefore, if submission is only for spiritual matters, then this scripture is a lie.

1 Peter 3:1-2

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear"


John,

if you and your wife believe that you are following the scriptures according to your interpretation, wonderful. I also feel that I am obeying the scriptures. I am not telling anybody that they should do what I am doing. I am only doing what I feel the bible is telling me to do, and that is to obey my husband. How my husband rules over me, is between him and God. I do believe that many husbands abuse their power and do not love their wives as scripture tells them to, but I believe that I will be accountable to God for how I follow my husband (according to my interpretation of course).. I am just thankful that my husband does his part scripturally.

 

You do realize this is a curse, right? My interpretation is that because of sin each partner is trying to control the other (the word "desire" here is used only three times: in this verse, in Gen. 4:7 of sin's desire to rule Cain, and in Song of Solomon in a more romantic way--here I think it means Eve will try to rule Adam and he'll try to rule her back), but because men are usually larger and more physically aggressive, men usually "win." This is not God telling Eve her husband ought to be her master, it's God telling Eve that because of sin Adam is sometimes going to boss her around and demean her.

Curses don't describe the way things ought to be, they describe the way things will be.

 

Petrel


While I agree that this is in fact a curse, I do not agree with what you are saying about said curse.

 

The husband is the spiritual head of the household. He has spiritual responsibilities over his house.

That verse is written in the same context of the verse "man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man". It referrs not to the wife being a helper as you say, but it again referrs to spiritual headship of the husband. Note that Paul says elsewhere "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.". A husband who commands and expects obedience is not being benevolent. Likewise, a women who blindly complies without condieration is not being benevolent, nor is she responsibly submitting.

Note gain the whole context:
The chapter instructs older men in worthy ways, and older women in worthy ways, in order to teach the younger women in how they conduct their lives. The verse is not instructing wives to obey their husbands. Rather, it's instructing people how to teach in ways that do not malign the Word. Read the whole chapter, not just a specific verse.

Also, note that the Greek word here translated "subject to" or "obedience" is hupotasso, the same word used in the marital relationship of loving in submission. It is a passive word that implies a voluntary yielding in love, not a "do what you are told" context.

Ephesians 5:22-24

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing "

Again, look at the whole chapter and its context. The topic here is Christians in the public assembly, and again touches upon spiritual headship. In fact, further down in the chapter, it talks about the woman having power (veil) bestowed of the angels, and that they should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. The Matthew Henry commentary points out this chapter going on to talk about the man and the woman being made for one another, being mutual comforts and blessings (not one a slave, and the other a tyrant). God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit.

This is a reference to the result of sin. It is not a mandate for married couples.

You forget that it's a continuation of the previous chapter that talks about all Christians submitting themselves for the Lord's sake and show proper respect to everyone. The aforementioned verse is not about nonbelieving husbands, but about husbands who disobey. It's in effect telling wives not to abandon their spiritual responsibilities, just because their husband has abandoned his.

I have no arguement with you there. My only concern is when other spouses are told that wives are required to do everything their husband tells them to in order to be a biblical wife. That's a perversion of scripture, not to mention an abuse of the scriptural roles of the spouses, and an abuse of the gift and covenant of marriage.

 

John

Im sorry.. I have taken the scriptures in full context many times, and I still dont agree with you..


We just have to agree to disagree here.

 

and furthermore, I still do not understand what you mean about spiritual leader.

Can you give me a practical example?

 

There's no way anyone can get the idae that scripture is telling wives to do whatever their husband tells them. None. Let me repeat that: None.

As for spiritual headship, how much time do you have. That's like asking "what does it mean to love your husband"?

 

give me ONE example.. being responsible to lead the couple in prayer? chosing a church?

just one example. Im not arguing, its just fuzzy to me what you mean.

Scripture tells me to obey. It does not tell me in what situations I dont have to.

This is why we disagree.

 

I think the husband should always lead the family in prayer. I'm not talking "saying grace". I'm talking about prayer. Yes, i think this is a part of spiritual headship.

The husband should be responsible for ultimately making decisions affecting the rest of his family. Now, that doesn't mean the hubby says "jump" and everyone else says "how high". That means that the husband has the responsibility to discussing pertinent issues with the family, and especially the wife. The husband has the responsibility of coming to agreement with his wife and then representing the family on that issue.

That should done mutually by both the husband and the wife, both in full agrement.

It does not tel you to obey. It tells you to submit. Huge difference. You cited one verse that uses the term "obedience" but the Greek word is "submission" in this context. In fact, other translations translate the word "submit" or "subject".

Spiritual submission means you must take an issue to your hubby (don't wait for him to come to you, because he probably doesn't know it's an issue), and the two of you must discuss it. When the two of you agree, you must allow him to represent you in speaking for the both of you in regards to that decision.

An abuse of submission is telling the hubby to make all the decisions, and doing what he says. This absolves the woman of having to make any respinsible decisions, and put the hubby in the role of being the one blamed. This is a clar abuse of scripture. No, submission still requires the wife to make responsible decisions. But it empowers the husband to represent the both of you, and the rest of the family.

 

In the very least, ans as I'm sure you'll agree, when it's not working in that manner, then steps need to be taken to return it to that manner.

Not according to the scriptural role. This analogy is scripturally consistent.

That's where your flaw lies. Scriptural headship does not mean the hubby gets to make the decisions. Scriptural headship means the hubby has the responsibility of speakong for, and representing, the body. Gigantic difference.

I'm sure you'll agree that when one's perceived plain sense is not consistent with scripture, it's nonsense.

 

John

I guess where I am confused is here..

What if husband and wife absolutely cannot agree on a church home? Should they each go to their own churches?


I really believe that the husband will be responsible to God for how he leads and that the wife will be responsible for how she submits. 2 seperate transactions.

Yes I agree with you fully that the husband has NO RIGHT SCRIPTURALLY to be a dictator....but what if he choses to do this anyways? Does the wife leave? Does the wife disobey, or does the wife obey and win her husband over with her chaste conversation? From what I get out of scripture, it is the latter. I dont think I need to know greek to know what the bible is telling me to do.


Im sorry, but I really do not think that it is I who is perverting scripture. The bible says obey, you say it does not, but IT DOES and nowhere do I see that it is in context of only spiritual things. I am not taking anything out of context.

I think it is important for a wife to submit and obey...just as important as it is for the husband to love his wife as his own flesh and give himself up for her, but it is not my job to make sure my husband does it the right way. It is my job to follow what the scripture tells me to do.

 

They should continue to work together to find a church home that is acceptible to both of them.

The argument of "what if the two never agree" is an often repeated one, but let's be frank here. If the husband and wife don't know how to resolve disagreements, the problem is not one of headship, it is one of the two of them lacking wisdom and maturity.

He'll likely stop doing so after he realizes his wife has lost respect for him. Just my $.02.

No, of course not. The wife simply doesn't comply with just just because he dictated something.

Since the hubby has no authority to be a dictator, a wife is not disobeying anything or anyone if she is not complying with his demands.

Scripture says no such thing. Scripture instructs a wife to adhere to her scriptural roles and duties regardless of whether or not the hubby is. The reason scripture tells us this is because it's our nature to want to resort to the "eye for an eye" mentality. In marriage, we're strictly to refrain from this.

If the hubby were becoming a dictator, he'd be abusing his role of headship, which is a sin. When the wife permits that abuse, she becomes a party to the sin. In addition, she abuses her own role of submission.

It does not say to obey, and yes, if you're inserting meaning into scripture based on perception of the English, then yes, it's perversion of scripture. Sorry to be so direct, as I mean no disrespect to you, but there's no way around the fact that adding to scripture by superceding the English over the source text context is indeed adding to scripture. If what you're saying is true, then we'd have to instruct women that if they speek Greek, they're not required to scripturally obey, but if they speak English, they must. Where is the scriptural logic in that???

You're welcome to obey (so long as it does not enable abuse of scriptural roles), if that's how the two of you have decided to run you marriage. But it's not scripturally required of you.

Yes, you are, as are we all, but not without scriptural study and understanding.

 

John

What I am saying, is that the bible in plain english DOES IN FACT say to obey. I gave you several scripture references to this fact. You chose to skirt around them and say that it is not saying this at all.

and as far as the church thing goes, this came up in my marriage. The church we are at now was in NO WAY desireable to me, but the churches I wanted to attend my husband didnt like. We would comprimise on a church, but not long afterwards, my husband would start making excuses not to go. God has really been dealing with me on the issue of submission in general, so I finally gave my husband the lead and he picked out the church that we go to now. At first, I really did not like it at all. Now one and a half years later, my husband is growing leaps and bounds in his faith. He is involved with church. It changed his life completely. I am married to a different man. My church is now my family. It is exactly where we are meant to be. What if I hadnt submitted? What if I had insisted we find another comprimise?

Im sorry, but Im really not buying your approach. Im not adding anything to scripture.

I only meant that I do not need the greek to know that obey means obey. I am not enabling sin by obeying my husband. If my husband was sinning and wanted me to go along with it, of course I have to obey God first and foremost, but God tells me to obey my husband, and I will do just that. It has proven to me to be the wise route before, and the more I submit, the more Godly I see my husband become.

 

The Bible teaches the wives to submit to the authority of her husband, and for the husband not to lord it over her...but to love her as Christ loves the Church. A Christian husband who does what is Biblical will not ask his wife to do that which is contrary to Scripture.

A non-Christian husband will abuse his power and authority to satisfy himself and his selfish desires. The Bible also has a passage which deals with what a Christian wife's response should be to that. I don't, however, think it will be a popular passage for most. Yet and still, it is what the Bible teaches:

But then, again, he goes back and reiterates the love that Christian husbands should have for their wives... the kind of love that has authority over their wives, but always makes decisions that are in her best interest and not to fullfill selfish desires:

1 Peter 3:1-7


Either way, whether one is married to a Godly or an unGodly man, I think the Bible is clear that the wives are to submit to the husband's authority. On the other hand, the Bible is also clear that if submitting to the authority of human leaders goes contrary to the will of God (ie: go commit murder, deny Christ, etc...), then we should obey God rather than man:

Acts 4:18-20

It may not be popular, or even seeker sensitive, but it is what the Bible teaches.

Joseph Botwinick