Christian Marriage

[ex-pat]

Dallas

Legal rights of women in history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Luke 8:1-3...women supported Christ's ministry

Anyway, as we appear to have conflicting sources, perhaps we could agree to disagree?

 

[dallasapple]

I don't know why CHRISTIAN women are so bitter about the ideas prescribed by Paul and Peter! I chose to get married and I elected that [husband's name] be the man who would lead our little family. If I didn't think I could submit to him, I wouldn't have married him! But he IS the man God had for me, my husband and I both know that 100%. So why should the idea of submitting to his leadership freak me out? It simply doesn't.

Im not 'bitter"..Im LOGICAL..there is NO need for the male to be the authority over the woman in a marraige..NONE..there was a "need" 2,500 years ago due to the rampant opression of women ..women held a status not much above slaves..they were dependent on men..the men WERE their authorities handed off by her father to whoever they chose to be her husband.

I am HAPPY for you that you arent "freaked out' by submitting to your husband or that he is your authority..

But it doesnt make me "bitter" that in GENERAL there is NO ryhyme nor reason in TODAYS society that ANY or lets say ALL wives should "submit" to her husband or that he be her head or authority in the marriage SIMPLY because hes a male....period..

The fact that you wouldnt have married if you didnt think you could submit to your husband has nothing to do with the fact my opinion that was written during a time it was out of NECESSITY due to the SEVERE injustices and inequality against women and the overall negative and inferior view of women during those times in that society..

Dallas

 

[JRSut1000]

So God's system as shown in Torah was extremely unjust? Logically, that is what you're saying, correct? But what about the Proverbs 31 woman? She certainly didn't look like a slave to me, she seemed to be thriving in her purposes as wife and mother.

 

[jehoiakim]

I find it amazingly cool and interesting that Jesus really did a lot of things to defy the negative conception of women...

1. He spoke to women often and in public which was a big no no
2. He had women followers
3. He revealed his risen self first to women, which is even more unusual that he would chose to so do since women weren't trusted in the culture

Jesus did all sorts of things to show the importance of women, but he never mentioned a word about being equal in the decision making process with the husband and Paul is clear the wife should be submissive. If Jesus was so bold as to do the things he did, should not Paul have been bold enough to declare that in Christian marriage the women should have a more important role in leadership? But he did not say that and I find that interesting. which is part of the reason I suspect I would rather interpret things literally then go out on a limb and assume it was merely particular to that culture

 

[JRSut1000]

"If Jesus was so bold as to do the things he did, should not Paul have been bold enough to declare that in Christian marriage the women should have a more important role in leadership? But he did not say that and I find that interesting."

That really IS an interesting way to look at it! Makes sense.

 

[Everlasting33]

I can't believe I'm the minority here. Scriptures say to the wives to submit specifically, never is it specifically mentioned to the man.

Woman - submit to husband AS UNTO THE LORD.
Men - love wives as CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH.

How is this overlooked? Submission of women is advocated both by Paul (unmarried) and Peter (married).

JR...

So, its assumed that men can make better decisions? If men are consistently required to make these decisions, would it not make sense that women use less discernment and skill over time? It sounds self- defeating.

 

[Judy02]

I really didn't want this thread to turn into an argument between members. I was just curious as to what the predominant thought was in regards to the subject. Seems it's a bit of both.

I agree in a sense that you only need to be in agreement with your spouse. But I don't think people need to attack others, the idea that the husband is "in charge" "makes the final decisions" etc, is just that, an interpretation.

I'm fairly certain where I stand on the issue, I just wondered what the general views were here. I don't think anyone should feel like a bad or less of a Christian for being sceptical of the traditional teachings and interpretations of Paul's writing. Traditional does not automatically = most accurate or biblical.

 

[JRSut1000]

If it helps your search any as to the majority beliefs on the issues, I'd say most Christians lean towards egalitarian as from what I've noticed in the past year.

 

[Judy02]

Interesting...thanks

 

[Psalm63]

"If Jesus was so bold as to do the things he did, should not Paul have been bold enough to declare that in Christian marriage the women should have a more important role in leadership? But he did not say that and I find that interesting."

That really IS an interesting way to look at it! Makes sense.

Oh, but Paul DID say that women should be the rulers of our households! Paul uses a MUCH stronger Greek word for a wife's authority over the household than the kephale of Eph 5 which is the big ball attached to the top of the neck. Paul's statement of a wife's authority has been in there all along. Its just been buried until women learned to read Scripture and study ancient languages for ourselves.

Head of the Household

 

[Psalm63]

I was just curious what people's views are toward how a Christian marriage should be, particularly in relation to Paul's epistles in the NT. How do you interpet "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church..."

The head connected to the body is an intimacy metaphor, not an authority metaphor. It's about how tightly a husband and wife are interconnected.

There is no verse which says that the husband is the ruler of the household except here and that's not a teaching about GOD'S will for marriage. That's the pronouncement of Pagan king who was upset that his wife refused to parade around in front of his drunken buddies wearing (only?) her crown.

 

[FaithPrevails]

If a husband absolutely says "NO", then obviously as long as he isn't asking you to sin, then do so. I think it's straightforward. Not what many women want to hear, but that's how it is.

Many women when I say these things, will say that it leaves room for abuse. And I can't deny that, but Scriptures also say to submit like Sarah and not to have fear.

Submitting doesn't mean being a doormat, being a good wife means submitting, and being a good husband means leading.

To the wife, submit to husbands as unto the Lord (pretty serious huh?)

To the man, love wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (pretty serious also!).

So both parties are addressed within the Scriptures. I find it best to worry about what I am doing to fulfill my responsibilities rather than trying to make sure my husband is in check with his roles/responsibilities.

Might I also mention this. Submitting doesn't mean going with everything without talking it over and offering her wisdom as well. God does give wives understanding, so it would be foolish to just clam up and never say anything to her husband.

Submitting is first an attitude of the heart before it can ever be actions. One can submit (the action), yet do so with a horrible, resentful attitude. In reality, this isn't submitting.

Well said.

 

[JaneFW]

Man! That whole submission thing is so subjective, it's not even worth discussing with anyone other than your own spouse. I mean, that's the only person it should really matter to anyway.

AMEN!!!!




And if, like my husband, the husband says NO to the concept of submissive wife, then there's no reason or rhyme to continue with something just because other people say you "should".

 

[Judy02]

Oh, but Paul DID say that women should be the rulers of our households! Paul uses a MUCH stronger Greek word for a wife's authority over the household than the kephale of Eph 5 which is the big ball attached to the top of the neck. Paul's statement of a wife's authority has been in there all along. Its just been buried until women learned to read Scripture and study ancient languages for ourselves.

Head of the Household

Interesting...from what I've gathered, a lot of support for biblical equality, seems to be in learning the original languages. Now that women are "allowed" to study the scriptures, I wonder if gender equality will eventually be very much the norm amongst Christians?
A lot of English translations I think have been used to give a male bias, scripture has been added to and changed. One reason I won't go anywhere near the KJV of the bible, it's one of the worst bibles for it. That and the NLT. King James was certainly not a nice man, in fact one of the worst mysogynists who ever mounted the British throne.

Oh yeah, and I know about other interpretations of head, thanks (translated in greek as kephale)/ Various commentators, even some as far back as the 1950s have said that people like Paul, purposely avoided words such as kephale for head, if there was any suggestion of authority or ruling.

Assigning a final decision maker or boss in a marriage never did make much logical sense to me. And I don't think it's just about blind faith, to me I think God's principles in relationships do make logical sense My parents both preach the traditionalist view on marriage if you ask them about it, although ironically, I don't think it's ever been practiced in reality. I think when 2 people love each other and serve one another and are focused on pleasing God, the whole focus on "who makes the final decisions" seems pretty futile to me.

Nowhere in the bible have I seen a couple where the wife must act on the husband's final decision and seek his permission for everything. Including Abraham and Sarah. In fact, God pretty much resigned himself to instructing Abraham to doing whatever his wife suggested in Genesis 21:12 when it came to Issac. Just earlier on, she instructs him to get rid of "that slave woman and her son." She doesn't cower and plead for his permission This whole thing about "final decision making" I think has become a contentious issue since certain interpretations of Paul's epistles came along. Many of the women in the OT I think actually seem quite bold and confident, compared to the placid type of woman some churches today like to try and promote.

But yeah, I started this thread as I just wondered what the general opinion was on here. Not really interested in debating, I have my views, others have theirs

 

[Conservativation]

Most often (60 times) kephale is used of a
literal head – Mark 6:27
When used of stonework (5 times),
kephale can refer to a “head-stone” or
corner stone this is a term for Christ 1
Head = kephale
corner-– - Pet. 2:7
• In some cases (10 times), kephale is used
in a metaphorical sense of a person.

God is the head of Christ - 1 Cor. 11:3
• Christ is the head of every man - 1 Cor.
11:3
• Christ is the head of the church (His body)
E h 4 15 E h 5 23 C l 1 18 C l 2 19
Head = a person
- Eph. 4:15; Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; Col. 2:• Jesus is the head over all rule and
authority - Col. 2:10
• Man is the head of a woman - 1 Cor. 11:3
• The husband is head of the wife - Eph.
5:23
• The head cannot say to the feat - I have
d f 1 C 12 21
Head = a person
no need of you - Cor. 12:• Notice: There is not one place in the New
Testament where kephale is used to
describe a woman or wife.
Hupotasso used 24 times in NT
• Describes 12 different relationships where
submission is involved.
• #1 Son is subject to God - 1 Cor. 15:28
Submit = hupotasso
• #2 Jesus is subject to human parents -
Luke 2:51
• #3 Church is subject to Christ - Eph.
5:21
• #4 Minds set on the Spirit subject
themselves to the Law of God - Rom. 8:7 /
Jews did not subject themselves to the
righteousness of God - Rom. 10:3
• #5 We are subject to God Heb 12:9;
Submit = hupotasso
- Heb. Jam 4:7
• #6 Every person is subject to governing
authorities - Rom. 13:1, 5; Be subject to
every human institution - 1 Pet. 2:13
#7 Demons are subject to disciples -
Luke 10:17, 20
• #8 Prophets are subject to prophets - 1
Cor. 14:32, 34
#9 S i t bj t t l d 1 C
Submit = hupotasso
• Saints are subject to leaders - Cor.
16:16
• #10 Wives are subject to Husbands -
Eph. 5:21, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet.
3:1, 5
• #11 Slaves are subject to masters - Titus
2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18
• #12 Younger are subject to elders - 1 Pet.
5:5
N ti th t i f th i
Submit = hupotasso
• Notice that in none of these passages is
hupotasso used to describe a husband’s
responsibility toward his wife.
• The idea of “interchangeability” does not
fit

 

[McScribe]

My interpretation actually avoids the problem of the terminology and goes right for the heart of things, which is what is submit to one another in love, the whole direction of Eph 4 and 5.

The key to it all is understanding how Christ loved the church according to his words and actions, understanding how the church responded to Christ at its best, and putting the two together. if you see it that way it is astonishingly freeing. We don't need to worry per se about which translation it is because Jesus' actions are clear.

What is Jesus' underlying purpose as a leader? It is ultimately to unite us with God. To see God through him. It is not to treat people as servants but rather to have them understand that we are joint heirs with him.

What is the purpose of the church? To respond to that. To actually live by faith.

So essentially what Paul is really saying is that in marriage we should be good friends to one another, love one another, be honest with one another, be generous towards one another.

 

[Judy02]

Personally, I think the main problem with all this really is pride. The want to control instead of to give up, acknowledge, appreciate and even embrace another person's perspective and input. It's when we focus on what we can get out of something, rather than how we can serve the other person when it becomes a problem. I just think it can potentially be abused more by some men by the way they use certain scriptures to want to get their own way. Domineering, proud and controlling people are bad enough, but when they think they've got the backing of the bible to encourage or even promote their behaviour, it can become even worse. But yeah, Jesus certainly did lead a radical example.

Anyway, I'll probably bow out of this thread now, I've probably said more than I was planning to anyway.

 

[JaneFW]

Judy, as you may notice, there are as many opinions about submission as there are noses on faces. This subject has caused quite a lot of uproar on this forum.

I have never liked the 'idea' of submission. It seemed to me that it made women lesser than men, because it suggested that the wife was not as capable as the husband, but I believe that God speaks to men and women equally, and does not give anyone special grace to 'know best' in any given situation. So, from debating this to and fro, my thinking on submission now is that I will take the Bible as a WHOLE when it comes to marriage, because, I don't believe that one line of scripture is the whole basis of marriage and that, without it, the marriage will fail or will not be the 'right' marriage or even - outrageously - that the husband or wife is sinful if they do not follow this one scripture.

We are commanded to love, and we are told what love is ("love is kind, love is patient ..") and we are told to submit to each other, and we are told that we are equal before God. That's what I take from it. We are equal in His eyes, equally loved, and totally responsible for our personal sins. That's fine with me, and that's what I'm allll about!

 

[illudium_phosdex]

AMEN!!!!




And if, like my husband, the husband says NO to the concept of submissive wife, then there's no reason or rhyme to continue with something just because other people say you "should".

Thank you. My husband is similar in that respect. I've told you guys some of the issues I had with trying to be the all submissive wife because I was told that that was how I was supposed to be. Come to find out after all that, he hated it as much as I did. It really made him uncomfortable.

 

[Boidae]

I don't like a submissive wife either. I like that my wife speaks her mind when she feels she needs to. Generally it will end up in an argument, but nine times out of ten, her way of thinking is correct over my own.

Why wouldn't I want that? If I'm going the wrong way and she sees that we're headed the wrong way, but yet keeps quiet, we could end up deep in a ditch. Yet, if she was to speak out and say "hey stupid, you're going the wrong way," we avoid the ditch.

Why wouldn't I want her to speak out? Why would I want her to be totally submissive and just assume that I will figure out that we're going the wrong way before we end up in a ditch?