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

[ValeriyK2022]

I am confused by this topic.

• If a wife wishes to "do as she pleases and not answer to any man", then why not just remain single? Then there is no HUSBAND to be required to submit to.
• If a man simply desires a female that he can order to cook and clean, he could hire a housekeeper.
• If this is really about sexual control and domination, then go to a bar or brothel (you are already deep into non-Christian behavior, so what are you really PLAYING at Christianity for)?

God calls for HUSBANDS to be for their wives what CHRIST is for the Church.
God calls for WIVES to be to their husbands what the CHURCH is to Christ.

If you want to obey God, then obey God and do it.
If you don't want to obey God, then don't obey God ... but then what do you care how much you are disobeying God by.
Are there "little sins" that God sweeps under the rug and "big sins" that God applies the Blood of the Lamb to cover?

I think that before marriage, few people realize the difficulties they will face after marriage.

That is, wives who accepted Christ do not want to sin by cohabiting, like the Samaritan woman whom Jesus Christ met at the well (there were 5 husbands and the one with whom you live now is not your husband). The same husband understands that such cohabitation is sinful and displeasing to God and therefore is looking for a legitimate wife. And they wholeheartedly agree that Christian marriage is a good thing. But then, when difficulties come, many look for teachers who would tickle your ears nicely, as the apostle wrote. They Either they deceive themselves or want to be pleasantly deceived by others.

Some people keep the commandments (they are rare now). Other people agree that the commandment is good, but he or she is sinful and struggling with himself. But a huge part of those who, through misinterpretation, try to prove that the commandment either says the exact opposite of how people understood it for 2000 years, or is outdated and should be replaced or abolished.

 

[tall73]

I should say that I believe there are times when Abigail must act in opposition to Nabal (or Daniel must oppose Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) but those exceptions should be determined by the Holy Spirit, not a (male or female) heart with a rebellious predisposition.

Sapphira was not obligated to lie for her husband, either.

Agreed, and we talked about Vashti, Abigail, etc. in the thread. All authority is delegated, and we must follow God first.

 

[tall73]

I saw you dismiss real harm to real people as "secular reasoning" which could not be entertained.

No, you saw me say that I cannot substitute some other standard for God's word. You are in a thread about what the Scriptures say, and won't discuss all the Scriptures say.

And you have claimed over and over that I am responsible for things I clearly say I do NOT agree with. That is just smearing.

Here is what I said;

Tall73 said:​

​

You have broken the simile. You turn the second part of the simile into its opposite:​

​

Ephesians 5:24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.​

​

vs​

​

Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be equal partners to their husbands in everything. ​

• You claim to have done so. But your interpretation breaks the simile.
• And since you have made a strategic decision not to discuss certain arguments in the text, we have seen none of this reconciling carried through to the various arguments made in the text, and have seen plenty of reason to think that you cannot reconcile it. Up is not down. Wet is not dry. Submitting to a head is not equal partnership.
• You assert your view is correct. You assert your view reconciles with the whole Scripture. You claim your view is all perfectly based on Scripture--but you won't show it here, because you claim we will only be convinced by secular views on abuse instead of Scripture, and so you won't even present your view.
• You stated you look at it in a creation context. But you haven't discussed those texts in depth either, or addressed the arguments made.
• You say you look at it in the context of mutual submission. But we already noted that Christ, being God, submitted to His parents. He yielded, even though he had greater authority.
• Children in general submit to parents. But parents can yield in many ways their will to that of the child, and still be parents, and still be in authority
• The members of the body yield to overseers. Yet overseers can yield to the body.
• We are all called to look to the interests of others, to not insist on our own way continually, to serve one another, to yield to one another. However, that happens even in the context of unequal roles. There is submitting to one another, even in the context of unequal authority.

So what is the context you are appealing to? Now you even say the creation accounts, the NT text, etc. are all completely interpreted through the lens of patriarchy, so that all of them wind up saying the opposite of what you think they mean--but they still mean what you think they do, because of secular principles.

There is no reason for us to accept that, when Scripture is given to us by God to instruct us. The Old Testament, the New Testament, etc. agree on headship. And you won't even address their arguments. So I cannot entertain your view. Because I am not at liberty to set aside Scripture based on secular reasoning.

 

[tall73]

But by all means, do let me know how you take into account the actual harm done by these views, in forming your hermeneutic.

No. Go start your own thread dedicated to how people stating "don't beat your wife" encourages people to beat their wife.

That is not the topic of this thread.

If you wish to discuss what the Scriptures say on the topic of how husbands and wives relate, then do so.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:
You claim to have done so. But your interpretation breaks the simile.

It recognises that the simile only goes so far before it breaks down. Because a simile is, in the end, the comparison of two unlike things.

Of course they are two different things being compared. But the simile is looking at a particular thing in which they are similar.

You say you are illustrating where it breaks down. No. You turn the second part of the simile into its opposite, so that there is no simile at all.

Ephesians 5:24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

vs

Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be equal partners to their husbands in everything.

To dismiss the specific thing they are being noted for similarity in, is to break the simile

Ephesians 5:24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

as
The church is subject to Christ
so
the wives be to their own husbands in everything

 

[Paidiske]

To dismiss the specific thing they are being noted for similarity in, is to break the simile

I would disagree. One cannot be subject to another human being in the way that one is to God. What is emphasised here is relationship, unity; a wife is directed to her own husband; that is the direction of her love, her service, her (reciprocated) submission, her loyalty, her priority, her sense of purpose in building a household. Just as a Christian's attention and love, service, loyalty, priority sense of purpose in mission, and so on, come from the relationship and unity with Christ.

The point is not to make the husband into a demi-god; but to emphasise household unity, relationships and mutuality, in the same way that these things exist within the household of faith.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Agreed, and we talked about Vashti, Abigail, etc. in the thread. All authority is delegated, and we must follow God first.

I agree that one must obey God more than one’s husband and more than one’s presbyter or bishop. But this should be an exception.

The apostle says: be subject to the authorities. But in another place the apostle says to the authorities: we must obey God more than you (Acts of the Holy Apostles).

 

[ValeriyK2022]

No. Go start your own thread dedicated to how people stating "don't beat your wife" encourages people to beat their wife.

That is not the topic of this thread.

If you wish to discuss what the Scriptures say on the topic of how husbands and wives relate, then do so.

Maybe open a topic: “How to behave in pathological relationships in the family”?

Because you are talking about different things. One says how it should be in a normal family. And the other says that in pathological relationships these norms are not suitable.

And these are completely different things. In a psychiatric hospital, health care workers may use force and they can tie up the patient and give him an injection. Whereas in a regular clinic, where a patient comes with a runny nose, they cannot tie him up by force and give him an injection. This would already be a criminal offense.

 

[tall73]

Maybe open a topic: “How to behave in pathological relationships in the family”?

Because you are talking about different things. One says how it should be in a normal family. And the other says that in pathological relationships these norms are not suitable.

And these are completely different things. In a psychiatric hospital, health care workers may use force and they can tie up the patient and give him an injection. Whereas in a regular clinic, where a patient comes with a runny nose, they cannot tie him up by force and give him an injection. This would already be a criminal offense.

Yes, and also, those who discuss how marriage is described in Scripture, are not therefore responsible for how every disturbed person twists it to justify beatings, rape, etc.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:

To dismiss the specific thing they are being noted for similarity in, is to break the simile​

I would disagree. One cannot be subject to another human being in the way that one is to God.

Ephesians 5:23-24 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. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)​

The extent is different, because God's sovereignty is above all, and all other authority derives from him. But the text says they both have headship, and both have those in submission to them. So you say it cannot be. The Scripture says it can be, and is, that there is a relationship of headship and submission.

A simile is comparing different things, on a point of similarity. You are saying it is comparing differing things and pointing out another difference! That is not a simile. And it would have to use a different construction.

Here is how your version would have to read:

​

Ephesians 5:23-24 23 For the husband is not head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be in equal partnership with their husbands in everything.​

You have certainly broken the simile, because there is no point of comparison in the first place, in your version, which is the point of the simile.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Yes, and also, those who discuss how marriage is described in Scripture, are not therefore responsible for how every disturbed persons twist it to justify beatings, rape, etc.

Here both yes and no. It is not for nothing that Jesus Christ said: “For every idle word everyone will have to give an answer on the day of judgment.” This does not mean that there will necessarily be liability before a civil court. But God’s all-wise Court will weigh all the arguments and deliver its verdict.

I read about a case where a person suffering from depression or drugs (I don’t remember exactly) was very upset while riding public transport. And the rude words of a stranger led to a suicide attempt.

A word can heal and a word can kill, a word can make peace and a word can destroy the world. I think that those whose words led to evil, taught bad things, showed bad example or advice will not be irresponsible before God.

Jesus Christ said that He is meek and lowly in heart. He also said that He will not break a bruised reed and will not quench the smoking flax. He spoke very carefully and carefully so as not to break anyone. He could immediately stun everyone with incriminating evidence: you did this and that, and therefore you should shut up. And you did it and so shut up too. But Jesus Christ came not to destroy, but to save what was perishing. And if we call ourselves Christians, then we must be careful with our words so as not to hurt, offend or break anyone. Then we will be disciples of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, we will be disciples of the devil, who came to steal, kill and destroy.

People continue to move away from God and there are fewer and fewer balanced people, and more and more unbalanced ones.

 

[tall73]

Here both yes and no. It is not for nothing that Jesus Christ said: “For every idle word everyone will have to give an answer on the day of judgment.” This does not mean that there will necessarily be liability before a civil court. But God’s all-wise Court will weigh all the arguments and deliver its verdict.

I very much agree.

However, if we say to love your wife as Christ loves the church, and we say "don't beat your wife". Am I then responsible for people who beat their wife? Because that is what she is claiming, since we point out the the text indicating headship.

In no way have I told anyone to beat their wife, or suggested it , so it is not my words indicating such.

And she admitted as much, but then says because we speak of headship, we are still causing it. And this is not true. Because it is not headship imitating Christ that is the problem, but the distortion of that by unstable people.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

However, if we say to love your wife as Christ loves the church, and we say "don't beat your wife". Am I then responsible for people who beat their wife? Because that is what she is claiming, since we point out the the text indicating headship.

I did not speak specifically about your statements. I talked about the importance of words in general.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

I very much agree.

However, if we say to love your wife as Christ loves the church, and we say "don't beat your wife". Am I then responsible for people who beat their wife? Because that is what she is claiming, since we point out the the text indicating headship.

In no way have I told anyone to beat their wife, or suggested it , so it is not my words indicating such.

And she admitted as much, but then says because we speak of headship, we are still causing it. And this is not true. Because it is not headship imitating Christ that is the problem, but the distortion of that by unstable people.

I agree that one cannot refuse the commandments on the grounds that someone may distort them later. So everything can be distorted. So we can say that the primacy of a presbyter or bishop can be understood by someone as the right of a bishop or presbyter to beat parishioners. But such an understanding is already a clinical case. What do the commandments have to do with it?

It’s the same thing on an airplane: the pilots are in charge. Flight attendants report to them. And passengers must obey the pilots and flight attendants. It would be strange to interpret this in such a way that it would give pilots the opportunity to beat up passengers. And to avoid this, everyone must have the right to control the plane.

 

[tall73]

It’s the same thing on an airplane: the pilots are in charge. Flight attendants report to them. And passengers must obey the pilots and flight attendants. It would be strange to interpret this in such a way that it would give pilots the opportunity to beat up passengers. And to avoid this, everyone must have the right to control the plane.

Yes, and Jesus is air control, directing the pilots, keeping them on course, and from harming each other as they listen to Him!

And in this case, He is directing all the people in the plane as well, which goes beyond the analogy.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

A huge number of people are prone to imitation. And if you paint them a positive image of a family (one where the husband submits to God, the wife submits to God and her husband, and the children submit to their parents), then many will copy it.

If we draw a negative image (where no one listens to anyone, someone beats someone, or insults and humiliates, or blackmails) and we discuss this, then there will be those who will copy this too.

By showing good examples, we indirectly expose evil. But when we show bad examples, we risk multiplying evil: someone will copy it.

The Orthodox Church has multi-volume books of the Lives of the Saints. But there are no lives of scoundrels. The villains are remembered very briefly in passing. Why? Because the tendency of people to imitate both good and bad is very great!

 

[ValeriyK2022]

I very much agree.

However, if we say to love your wife as Christ loves the church, and we say "don't beat your wife". Am I then responsible for people who beat their wife? Because that is what she is claiming, since we point out the the text indicating headship.

In no way have I told anyone to beat their wife, or suggested it , so it is not my words indicating such.

And she admitted as much, but then says because we speak of headship, we are still causing it. And this is not true. Because it is not headship imitating Christ that is the problem, but the distortion of that by unstable people.

I wanted to say that it is not those who tells good examples, examples of fulfilling the commandments, who sin. Those who describe evil in detail risk leading others to sin.

One preacher in Russia said that in the 1990s in Russia, a feature film about the inner life of a group of gangsters was shown on all TV screens. If we take the film as a whole, it was instructive. He showed that those who engage in such crimes end their lives badly. But many young people in Russia began to imitate the heroes of this film (gangsters). Because there, talented actors played well all their joys and sorrows, all their experiences, and many people with insufficiently strong life principles became so imbued with the life of these gangsters that they first began to empathize with them, and then imitate them.

I’m not saying that loved ones should be kept with rose-colored glasses and saying that such evil things do not exist in the world. But for every such negative example, you need from 7 to 10 positive examples: about how happy are the people who love God and live according to His commandments!

Therefore, I wrote to her that she risks sinning by citing such negative patterns of behavior as an example. For one bad example, you need to give 7 good examples of saints, honest and decent people and families!

 

[Paidiske]

The extent is different, because God's sovereignty is above all, and all other authority derives from him. But the text says they both have headship, and both have those in submission to them. So you say it cannot be. The Scripture says it can be, and is, that there is a relationship of headship and submission.

And I have said yes, there is submission; within a dynamic of mutual submission and cooperation and love and service. Not within a dynamic of one-way control.

And I have tried to get you to clarify and to spell out exactly what you mean by "headship," and how that should be expressed, and what limits (if any) there are to it turning into a dynamic of control, but the answers have been very vague. Setting the tone and getting the right to make a decision where there's disagreement, apparently; but then there's submission in "all things" which goes way beyond that and has no apparent limits.

So I have no idea what you're really advocating for, in terms of how people actually do life together.

A simile is comparing different things, on a point of similarity. You are saying it is comparing differing things and pointing out another difference!

No, I pointed out the key similarity, which was about the relationship, and what that means for how people cooperate and work together.

However, if we say to love your wife as Christ loves the church, and we say "don't beat your wife". Am I then responsible for people who beat their wife? Because that is what she is claiming, since we point out the the text indicating headship.

No, that is not what I am claiming. But perhaps I have not spelled out my chain of reasoning clearly enough.

We know that men who abuse their wives (or partners) tend to hold a trio, a cluster, of beliefs and attitudes, which drive that abuse; and that that cluster of beliefs is not held by men who don't abuse. That's the key differentiator between why some men abuse and some don't; the ones who abuse hold these beliefs.

That cluster of beliefs is:
- acceptance of violence
- belief in hierarchy, dynamics of power and control in the household
- rigid gender roles.

So, any time we put forward justification for any of these three beliefs which underpin abuse, we foster the attitudes which drive abuse.

Am I saying that makes a person who argues for hierarchy in marriage directly responsible for someone who beats his wife? No. But I am saying that all of us - especially those of us who claim authority as teachers and leaders in the church - are indirectly responsible to the extent that we contribute in any way to the formation of these attitudes.

It's not enough to say, "I believe in hierarchy and control, but not in violence." That's still building one leg of the tripod on which abuse rests, and we need to dismantle the religious justification for the whole tripod. (This is what the work of primary prevention that I've been involved with has been working on directly; building understandings of marriage which are profoundly Scriptural, take into account the whole of Scripture, and yet do so in a way which doesn't result in abuse as the fruit of it).

because we speak of headship, we are still causing it.

To the extent that headship means control, I believe this is true.

Because it is not headship imitating Christ that is the problem, but the distortion of that by unstable people.

If you can put forward an understanding of headship which does not mean control, then I will be able to see what your "undistorted" view is. But I haven't seen that yet.

 

[tall73]

​

​

A simile is comparing different things, on a point of similarity. You are saying it is comparing differing things and pointing out another difference! That is not a simile. And it would have to use a different construction.​

​

Here is how your version would have to read:​

​

Ephesians 5:23-24 23 For the husband is not head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be in equal partnership with their husbands in everything.​

​

You have certainly broken the simile, because there is no point of comparison in the first place, in your version, which is the point of the simile.​

No, I pointed out the key similarity, which was about the relationship, and what that means for how people cooperate and work together.

The simile specifically references headship on both sides, and submission in all things on both sides.

Ephesians 5:23-24 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. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)​

However, the only thing you indicate you take from it is the relationship, cooperation and working together

Keep in mind, this is completely different from how you read these same verses earlier in the thread. But that was when you were using a different basis to try to get to your destination. When you said this was about Roman husband/fathers being the head of the household, able to kill their wives, then submission in all things was definitely about submission. But it was all cultural.

They wouldn't even need to mention one-sided submission if they weren't in a patriarchal culture where husbands ruled their households.

But then when it was pointed out that this is a theological argument based on the headship of Christ, and not just on Roman culture, the only thing you get out of the words headship and submission is that there is a cooperative relationship?

I have been asking you to look at the construction of the verses, how the simile is formed, because it is instructive in getting at the meaning. If we have to completely change the form of the simile in order to place your reading in the text, then your reading is certainly less likely.

Since you already said these arguments are not important to your view, and you don't want to discuss them, I can only conclude that the construction itself is not a key factor for you. You seem to be fine with them saying completely opposite things, as long as you get to your same end-point.

However, I don't think others will take the same view. Because we are trying to see what the text says, not the best way to reach a pre-determined end-point.

As noted earlier, your hermeneutic, drawing on outside literature, will only allow certain interpretations.

And that is evident when you have to discuss the simile, and are willing to argue completely opposite meanings to the words submit in all things, as long as you get to where you would like to.

So if you don't want to discuss the argument, or look at particulars, why continue to engage on a discussion of this sort, about the Scriptures?

 

[tall73]

No, that is not what I am claiming. But perhaps I have not spelled out my chain of reasoning clearly enough.

We know that men who abuse their wives (or partners) tend to hold a trio, a cluster, of beliefs and attitudes, which drive that abuse; and that that cluster of beliefs is not held by men who don't abuse. That's the key differentiator between why some men abuse and some don't; the ones who abuse hold these beliefs.

That cluster of beliefs is:
- acceptance of violence
- belief in hierarchy, dynamics of power and control in the household
- rigid gender roles.

So, any time we put forward justification for any of these three beliefs which underpin abuse, we foster the attitudes which drive abuse.

Am I saying that makes a person who argues for hierarchy in marriage directly responsible for someone who beats his wife? No. But I am saying that all of us - especially those of us who claim authority as teachers and leaders in the church - are indirectly responsible to the extent that we contribute in any way to the formation of these attitudes.

It's not enough to say, "I believe in hierarchy and control, but not in violence." That's still building one leg of the tripod on which abuse rests, and we need to dismantle the religious justification for the whole tripod.

This sounds like a topic for another thread. So instead of continuing what you have called your strategy of focusing on that, in a thread not designed for it, though we have allowed you to discuss it at length, you should just start a thread on that subject.

But if you do you should post the studies so we can get a better understanding of the concepts, terminology, etc.

And you can also post other studies that include factors beyond these three, and how they relate.

For instance, I have seen one study that not only looks at headship views, but also includes religiosity measures, and broken down by whether the couple are in agreement on secular/religous views. That would get more to the point of what we are actually discussing here.

However, that would be a different thread. Feel free to create it.
The ethics section might be a great place to do so.

(This is what the work of primary prevention that I've been involved with has been working on directly; building understandings of marriage which are profoundly Scriptural, take into account the whole of Scripture, and yet do so in a way which doesn't result in abuse as the fruit of it).

If that is the case then I would say it is in fact even more so a terrible strategy to not spell out your "profoundly Scriptural" view which takes into account the "whole of Scripture" in this thread. Because the topic is what the Scriptures say on roles of husbands and wives.

And if you have a profoundly Scriptural view, that is persuasive, how can you say that you strategically choose to look at the abuse data instead in this thread, because complementarians won't look at the Bible?

Shouldn't you spell it out for those who might be convinced by the Bible?

You are willing to prevent teaching headship, even though the Bible talks about it, to prevent a three legged stool of views, just to be sure.

But you are not willing to spell out your investigation of Scripture on these points to convince those who might hear it, even though that is the topic of the thread?

Something isn't adding up in that, to me.