Marriage and submission

Has no one ever thought of that as a "pesky Bible verse" before? Is that news to any of you?

Most people probably think of it as a quaint, historical and irrelevant. Some, I'm sure, thought Paul was a male chauvinist.

Feminists probably would have told Paul, a former tent-maker, "Go sleep in your own tent."

I never thought much about it, personally, because I would never have married someone who wanted a submissive wife, and I certainly didn't want a tyrannical husband.

So the good news is that Pope John Paul's common sense interpretation of this verse inspires some people to give it a second look.

I think the idea of a head is important for unity--one Lord over all, one Pope over the Church Militant, one Bishop over a particular Church, one Pastor over a parish, one Abbess over a monastery/convent, etc. Likewise, there is one head over the domestic church, the family. Two heads leads to schisms/divorces as history shows.

That being said, I think Armstrong nails it in this article:

"what he is teaching is that the one-way submission required of the wife only works properly in an atmosphere of love and service on the part of the husband, just like the way Jesus Christ behaved when He came to earth."

Headship is exercised in a spirit of service exemplified by Christ, not like a pagan tyrant. And like the parable Christ tells to St. Peter, those who are given such a role of head-servant will be judged very harshly if they abuse that position.

Pesky Bible verse?

"If a couple genuinely love one another, they will make the effort to talk to one another, listen to one another, and defer to one another. If this love is reciprocal, then it will not always be the same spouse who gives way to the other."

- Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Venerable Pope John Paul II's Teaching Concerning Marital Submission: Consistent Development or Contradictory Innovation?

Yeppers. When my hubby or I ever tried to be top, it is my way and ya submit, war with a take no survivor erupted. Admittedly, not often tried. The wounds given are horrific. But rarely have we ever had such, maybe twice? Better to talk things over by far and come to a mutual agreement. If ya can't agree, put off or flip a coin or sumting. Course, I am always right, don't cha know....

The only thing that a man is commanded to do it to Love his wife as Christ loved the church. In Loving her, the man is submitted to her greatest good. Love is by definition unselfish. The whole point of the teaching is that in marriage each exists to the mutual benefit of the other. There is no conflict with traditional church teaching or pesky biblical passages

boughtwithaprice said:

The only thing that a man is commanded to do it to Love his wife as Christ loved the church. In Loving her, the man is submitted to her greatest good. Love is by definition unselfish. The whole point of the teaching is that in marriage each exists to the mutual benefit of the other. There is no conflict with traditional church teaching or pesky biblical passages

Click to expand...

Course you are right. But I love that "pesky bible verses". Lol...

pesky bible verses make us think, and I love the too

Mikey123 said:

Pesky Bible verse?

Click to expand...

A quality ascribed on part of the misinterpreters rather than the One who breathed the verse, I am certain

ivebeenshown said:

A quality ascribed on part of the misinterpreters rather than the One who breathed the verse, I am certain

Click to expand...

Indeed. Throughout the ages, many an abussive husband has justified his actions with that out-of-context verse. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is another example of such.

Well most of that blog isn't John Paul II, it is the writings of the blog writer giving his interpretation on writings. Mostly in an over egalitarian way, as if he is trying to apologize for the bible or something.

The wife is a second authority; let not her then demand equality, for she is under the head; nor let him despise her as being in subjection, for she is the body; and if the head despise the body, it will itself also perish. But let him bring in love as a counterpoise to obedience. - St. John Chrysostem

The bible and clearly all of Church tradition states just as Genesis states. The husband is head, and wife in subjection to the husband in authority. This is why St. Paul states in 1 Timothy 2:12. For the woman came from man, for man, as a helpmeet for him.

This doesn't mean a husband rules his home like a warden or a guard keeper. He takes his headship out of love for his family, and his wife submits to his headship out of love for her family.

There is something very unnatural about a man who is under his wife in headship. In fact a woman doesn't respect a man who defers to her to take headship, which is viewed as weak. Just as a woman who takes over her husbands headship is viewed as overly bold and obnoxious.

[FONT=arial, helvetica]C. S. Lewis once said,

[/FONT]"If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any serious wish that it should be a woman? . . . as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say, 'Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.' I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own 'headship.' There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule." (_Mere Christianity. pp. 102-103_)


Apparently, there are two avenues of reason open to those who attempt to reconcile feminism with Christianity. The first (and most honorable) is to attempt to re-study the text in the light of current social realities. I find it very difficult to treat the text objectively and reach the conclusion that the Bible teaches the contemporary concept of egalitarianism. I find people who do this try to force things on the bible and the Church that are just not there. Feminism has guilted the bible and theologians are trying to apologize for it. We shouldn't. Nor should we compromise it. The second approach is to view the Bible as a sort of "work in progress," a message that constantly shifts to line up with the most recent social trends. Such a view challenges the authoritative message of Scripture and the Church, which is our source of knowledge about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. If the Bible is "the Supreme Court" in these matters, husbands are not to be little "Hitlers" in their homes, but they do have a God given leadership assignment.
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
[/FONT]Paul did indeed anticipate the leadership of men. You really have to engage in some linguistic gymnastics to come up with any other conclusion, but it is not a headship in which males make decisions without consulting females. It is a headship in which a male accepts responsibility, provides protection, selflessly serves, and makes sacrifices. Above all, he is yielded to the headship of Jesus. I don't prefer to to do gymnastics with verses, especially with Galatians 3:28, which is totally twisted around semantically, and try to be dishonest with them in order to appease a feminist majority.

On the surface - it would seem headship means 'I said it, now it is done.' which is what causes distrust - but if we look at it - in the pureness of how Peter has headship [and successors] - he made final determination after counsel - after input - after letting others have their say. Then he said 'Yay or nay' - but generally - due to the wholeness of the Church - it was all agreed upon before he stamped it.

Click to expand...

No, just no. Now you are trumping the authority of the Pope. If the Pope waited until all agreed with him, nothing would have been accomplished. There were many bishops who disagreed with Popes.

"The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it - Pope Gelasius

WarriorAngel said:

Not true.
My dad gave over headship to my mom and she was natural in the role.
They never fought about anything because my father deferred to her wisdom.

And it worked fine.

My mother always sought his opinion - always - but he always said the same thing 'I leave it up to you.'

Good guy. And his children respected him.

Click to expand...

Sorry, its not the Christian model of family.

The Church would turn into havoc is it adopted a mutual submission of authority on the same level as the Pope. There is a a deference to hierarchical authority in the Church(collegiality), just the same as it is in marriage too. The only time a Pope gives up his authority is if resigns, or he becomes a heretic. . That's because, according to church law, there is no higher authority than the pope: He "possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely." A pope may resign, but his resignation must be "made freely," and he doesn't have to tender his resignation to any particular authority.

boughtwithaprice said:

The only thing that a man is commanded to do it to Love his wife as Christ loved the church. In Loving her, the man is submitted to her greatest good. Love is by definition unselfish. The whole point of the teaching is that in marriage each exists to the mutual benefit of the other. There is no conflict with traditional church teaching or pesky biblical passages

Click to expand...

yep. We are a different culture then other cultures were before in America. There is no, the man this or the man that. All a man has to do is love the wife and she him and the rest will take care of itself.

No way... a wife does not have to stay home with a million kids... man goes to work, she make him her whole world and serves him and she likes it. That is not a marriage in this culture.