I see that it is not the whole picture, or even the focus of the picture.
Maybe. If that's true, though, it's true of all of us; we each bring a lens, and decide how to make sense of apparent contradictions or tensions in the text.
You cannot get rid of tensions or even see the whole picture, though, by grouping all the ones that make you uncomfortable, and then only reading them through the lens of the others. You have to be willing to look at all the texts, and account for the various parts, to work through the presenting apparent contradiction.
You have to see why various things are said, even if they don't match what you would think, or hope. Unless, you are claiming they are actual contradictions, and not just initially apparent contradictions. Then perhaps you have no need to.
But then we are back to my earlier questions of whether you see these passages as inspired. And you already answered that, and asked me to go with that answer, that yes, you do see them as inspired. So I will do so.
And now we are back to having to address what all of the texts say, and not just group together the ones we like, to use as a lens to read the ones we do not.
There is mutual submission. There is the principle that Christian leadership is self-sacrificing, and humble, and not lording it over others. And there is also submission of wives to husbands. If you see those as in tension, then work through how they relate to one another. Don't group together one side and try to keep it out of the picture.
Two reasons. "What they say" - or at least what they mean by what they say - is in dispute.
You haven't disputed what it says. You acknowledged what it said. You only disputed the why, claiming cultural concession. But the reasons given clearly are not arguing cultural concession.
And so once that argument gave way, now you are down to which group of texts you want to go with, from the groups you picked by your own judgment. But you know that doesn't solve the issue, because the other texts are still there, still part of Scripture, and should not be dismissed.
And, perhaps far more important, in the case of one reading, we can demonstrate massive harm resulting from that reading. Since we know that the overall purpose of God is not harmful but liberating, life-giving, and so on, we can look at the fruit and see that this is not what God inspired.
No, in fact, we still don't judge biblical principles based on people who ignore them. No wife was ever harmed by submitting to a husband who loved her as Jesus loved the church.
Many people have been harmed by the husband's failure to do that. But that does not call into question what the text says, because people disregard it.
You have imposed your own standard of what type of reading you will accept, based on your perception of the implications. But that falls into two problems:
a. You misrepresent the implications of the ACTUAL reading. No wife is harmed by submitting to the husband who loves her like Christ loves the church. You already admitted you do submit to Christ. But the text speaks of the love of the husband that is like that of Christ loving the church. And you haven't actually spelled out what submitting to THAT would look like. You have only spelled out the many (and very true) abuses by those who don't follow what the text says.
b. You have said that it is spiritual abuse if someone is reminded of the obligation to submit to something God instituted.
But it is not spiritual abuse for the text of Hebrews to say to yield to leadership in the church, when that leadership really is sincere, and watching out for your souls, and take seriously that they must give an account. You won't be harmed by submitting to shepherds who love like Jesus. But you have not entertained what that would look like. Because you set the rule that only Jesus can be submitted to. But that is not what the text says.
And, while you say you don't see the connection, we see that God did establish ruling authorities to punish the wrongdoer, and commend those who do well, and those who resist them resist the ordinance of God, and bring judgment on themselves.
Was Paul spiritually abusing the Roman church by writing that? Would it be spiritual abuse if a church read Romans 13 during Scripture reading?
Romans 13:1-5 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. (NKJV)
You must reconcile all the texts, and what the Bible says about submission. Otherwise, you won't get the "whole picture". You will only get the picture you choose to look at.
