Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

[tall73]

again you are missing the point. this is not about women's roles in society at large but in the church in particular

Yet you did raise the points about society, and I addressed them. And I also addressed points in the church in particular.

trying to drown the issue in minutia is an avoidance tactic.

Addressing the points you raised is not an avoidance tactic. But it will take me time to get through all of the material. And I am trying to actually respond to what you have said.

The issue is the 4 universal rules I pointed out. You have not addressed those in relationship to the text in Ephesus, both of which cannot be true at the same time.

Nor have I given my overall take on I Corinthians 14 or I Timothy 2 in general. So far the conversation has been focused on different aspects, because I don't see those texts as dealing directly with the issue of this thread, but indirectly.

I tried to get you or others to discuss the aspect of what it means for women's role in the church in the other thread, where that was the topic. But people didn't care to do so.

I do still plan on getting to your statements as to what you see as the heart of the matter. But since there is a lot to respond to that will take time.

If you only wanted me to respond to those elements, then you need not have put the other elements. But you did, and I am responding to them.

 

[tall73]

Theologically as an image the relationships are all about Him, both the male and female. He alone is the Head. He loved enough to come under.

Yes, He loved enough to come to serve. And yet He was still Head, and still had authority. And He used that to build up, to save.

​

​

Ephesians 5:23​

23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. (NKJV)​

​

The relationships, as you said, both male and female, are about Christ and the church.

Yet He does actually call the husband to headship. And it is to look like the pattern He set.

 

[tall73]

Either way, Jesus is at the helm.

Agreed.

 

[tall73]

No, but your comments went well beyond that.

Then post those that you felt were most hurtful and I can clarify or re-assess.

I did that already with your broken bones statement, and I accept your clarification. That does not mean that I agree with, or like the characterization that I am promoting abuse two steps removed. But I understand that to be your sincere position, though I disagree with it. And I am willing to discuss that disagreement. Just as you hold my view to be my sincere position, but disagree with it, and do not like it.

I do not doubt that you are wanting to eliminate abuse, or that you feel you are reading the text correctly.

But I also sincerely do think that you won't convince people of a Scriptural standard if you won't address particular texts upon which they hold that Scriptural standard.

Now at one point in the conversation it was unclear to me if you were attempting to read things through a filter, or, as it turns out, you have said you have simply, for strategic reasons, been avoiding discussing particular aspects.

I would still ask you not to avoid particular aspects of the conversation about Scripture. But that is up to you. I can only say I can't change my view of Scripture only based on secular academics, etc.

 

[tall73]

They would submit to each other behind closed doors, but in public it's something different altogether?

Please elaborate on what was done in public.

 

[tall73]

So what does "headship" mean to you? If you are arguing for something other than mutual submission, what exactly are you arguing for, and what are its limits?

What does the text say it means?

And again, I am not asking what various disturbed people have read it to mean, and the results that followed. I am asking, what does the text say headship means?

Ephesians 5:25-33 25

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself....​

 

[Paidiske]

Then post those that you felt were most hurtful and I can clarify or re-assess.

Without going back to quote, essentially all of your comments about me ignoring or refusing to look at particular texts, came across as very much an attack. An accusation of lack of integrity and poor scholarship.

But I also sincerely do think that you won't convince people of a Scriptural standard if you won't address particular texts upon which they hold that Scriptural standard.

In other contexts I have done so, and in another thread I might. In this thread, I do not wish to. Not least because of the tone of the responses I have had so far. I have no desire to contribute carefully only to have those contributions dismissed and my character belittled.

Now at one point in the conversation it was unclear to me if you were attempting to read things through a filter, or, as it turns out, you have said you have simply, for strategic reasons, been avoiding discussing particular aspects.

We all read through filters; that's unavoidable. The best we can do is attempt to be aware of and honest about them.

But yes, in this thread, I have chosen what I am and am not willing to discuss.

 

[Paidiske]

What does the text say it means?

And again, I am not asking what various disturbed people have read it to mean, and the results that followed. I am asking, what does the text say headship means?

No; I am asking what you think it means in practice. How should a devout and sincere couple live this out? What does it entail in everyday life?

Because if, to you, it does not ever mean a husband controlling a wife, in any way, then much of my objection disappears. (Although I would say that it would be necessary, when arguing for wifely submission, to make that absolutely and utterly crystal clear). But if it ever means a husband having the "final say," or right of veto, or being able to tell his wife what to do or not do, or setting limits on her behaviours, or any other controlling behaviour... then my objection stands.

 

[tall73]

Without going back to quote, essentially all of your comments about me ignoring or refusing to look at particular texts, came across as very much an attack. An accusation of lack of integrity and poor scholarship.

You have stated that you came into this thread, which is focused on discussion of Scripture, with an unstated intention of not discussing various aspects, which you only disclosed as a strategic decision later in the conversation.

The only way I found out your intent was by asking various questions about your approach to Scripture, your understanding of how the texts fit together, etc.

I was not trying to attack your integrity.

In other contexts I have done so, and in another thread I might. In this thread, I do not wish to. Not least because of the tone of the responses I have had so far. I have no desire to contribute carefully only to have those contributions dismissed and my character belittled.

I have not tried to dismiss your contributions. I have tried to see how they fit particular texts. And I was trying to figure out why you would not explain that, until you stated your strategic intentions.

We all read through filters; that's unavoidable. The best we can do is attempt to be aware of and honest about them.

I think that is fair. But one way to be honest about whatever view is being discussed, is to actually interact with the strongest points of the other side.

But yes, in this thread, I have chosen what I am and am not willing to discuss.

And now we know that this is a strategic decision.

So I will interact with the others who are willing to on these points, because I am unwilling to change my view of Scripture without looking at the issue in light of all the various texts of Scripture.

 

[tall73]

No; I am asking what you think it means in practice. How should a devout and sincere couple live this out? What does it entail in everyday life?

You do recall you strategically refused to spell that out in your own case?

For now I have to go to work, but I will try to follow up on this later.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Glad you actually read it all! I hope you contribute more to the conversation as well.

Thank you. I would like to know your opinion on how to convince wives who say that they will not fulfill the commandment to submit to their husband, as the church submits to Christ, for the reason that the husband is not perfect enough for this. After all: 1) no matter how much a person improves, he will never be as perfect as Christ (this is an unattainable ideal to which one must strive), such perfect people as the Apostle Paul did not marry at all, explaining this by the fact that it is easier for a single person to devote his whole life to pleasing God, less perfect people marry usually ; 2) the wife must fulfill this commandment for God, and not for her husband (by submitting to her husband, she serves God); 3) there may be manipulation in this: you are not doing something the way I want, which means you have lost perfection, and when you do what I want, I will return you to the status of a husband to whom I will obey (as long as I I want it).

That is, some women do not challenge this text, agree with it, but bypass it in this way.

 

[Paidiske]

You have stated that you came into this thread, which is focused on discussion of Scripture, with an unstated intention of not discussing various aspects, which you only disclosed as a strategic decision later in the conversation.

I came into this thread initially to answer questions posed in the OP (which I did). I did not, at that point, have any intentions beyond that one post. As the thread evolved, I had to make decisions about how I wanted to post.

I was not trying to attack your integrity.

So to your mind, saying to someone that they are "ignoring" parts of the text that they don't like, is not to imply a lack of integrity? Because it definitely comes across that way.

You do recall you strategically refused to spell that out in your own case?

?? How do you mean?

I am asking because I do not know what headship means to you. You say that the text requires you to commit to a position of headship and submission; (you deny that this is, in any way, any form of abuse). And you say you the text requires you to commit to a position of mutual submission.

I am not sure what picture this adds up to for you, and in particular, whether you do in fact believe in husbands controlling wives, but define this as "not abuse," or whether you do not believe in husbands controlling wives, (which I would agree is not abusive), but then I really don't know how that position differs from a basically egalitarian mutual submission.

 

[tall73]

Thank you. I would like to know your opinion on how to convince wives who say that they will not fulfill the commandment to submit to their husband, as the church submits to Christ, for the reason that the husband is not perfect enough for this.

Don't. The text doesn't tell you to. Love them more. Live out your faith. Christ didn't wait for the church to respond to love them.

1 John 4:19 19 We love Him because He first loved us. (NKJV)​

Just as Peter doesn't tell wives married to unbelievers (not equating the two) to say how the husband should treat her. Instead, he said to live out your faith, and he might be won over.

2) the wife must fulfill this commandment for God, and not for her husband (by submitting to her husband, she serves God).

Yes, she is in relation to God as well, and He can handle that.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Don't. The text doesn't tell you to. Love them more. Live out your faith. Christ didn't wait for the church to respond to love them.

1 John 4:19 19 We love Him because He first loved us. (NKJV)​

Just as Peter doesn't tell wives married to unbelievers (not equating the two) to say how the husband should treat her. Instead, he said to live out your faith, and he might be won over.




Yes, she is in relation to God as well, and He can handle that.

Im agree.

But there are objections.

The Bible repeatedly gives examples of responsibility for those around us. For example, the sons of the priest Eli committed sins and it was he who died. He was held accountable for failing to convince children not to sin. After all, he himself did not sin. He took responsibility for the children.

I also read somewhere that Nathan was held responsible for not restraining Saul (his father) from going to the fortune teller.

I think in both cases they told them, but it wasn't enough, more drastic action had to be taken.

Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab, without asking her husband, obtained a vineyard for her husband through sin (by killing a righteous man). As a result of punishment from God, not only she was killed, but also her husband and children.

It is impossible to say that Christ always said only pleasant things to the church. He called Peter Satan, and drove the merchants out of the temple with a scourge, and threatened fiery hell. The Apostle, by the power of Christ, blinded Elimas the sorcerer, who was interfering with the conversion of the proconsul Paul in Crete; Simon the sorcerer also suffered. By the power of Christ, Ananias and Sapphira were killed to teach the rest of the church not to lie. And if you read “The Revelation of John the Theologian,” then in general the 7 churches of Asia Minor are very harshly denounced.

And this is the question: when is it better to remain silent, simply showing your love, and when should love be tough, like for a child who is trying to get his fingers into an electrical outlet?

Sometimes tough measures are necessary towards the husband in order to save both him and the family (I mean, so that they don’t think that I think men are always right).

 

[Rose_bud]

Yes, He loved enough to come to serve. And yet He was still Head, and still had authority. And He used that to build up, to save.

​

​

Ephesians 5:23​

23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. (NKJV)​

​

The relationships, as you said, both male and female, are about Christ and the church.

Yet He does actually call the husband to headship. And it is to look like the pattern He set.

Hey tall73

I will post my thoughts on Ephesians soon.

If you agree on mutual submission but understand headship as something different. I am also curious to know what that means to you and how it is practiced. I presented my thoughts on the created order where some derive headship from, but maybe it wasn't clear enough. I would like to know your thoughts on this.

 

[Rose_bud]

Agreed.

I'm glad that you agree that their is only one Head in the marriage and his name is Jesus.

 

[Rose_bud]

Please elaborate on what was done in public.

There was a humorous video making its rounds. And we know a lot is said in jest.
I will look for it again maybe it will shed some light on what I was saying although I didn't think it needed elaboration. But I'll try to find it.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Yet you did raise the points about society, and I addressed them. And I also addressed points in the church in particular.




Addressing the points you raised is not an avoidance tactic. But it will take me time to get through all of the material. And I am trying to actually respond to what you have said.

drowning the subject in so much irrelevant detail is avoidance

Nor have I given my overall take on I Corinthians 14 or I Timothy 2 in general. So far the conversation has been focused on different aspects, because I don't see those texts as dealing directly with the issue of this thread, but indirectly.

we are not talking about 1 cor 14. or 1 Tim 2

I tried to get you or others to discuss the aspect of what it means for women's role in the church in the other thread, where that was the topic. But people didn't care to do so.

maybe you should figure out why

I do still plan on getting to your statements as to what you see as the heart of the matter. But since there is a lot to respond to that will take time.

fair enough

If you only wanted me to respond to those elements, then you need not have put the other elements. But you did, and I am responding to them.

where i heard that before

 

[tall73]

we are not talking about 1 cor 14. or 1 Tim 2

When you speak of Ephesus it does relate to 1 Tim 2 because Timothy was in Ephesus as an overseer. And if you are going to find reference to behavior contrasting with either religious figures or prostitutes you will find it more in chapter 2 of 1 Timothy. Some would of course also see this as a response to Roman hairstyle trends of the wealthy etc.

Will only be able to post briefly on the point tonight as we have the grand baby dropping by.

 

[tall73]

That is why Paul's statements are so bizarre and controversial about " being neither male nor female, jew and gentile and rich and poor and slave and free" in Christ. This flies in the face of the exclusive male claims of dominance and power of both the Roman and Jewish worlds. The male-female model that you see in the NT and the Early Chruch writing is an innovation.

Exactly! Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Peter, are conforming to Roman culture. They are instead preaching whatever is in line with sound doctrine. When it lines up with Roman culture, that is fine, and when it does not, they do not shy away from going against Roman culture.

Which is why we have to look at the theological arguments they make on headship, not just culture. They didn't just do whatever was cultural.

again context is missing and you ignored the Jewish contradictions. it does not line up with Jewish Culture either it was new and innovative

I agreed it was innovative. And that is the point. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Peter simply bowed to culture, whether Jewish or Roman.

What they command does not match either Jewish or Roman culture.

Nice way to sidestep the argument.

There was no sidestepping the argument.

I was agreeing with part of your argument. None of them were bowing to culture.

So if they were not bowing to culture, what were they doing? They were teaching sound doctrine.