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

[Paidiske]

If you aim your remarks at a group, you are including the people in the group.

I can only tell you so many times, my remarks are not aimed at you. I am not attacking you. I am not criticising you. I am not making this about you in any way. There is an issue here that is bigger than any one person, any one tradition, or denomination, or whatever. I'm not making it personal.

 

[tall73]

I can only tell you so many times, my remarks are not aimed at you. I am not attacking you. I am not criticising you. I am not making this about you in any way. There is an issue here that is bigger than any one person, any one tradition, or denomination, or whatever. I'm not making it personal.

If the issue is bigger than any one person, then feel free to spell out your revolutionary view from Scripture that corrects the historic view of the church.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

This is humbling to read

You should take into account that I am writing using Google Translator (I speak Ukrainian and Russian, and am currently studying English). It is possible that something was translated incorrectly.

What we take in will inevitably find its way to the other. This was one of my most important lessons many years ago. When I stopped listening to my friends and seeking their input. I developed the ability to keep my own counsel. They were well meaning and equally clueless. Now it's the blind leading the blind to our detriment.

Stephen Covey believes that much advice is autobiographical. The person heard and remembered that something similar happened in his life, or he read in books, watched in a movie. But even if he himself solved a similar problem, his solution will not suit everyone. This is the same as if you went to an ophthalmologist, and he took off his glasses and lets you use them, although your situation is completely different. You need your own glasses. And for this you need to carefully diagnose.

I've long held that arguments are counterproductive to healthy connections.

Probably a mistranslation again. It said that the woman overestimated her strength, but when she got tired, she lost control of herself. As for disputes, the saints of the 1st century advised offering your opinion up to 3 times, and if it is not accepted, then not insisting on it any more. The main thing is not to lose the spiritual peace.

If you won't do the same to your boss, the police, the judge, or another you hold in regard. Why would you do it to them?

One famous preacher said the same thing: such offensive things are said to a husband (or wife) that would never be said, not just to a boss at work or a policeman on the street, but even to a friend.

It should not be. The apostles did not treat Christ this way, and Christ did not treat the apostles this way . The wife must respect her husband, and the husband must honor his wife as a joint heir of eternal life (so says the apostle).

When I was contemplating suitors the barometer for selection was their alignment with my purpose and my suitability for theirs. God isn't the author of confusion. He won't unite me with a gentleman who opposes the work He's called me to. Nor would He give him a companion ill-suited for his mission and its accomplishment. There must be harmony.

Putting that front and center put the rest in its proper context. If they didn't tick that box the others didn't matter. And the kingdom is first and I wouldn't compromise. I didn't simply take his word for that. I put it to the test. Because everybody has a threshold. I knew where I stood and needed to make certain he was in the same sphere.

It seems to me that neither you nor your chosen one will be able to find out before the wedding how each of them will behave in marriage. The same aforementioned psychologist, Professor Nina Krygina (who became a nun) had extensive experience in counseling couples. As I understand from her words, there is almost no couple who would not have to face surprises. So she urges everyone to be patient. Usually young people think: everything will be different with us. Either because we are more educated than others, or we are more religious and pious, or for other reasons. But some time passes and something happens that cannot be resolved without patience.

It's easy to talk Christianly. But it is difficult to live as a Christian. Without patience and God’s help it is completely impossible.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

It seems to me that Paidiske and Tall73 are talking about different things. Tall73 talks about who, in principle, should be the head of the family in accordance with the will of God, with the word of God. And Paidiske talks about how to avoid abuse by the head, what should be the boundaries of his powers so that there is no abuse. Here a substitution of concepts is being made that if someone is in charge in the family, then there will definitely be abuse or with a high degree of probability. But we know that neither Abraham in relation to Sarah, nor Isaac in relation to Rebekah had any abuses.

Can there be abuse by a subordinate party? We have proven that they can. Subordinates can abuse no less, or even more, than their superiors, but this does not mean that gender roles need to be changed. For example, we read in the Bible how the long-suffering Job was deprived of everything and sat sick on a dunghill. His wife, who was used to living in abundance and working little, was forced to work hard and bring him food. But he still remained the head of the family while he was alive. It was so hard for his wife that she tried to persuade him to commit some crime against God, so that God would kill him. In this case, the subordinate party abuses its more advantageous position. Yes, it was very difficult for her, but she still should not have incited her husband to sin.

Nobody beat Job: neither his wife, nor his friends. But their words already intensified his suffering. He was looking for someone sympathetic and sorrowful and did not find it. He was looking for human support during the most difficult period of his life and did not find it. He felt betrayed by everyone. He was very sad about this.

Does this mean that if he told his wife: now you will be in charge and I will obey you, then it would be easier for him? No and no! If he had listened to his wife, he would have lost everything. He groaned from physical and mental pain, but remained faithful to God and as the head of his family.

 

[Paidiske]

But we know that neither Abraham in relation to Sarah, nor Isaac in relation to Rebekah had any abuses.

Beg pardon? You're talking about the Abraham who tried to pimp his wife out, more than once. Eg. see here: Issues in Genesis: The Trafficking of Sarah, Part 1

I am talking about something a layer deeper than "boundaries on powers;" I am trying to talk about an ethos of relationship in which the dynamic of control is altogether absent (rather than just needing boundaries).

 

[bèlla]

You should take into account that I am writing using Google Translator (I speak Ukrainian and Russian, and am currently studying English). It is possible that something was translated incorrectly.

My apologies if you misunderstood. It was the positive form of the word I referenced.

Stephen Covey believes that much advice is autobiographical. The person heard and remembered that something similar happened in his life, or he read in books, watched in a movie.

He's correct. You're dealing with different people, circumstances, challenges and personalities. There's too much nuance. It takes gifting to speak to a person's situation in its entirety without relying on prior knowledge or professional training.

That begins with the spirit of wisdom and ideally you have discernment as well. Then you can speak in the natural and spiritual simultaneously. Sometimes you'll get a word of knowledge or exhortation is present too and brings in another element.

Because I have what I described, I know when someone is speaking from the soul, the flesh or the Holy Spirit immediately. They don't sound the same. And exhortation on its own is not equitable to wisdom or its omission. The key difference between the two is problem-solving. Wisdom provides solutions. You're not exchanging ideas or having discussions. It isn't necessary. When they present the problem you can respond with a solution. You don't need to go back and forth.

Although you may possess those qualities you can still speak from those places. I know when I'm writing from my head and when I'm shifting to a business mindset or opening to allow the heart to have sway instead. They all sound different.

This is an example of what I described. The gentleman has a problem I do not share spiritually. The remedy he received was appropriate for his station. A more mature believer might have been given a more spiritual response. But both are apropos.

As for disputes, the saints of the 1st century advised offering your opinion up to 3 times, and if it is not accepted, then not insisting on it any more. The main thing is not to lose the spiritual peace.

One of the things we have to be mindful of that the internet brought to the fore is participation. I'm not suggesting don't participate. But don't assume all of the input is the result of knowledge, experience, etc. Because oftentimes it's not.

I became aware of it because my friends would chime in on topics and I knew they'd never experienced the same and weren't discussing someone who had. They were answering from the perspective of how they'd believed they respond in similar circumstances. It was all speculation and others were doing the same.
That's when I discovered the realities of seeking advice with strangers. It's a mixed bag and you have to sift it. There's a lot of topics I don't touch because I'm not the most qualified voice on the subject.

It seems to me that neither you nor your chosen one will be able to find out before the wedding how each of them will behave in marriage.

We've been together for some time. And I'm not a whippersnapper. ;-)

The Lord built the house and it didn't happen overnight. There's a line from Janet Oke I've learned to appreciate. Sometimes love comes softly. And in my experience that sort tends to last. It references something that builds slowly. Not hot and fast like eros. And as time passes you find your way to agape and discover what love really entails.

It's easy to talk Christianly. But it is difficult to live as a Christian. Without patience and God’s help it is completely impossible.

That would depend on who you're living for. That makes all the difference.

~bella

 

[tall73]

If you are talking about believing families, then this is only possible if someone pretends to be a Christian: he goes to church meetings, but does not work at all on himself to fulfill the commandments of Christ. The problem here is the hypocrisy of one or both spouses, not gender roles.

Yes, if they are walking in the Spirit, and allowing God to work in them to will and to do according to His good pleasure, this will turn them from abusing one another.

 

[tall73]

I explained the mechanism above. 1. Men in USSR never complained about abuse by wife to those bodies that record statistics. 2. It is psychological and therefore difficult to prove. 3. When a woman goes into conflict and a man has 2 options: to submit to his own wife or to submit to a representative of the authorities, a man in the USSR chose to submit to his own wife.

That is, first, each side chose a strategy of competition for power (in the words of Stephen Covey, “win/lose”). If a man lost, he either went into a career, or service to the state, or became an alcoholic. If he became an alcoholic, his personality changed and his state of negative emotions grew. A person who loses and gives in all the time eventually breaks down. And since he was already inclined to drink alcohol, then what happened was what was already recorded by government statistics.

But government statistics did not record absolutely the period of time from the moment of the wedding to the moment when the husband became an alcoholic.

Studies have shown that alcohol both can contribute to abuse by lowering inhibition, and regulation of emotions, etc. in one party, or both. But research has also confirmed that alcohol use can increase following abuse.

Also, we tend to look at abuse as one directional. Sometimes that is the case. But there is a good deal of reciprocal violence as well, though that can take different forms, and sometimes can be a delayed reaction. Alcohol by both partners can escalate the severity.

And yes, there are not always studies reflecting the data, which sadly means the numbers are likely higher all around for all involved. And some research suggests men do not come forward with reports as often because people can often perceive it as a problem primarily relating to women.

Though the emphasis on research that was often driven by concern for the severe injuries, death, psychological impact, etc. on women has led to more research on abuse in general, which eventually has started to study men in this regard as well.

So it is not surprising if they don't have studies for the time period etc.

And yes, abuse is not always physical, from either direction.

 

[tall73]

This is right: get to know yourself and look for a partner to approach you, and then try to understand the other and solve problems together.



But what prevents this?

1. Many people cannot understand themselves for decades. And in their youth, even more so, they do not understand themselves correctly. The girl pictured an ideal man in her imagination, attributed this to her fiancé and promises to obey like the Church of Christ. But as Nina Krygina says, in 99% of cases, shortcomings are discovered in the other person that were invisible if you did not live together. And if the girl decided and promised that she would obey, but deceived herself, then she will cancel her decision. She thought that she would do this because she would listen to the command of the New Testament, but then she says: my husband is not as holy as I imagined him to be, so I cancel my decision. Initially, there was an unconscious mistake: to submit not for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of the qualities of the future husband. Also, the husband may encounter something that he did not see in his parental family and not know what to do about it. The relationship is not like that of his parents and he has no instructions on how to behave. While he was overwhelmed by passion and the bride did not know his sore spots, he thought that he would easily bear insults according to the Savior’s words “if she hit you on the cheek, turn the other one.” But later the bride used empathy to hit the most painful places and after that, not only turning the other cheek, it’s even difficult to discuss all this.
2. Inability to listen to others. It often seems that what pleases one person should also please the other. For example, today I heard such prejudice that a man chooses a wife who looks like his mother. But when the wife begins to behave like a mother (someone advised that her husband would like it that way), the husband considers himself deeply offended that he has been humiliated to the level of a child. Professor Nina Krygina also talks about this in the video above. In fact, the wife should try to understand her husband, what will please him, and not listen to the advice of smart psychologists, what pleases them and transfer this to her husband. In the same way, a husband should listen to and understand his wife, which makes her happy.

Her husband, for example, likes camping on the lake. And she likes to relax in a comfortable hotel room. She gives in, goes camping with him and is sad and whining all the time in the tent and thereby spoils her husband’s mood or even gets angry. She might even reprimand her husband: I went through such difficulties for you, but you don’t appreciate it. You scoundrel! I don't love you anymore! The holiday is ruined. At the same time, she could want to appear virtuous and hide from her husband that she does not like camping, and say: the main thing for me is that you spend these days the way you want, this will already make me happy. But she didn’t recognize herself, overestimated her strength and lost control. In the same way, a husband should not believe his wife’s words that she only enjoys what her husband wants. He should have first listened to my wife about what her ideal vacation would be. And as an option that suits both, you could choose a hotel on the shore of a lake or sea, rather than a campsite. Inside the hotel room there is comfort for the wife, and outside there is nature for the husband.

Problems: 1) no sincerity with oneself; 2) at first they did not try to understand what would please the other person.

Good post.

And the above lack of understanding of self and spouse, and their role in Christ can often be complicated by one or both parties experiencing prior abuse, especially in early life.

 

[Tigran1245]

That's really not quite what I'm saying.

What I'm trying to say is that if we talk about things like headship, submission, leadership, authority (etc) in ways which reinforce ideas of household hierarchy, dynamics of power and control, rigid roles, and so on, that drives the attitudes which underlie abuse, even if we are simultaneously saying that the text is against any abuse.

Partly because if - for example - a man believes he has a God-given right to control his wife, he won't see that as abuse. He won't recognise the problem with what he's doing.

I am really not smearing you. This is not about you.

The God-given right of a man to control his wife is not violence, because the wife voluntarily marries and agrees to have such a relationship with the man. Obedience is one of the virtues that a woman must demonstrate in marriage. And, of course, obedience to a husband, like obedience to the state, is valid only if it corresponds to the Divine Law. Likewise, Christ submitted to the authorities only when it corresponded to the Divine will.

If one of the men abuses this commandment, this should in no way cancel or distort the commandment of Christ. Therefore, your attempts to promote “mutual submission”, arguing them with statistics of domestic violence, are just an excuse not to follow the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, God, although He created people equal in nature, nevertheless gave each different advantages. And the advantage of a husband is power over a wife. Denying this advantage, in my opinion, is resisting the will of God to give man and woman what He wants.

 

[Paidiske]

The God-given right of a man to control his wife is not violence, because the wife voluntarily marries and agrees to have such a relationship with the man. ...

Thus, God, although He created people equal in nature, nevertheless gave each different advantages. And the advantage of a husband is power over a wife. Denying this advantage, in my opinion, is resisting the will of God to give man and woman what He wants.

Well, all of you who have spent most of this thread telling me that headship is not about control, and so on, how will you respond to this? How will you speak up against this distortion of Scripture?

Or is it only a problem when people argue for the safety, the value, and the flourishing of women, and not a problem when people argue for the power and control of men?

I say that God does not give a man the right to control his wife. That is not what the texts say, or mean, at all. And any such control is abuse.

 

[Joseph G]

The God-given right of a man to control his wife is not violence, because the wife voluntarily marries and agrees to have such a relationship with the man. Obedience is one of the virtues that a woman must demonstrate in marriage. And, of course, obedience to a husband, like obedience to the state, is valid only if it corresponds to the Divine Law. Likewise, Christ submitted to the authorities only when it corresponded to the Divine will.

If one of the men abuses this commandment, this should in no way cancel or distort the commandment of Christ. Therefore, your attempts to promote “mutual submission”, arguing them with statistics of domestic violence, are just an excuse not to follow the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, God, although He created people equal in nature, nevertheless gave each different advantages. And the advantage of a husband is power over a wife. Denying this advantage, in my opinion, is resisting the will of God to give man and woman what He wants.

Power over his wife? What do you mean, physically or as head of the family? If you mean physically, as some kind of metaphor from God that grants him the justification for dominating her by force - then you've put your finger on a key attitude that is destroying marriages.

In contrast, God couldn't be more clear about how He instructs the husband to conduct himself as leader:

1 Peter 3:7 NKJV

"Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."

Did God give this privilege to the husband due to his physical prowess or any other "advantage"? No. He did so to serve as a testimony of Christ' relationship to His bride - the Church.

God bless!

 

[bèlla]

because the wife voluntarily marries and agrees to have such a relationship with the man.

This is the part that makes many uncomfortable. Men who desire to lead aren't subordinate. There's no way you can engage with him and be oblivious of his nature. It's evident from the start. What bothers them most is she chose him.

Thus, God, although He created people equal in nature, nevertheless gave each different advantages.

Equality is an endless battle of oneupmanship and they're never satisfied. No matter what you do they always want more.

There are multiple iterations of the concept as I noted in my response. Some require a spouse with strengths that might necessitate leadership of some sort. What I term CEO/COO connections. She's his go-to and oversees a pre agreed domain. But it's still a hierarchy nonetheless.

Many want CEO/CEO relationships without recognizing the problem. You can't have two heads. Someone must take ownership of the whole and delegate as required. Entrusting her with responsibilities she manages isn't a negation of her gifts or lessening of contribution. But if you want to be him why are you required? He doesn't need a twin he needs a complement.

~bella

 

[tall73]

The God-given right of a man to control his wife is not violence, because the wife voluntarily marries and agrees to have such a relationship with the man. Obedience is one of the virtues that a woman must demonstrate in marriage. And, of course, obedience to a husband, like obedience to the state, is valid only if it corresponds to the Divine Law. Likewise, Christ submitted to the authorities only when it corresponded to the Divine will.

If one of the men abuses this commandment, this should in no way cancel or distort the commandment of Christ. Therefore, your attempts to promote “mutual submission”, arguing them with statistics of domestic violence, are just an excuse not to follow the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, God, although He created people equal in nature, nevertheless gave each different advantages. And the advantage of a husband is power over a wife. Denying this advantage, in my opinion, is resisting the will of God to give man and woman what He wants.

Likewise, a good Christian man cannot order a woman to do something that does not comply with the Law of God. Otherwise, his words will no longer correspond to the divine command, and therefore should not be fulfilled. So, I don’t see any abuse here.

Can you clarify your recent statement, and the one previously? When you indicate that his words will no longer correspond to the divine command:

Are you saying that the husband's authority is absolute, and God intends him to control every aspect of his wife's life, unless it goes against a specific command of God?

Or are you saying that the husband's authority must be in line with what God has commanded for the family, and that the husband's role is upholding the authority of God, and should be in line with that?

In my understanding the husband's role is to manage his household so that they follow God's will, not just the whims of the husband. So Ephesians indicates that as Christ loved the church, giving Himself up for her, to sanctify the church, so the husband is to do the same, presenting her spotless, etc. This authority is aimed at building up wife spiritually, and then also the children in chapter 6.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.​

Ephesians 6:4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.​

​

Similarly an overseer must manage his household well, but in context, this seems to refer to raising them in the Lord.

​

1 Timothy 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?​

​

These seem to spell out that the husband has a delegated authority from God to make certain that the family is following the ways of the Lord. As Joshua put it in regards to his own household:

Joshua 24:15 And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”​

I referenced earlier the homilies of Chrysostom on Ephesians 5 and 6, that touch on this subject. And I think he likewise indicates that the responsibility, and authority of the husband are aimed not at getting his own way, but of helping the whole family to follow the Lord. He upholds that the wife also is an authority (shared dominion was given to Adam and Eve over creation, and she is also an authority in the household over the children). The headship of the husband is primarily for the well being of the whole house in Christ. Here were some of the quotes where he brought this out:

​

You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for you to give your life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever — refuse it not. Though you should undergo all this, yet will you not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom you are already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way then as He laid at His feet her who turned her back on Him, who hated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave yourself toward your wife. Yea, though thou see her looking down upon you, and disdaining, and scorning you, yet by your great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, you will be able to lay her at your feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one's life, the mother of one's children, the foundation of one's every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though you should suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this.​

​

She is a second authority, possessing indeed an authority, and a considerable equality of dignity; but at the same time the husband has somewhat of superiority. In this consists most chiefly the well-being of the house. For he took that former argument, the example of Christ, to show that we ought not only to love, but also to govern; "that she may be," says he, "holy and without blemish." But the word "flesh" has reference to love— and the word "shall cleave" has in like manner reference to love. For if you shall make her "holy and without blemish," everything else will follow. Seek the things which are of God, and those which are of man will follow readily enough.​

Teach her the fear of God, and all good things will flow from this as from a fountain, and the house will be full of ten thousand blessings. If we seek the things that are incorruptible, these corruptible things will follow. "For," says He, "seek first His kingdom, and all these things shall be added unto you."​

​

For these reasons then, I courted you, and I love you, and prefer you to my own soul. For the present life is nothing. And I pray, and beseech, and do all I can, that we may be counted worthy so to live this present life, as that we may be able also there in the world to come to be united to one another in perfect security. For our time here is brief and fleeting. But if we shall be counted worthy by having pleased God to so exchange this life for that one, then shall we ever be both with Christ and with each other, with more abundant pleasure. I value your affection above all things, and nothing is so bitter or so painful to me, as ever to be at variance with you.​

​

If thus we regulate ourselves, and attentively study the Scriptures, in most things we shall derive instruction from them. And thus shall be able to please God, and to pass through the whole of the present life virtuously, and to attain those blessings which are promised to those that love Him, of which God grant that we may all be counted worthy, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, together with the Holy Ghost, be unto the Father, glory, power, and honor, now, and ever, through all ages. Amen.​

​

Ver. 4. "And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath; but nurture them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." He does not say, "love them," because to this nature draws them even against their own will, and it were superfluous to lay down a law on such subjects. But what does he say? "Provoke not your children to wrath," as many do by disinheriting them, and disowning them, and treating them overbearingly, not as free, but as slaves. This is why he says, "Provoke not your children to wrath." Then, which is the chief thing of all, he shows how they will be led to obedience, referring the whole source of it to the head and chief authority.​

​

You see that where there are spiritual ties, the natural ties will follow. Do you wish your son to be obedient? From the very first "Bring him up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." Never deem it an unnecessary thing that he should be a diligent hearer of the divine Scriptures. For there the first thing he hears will be this, "Honor your father and your mother"; so that this makes for you. Never say, this is the business of monks. Am I making a monk of him? No. There is no need he should become a monk. Why be so afraid of a thing so replete with so much advantage? Make him a Christian. For it is of all things necessary for laymen to be acquainted with the lessons derived from this source; but especially for children. For theirs is an age full of folly; and to this folly are superadded the bad examples derived from the heathen tales, where they are made acquainted with those heroes so admired among them, slaves of their passions, and cowards with regard to death; as, for example, Achilles, when he relents, when he dies for his concubine, when another gets drunk, and many other things of the sort. He requires therefore the remedies against these things. How is it not absurd to send children out to trades, and to school, and to do all you can for these objects, and yet, not to "bring them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord"? And for this reason truly we are the first to reap the fruits, because we bring up our children to be insolent and profligate, disobedient, and mere vulgar fellows. Let us not then do this; no, let us listen to this blessed Apostle's admonition. "Let us bring them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." Let us give them a pattern. Let us make them from the earliest age apply themselves to the reading of the Scriptures. Alas, that so constantly as I repeat this, I am looked upon as trifling! Still, I shall not cease to do my duty.​

​

How long are we to be mere lumps of flesh? How long are we to be stooping to the earth? Let everything be secondary with us to the provident care we should take of our children, and to our "bringing them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." If from the very first he is taught to be a lover of true wisdom, then wealth greater than all wealth has he acquired and a more imposing name. You will effect nothing so great by teaching him an art, and giving him that outward learning by which he will gain riches, as if you teach him the art of despising riches. If you desire to make him rich, do this. For the rich man is not he who desires great riches, and is encircled with great riches; but the man who has need of nothing. Discipline your son in this, teach him this. This is the greatest riches. Seek not how to give him reputation and high character in outward learning, but consider deeply how you shall teach him to despise the glory that belongs to this present life. By this means would he become more distinguished and more truly glorious. This it is possible for the poor man and the rich man alike to accomplish. These are lessons which a man does not learn from a master, nor by art, but by means of the divine oracles. Seek not how he shall enjoy a long life here, but how he shall enjoy a boundless and endless life hereafter. Give him the great things, not the little things. Hear what Paul says, "Bring them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord"; study not to make him an orator, but train him up to be a philosopher. In the want of the one there will be no harm whatever; in the absence of the other, all the rhetoric in the world will be of no advantage. Tempers are wanted, not talking; character, not cleverness; deeds, not words. These gain a man the kingdom. These confer what are benefits indeed. Whet not his tongue, but cleanse his soul. I do not say this to prevent your teaching him these things, but to prevent your attending to them exclusively. Do not imagine that the monk alone stands in need of these lessons from Scripture. Of all others, the children just about to enter into the world specially need them.​

​

Let us therefore train up our children to be such, that they shall be able to bear up against every trial, and not be surprised at what may come upon them; "let us bring them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." And great will be the reward which will be thus laid up in store for us. For if men for making statues and painting portraits of kings enjoy so great honor, shall not we who adorn the image of the King of kings, (for man is the image of God,) receive ten thousand blessings, if we effect a true likeness? For the likeness is in this, in the virtue of the soul, when we train our children to be good, to be meek, to be forgiving, (because all these are attributes of God,) to be beneficent, to be humane; when we train them to regard the present world as nothing. Let this then be our task, to mold and to direct both ourselves and them according to what is right. Otherwise with what sort of boldness shall we stand before the judgment-seat of Christ? If a man who has unruly children is unworthy to be a Bishop Titus 1:6, much more is he unworthy of the kingdom of Heaven.​

The whole idea of the texts indicates that the husband's delegated authority is to keep the household in line with God's commands, not just his own desires.

So when you say

And the advantage of a husband is power over a wife.​

Is it the husband's advantage? Is it not that he is called to the same type of self-sacrificing love of Christ that looks first to the interests of his wife and children and lays down his life for them? Is he not commanded to present his wife without spot, and to raise his children in the discipline of the Lord?

A wife is to be obedient, and respectful, and submissive as I Peter 3, and Ephesians 5, etc. state. But the obedience is to the husband as the manager of his household, who is leading them to serve the Lord, not just his own desires. He ultimately gives account to God for his management.

Please clarify your view on this.

 

[tall73]

Someone must take ownership of the whole and delegate as required. Entrusting her with responsibilities she manages isn't a negation of her gifts or lessening of contribution. But if you want to be him why are you required? He doesn't need a twin he needs a complement.

~bella

Yes, and a husband would be foolish to not recognize his wife's abilities in areas where she is well suited to give such help. Over the years my wife has been in charge of many aspects of the family that I trusted her to handle, because she was suited for it, and the family was better off for it.

 

[bèlla]

Yes, and a husband would be foolish to not recognize his wife's abilities in areas where she is well suited to give such help. Over the years my wife has been in charge of many aspects of the family that I trusted her to handle, because she was suited for it, and the family was better off for it.

Exactly.

But it's her responsibility to choose a spouse who requires what she possesses. And it's his to be mindful of the same in his selections. If they do otherwise they'll struggle.

~bella

 

[Tigran1245]

Can you clarify your recent statement, and the one previously? When you indicate that his words will no longer correspond to the divine command:

Are you saying that the husband's authority is absolute, and God intends him to control every aspect of his wife's life, unless it goes against a specific command of God?

No, I mean that a man is allowed to have authority over his wife only within the framework of the commandments of Scripture and the natural Law of God.

Thus, controlling every aspect of a wife's life will not have a beneficial effect on her, but there will be negative effect. Accordingly, this cannot in any way correspond to the Natural Law. And, consequently, it contradicts. Therefore it is prohibited.

 

[Tigran1245]

Well, all of you who have spent most of this thread telling me that headship is not about control, and so on, how will you respond to this? How will you speak up against this distortion of Scripture?

Or is it only a problem when people argue for the safety, the value, and the flourishing of women, and not a problem when people argue for the power and control of men?

I wasn't talking about men's power and control over women in general. There is actually no such right in Scripture. We are talking only about the power of a husband over his wife, not just a man and a woman.

I say that God does not give a man the right to control his wife. That is not what the texts say, or mean, at all. And any such control is abuse.

Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord (Eph.5:22)

Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (1Cor.11:8-10).


So, the common Christian Holy Fathers of the Church say on this words of Scripture:

«Why? Because if they are of the same mind, then their children are brought up well, and their servants are well-groomed, and their neighbors, friends, and relatives are, as it were, planted with their incense. If the opposite happens somewhere, then there is disorder and confusion in everything. And just as if military leaders are at peace with each other, then everything goes as it should, but if discord arises between them, then there is no longer order there, so it is here.» (John Chrysostom).

That is, in order to avoid dual power and conflict in the family, only the man should have power.

«Just as the union of Christ and the Church is holy, so is the union of husband and wife holy. But just as not every heretical gathering can be called the Church of Christ and have Christ as its head, so not every marriage union can correctly be called a marriage if there is no subordination [of the wife] to the husband according to the commandments of Christ; It's more like adultery.» (Saint Jerome of Stridon).

So, a wife’s disobedience to her husband is adultery, according to the saint.

«He says that man was not created for wife, but just as all things were created for Adam, so Eve was created for Adam.» (Saint Ephrem the Syrian)

 

[Paidiske]

We are talking only about the power of a husband over his wife, not just a man and a woman.

That's still a massive problem.

Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord (Eph.5:22)

Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (1Cor.11:8-10).

And where, there, do you see any instruction or permission for a husband to coerce or control his wife?

That is, in order to avoid dual power and conflict in the family, only the man should have power.

I find the assumption that a marriage in which both spouses work together as equals, leads to conflict, to be very strange, and not at all in keeping with reality.

 

[Tigran1245]

Power over his wife? What do you mean, physically or as head of the family? If you mean physically, as some kind of metaphor from God that grants him the justification for dominating her by force - then you've put your finger on a key attitude that is destroying marriages.

In contrast, God couldn't be more clear about how He instructs the husband to conduct himself as leader:

1 Peter 3:7 NKJV

"Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."

Did God give this privilege to the husband due to his physical prowess or any other "advantage"? No. He did so to serve as a testimony of Christ' relationship to His bride - the Church.

God bless!

The husband can use physical violence in exceptional cases when, for example, the wife does not control herself and threatens the health of herself and others. In other cases, the husband cannot inflict physical violence, because as you rightly said, it destroys families.

And what has a negative effect does not correspond to the natural Law of God. Conclusively, it is not allowed.