"a woman's role"

[HuntingMan]

The Wife Who Refuses to Obey Her Husband in EVERY THING

wow, a little harsh i think. A woman, according to this, is not even called to do anything for god. A woman shouldn't even attend church if her husband doesn't want her to. cannot work, and cannot wear pants. this is legalism in its worse. imo

Its satanic oppression disguising itself as 'christianity' is about all that it is.

 

[LJSGM]

Submit does not mean to obey.

The scriptures tell us to submit to one another, does that mean that we are to obey each other? No.

Submit means to serve. A wife is to serve her husband in every way just as we do the Lord. That is a heart matter, not a legality. The husband has an even greater responsibility.

 

[canukian]

Im sorry but this is entirely the WRONG understanding of that passage.
By your fallacy if a husband tells his wife to maim and torture their children she must 'submit' and do it...if he tells her to kill a neighbor then by your absurdity she HAS to obey him...is THAT what you are claiming, chap ? That if you tell your wife to KILL someone she HAS to DO it ?

Please dont waste time backpeddling from your statement

Submitting to a husband does NOT include doing UNgodly things...nor does it include falling away from the assembly because a husband forbids it.
you very clearly need to spend MORE time in Gods word, friend

thats dumb.

we are talking about a christian man and wife.

stuff like that is not going to happen.

 

[HuntingMan]

thats dumb.

we are talking about a christian man and wife.

stuff like that is not going to happen.

Hardly 'dumb' chap.

So now your claim is that a christian woman ONLY has to submit her CHRISTIAN husband ?
Can you SHOW me where it SAYS that ?

it doesnt say 'wives submit to your CHRISTIAN husband', now does it ?
AND...wasnt YOUR point that if the husband tells her NOT to go to church then she shouldnt ????
Let see....here is what you said....

Originally Posted by canukian

if the huspand tell his wife not to go to church, god knows it is the huspand that is fault, not the wife. so god knows the wife is obeying god. to obey god she must submit to her huspand.​

Tell us what CHRISTIAN husband tells his wife to NOT ever go to church, friend....true CHRISTIAN husbands would do no such thing.
So no...you WERENT just discussing only christian men and women...not that it matters at all because as I said, the scripture DOESNT say 'wives submit to your CHRISTIAN husbands"
If anything it speaks to ALL wives regardless of what their husbands believe.
And because of that FACT there ARE lines that wives are NOT to cross, otherwise their NONchristian husbands could tell them to kill someone and by your absurdity theyd have to submit to that instruction.

There ARE limits to what a wife is to submit to. And frankly your post proves that you believe this when you state that you were talking only about christian couples (even tho that ISNT what scripture teaches).

(Eph 5:22 KJV) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

(Col 3:18 KJV) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

No 'submit only to christian husbands' there that I can see. Maybe you could show it to us ?


.

 

[pressonfortheprize]

Let's keep the conversation civil, people.

The bottom line is this: NOWHERE in the Bible does it EVER say that God would tell ANYONE to follow un-Biblical or un-Godly instructions from ANYONE--God will NEVER command ANYONE to do anything that would cause them to sin!!!!! If a husband is commanding a wife to do anything un-Christlike or that will otherwise compromise her relationship with Christ, there is NOTHING in Scripture that commands her to follow her husband's un-Godly commands. Quite to the contrary, she is to set an example for her husband by OBEYING GOD even if her husband disapproves. There is absolutely no passage in Scripture that would back up any claim that just because a man is a woman's husband that she is to obey him no matter what. If what the husband is commanding is un-Biblical or un-Christlike, the woman is to obey God, not her husband. To claim otherwise is to make a mockery of the message of the Bible.

 

[LJSGM]

If a husband is commanding a wife...

Show me where God tells men to command their wives, to rule over them or to be masters of them?

When God tells all Christians to submit to one anther, does he mean that some are to submit as servants, and others to be their masters and command them?

Why then do people assume that men are to do this to their wives?

Since Christ is an example to how men are to treat their wives, Christ came as a servant to the church. Men are to follow his example.

Matthew 20
25Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

 

[Luther073082]

Ephesians 5:24

it doesnt say to submit to the lord, but to submit to your husband as the lord.

Have you ever studied the origional greek on this?

I by the way have because I was very curious about this. So I tapped into pastor's and their lexicons, as well as various other resources. (Cause I only listen to real pastors who can read greek and hebrew with a lexicon. Not fake pastors who have zero education.)

The term "submit" in the context it is used here means something similar to "willfull obedience out of love." What this means for someone reading the origional greek is that the way a wife is to demonstrate love to her husband is by obeying him and respecting him.

The closest I can compaire this obedience is similar to the obedience I have for my pastor. I obey him out of love for him as I don't need to make his job harder then it is. I obey him because he is the man that God has placed over me, and I obey him because I belive his wisdom will help my spiritual walk.

However I would not obey him into sin. God would not have that. Obedience of others comes with intelligence as well. Women are not ment to be robots mindlessly following everything their husband "commands", but to obey out of love.

Now if one goes to the great commandment what does it say.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus makes it very clear that you are to fear and love God more then you love any other person, that is including yourself. You are to give God your all, and the love for his creations will filter down from there.

If the two compete, a spouse and God, then God takes precidence over the spouse. This is true for both men and women.

Now if we where to move on to the men, "Love your wives as Christ loved you."

Here is a big big thing. That points us straight to the gospels and to Christ. So the question is now for husbands is, how did Christ lead his diciples? Was he pushy? Did he yell commands at them? Did he try to "keep them in their place." I didn't see that.

Instead Christ asked and his diciples followed out of love for him. And he would lead by example, he would sacrifice the MOST of all of them. He never treated them like children and never discounted what they had to say. (Although he may correct it.)

This passage asks you to lead by example and sacrifice on behalf of your wife. This is the most delicate of leadership as it involves NO FORCE and NO COMMANDS. It involves asking for things not demanding them. But it is also the most confortable type of leadership for those led. That is because they go along willingly. Real leaders don't need formal positions or a chain of command to get others to follow.

This passage just asks women to willingly obey and respect their husbands. And I will disagree with anyone who belives that the call is exactly the same for guys because its different. I would also disagree with anyone who states that this passage does not render meaning in modern marriages.

But what I will say is the passage speaks to the wife and not the husband. It is not the husband's responsibility to make sure she's obeying him. Her treatment of him will be something she has to answer for herself to God. It is the huband's responsibility to watch what he is doing and to constantly making sure he himself is sacrificing on behalf of her, and loving her like Jesus loved his diciples. That is what he will have to answer for to God.

28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

I will agree with you I don't like the word "command" because its far too forceful.

However submission is a different animal all together. One does not have to submit in order to serve. Jesus never submitted himself to any of his diciples, but he did serve them all.

Submission is willingly obeying out of love. (Thats the origional greek on this it does mean to obey)
Serving is to sacrifice yourself on behalf of others.

We can see this if we look at Jesus and Peter after the last supper. Jesus served Peter by washing his feet. Origionally Peter didn't want him to but ultimatly submitted to him by allowing Jesus to serve him.

Jesus did the serving.
Peter did the submitting.

 

[Luther073082]

I'd like to add that for a man to command is for him to take the love of his wife for granted. So it is never right to "command"

Just like if a pastor where to command me, he would be taking me for granted. So he asks me, and I obey because God calls me to obey.

 

[Windmill]

I'm with Luther, the greek word which is submit/is subject to which is used to describe how the church is to Christ I've copied below;

ὑποτάσσω

Now, that word means to submit ones self unto. So it is something that the wife does out of her own free will. You cannot force it. The church obeys Christ because it chooses to.

And this word certainly means to obey, but it means the person obeys on their own accord.

The word also is a combination of words that mean "under" and the word "assign" or "arrange in an orderly manner". Which I would think would further indicate that the church assigns itself to an inferior position to Christ, as should the woman assign herslef the inferior position to the man.

Not that I believe in this, but in looking at the text, that is what is read.

 

[Luther073082]

I'm with Luther, the greek word which is submit/is subject to which is used to describe how the church is to Christ I've copied below;

ὑποτάσσω

Now, that word means to submit ones self unto. So it is something that the wife does out of her own free will. You cannot force it. The church obeys Christ because it chooses to.

And this word certainly means to obey, but it means the person obeys on their own accord.

The word also is a combination of words that mean "under" and the word "assign" or "arrange in an orderly manner". Which I would think would further indicate that the church assigns itself to an inferior position to Christ, as should the woman assign herslef the inferior position to the man.

Not that I believe in this, but in looking at the text, that is what is read.

Not inferior. Inferior isn't in there.

Inferior indicates that they arn't as good as their husbands or not as valuable. Which is both defies common sense and is denied elsewhere in the bible.

I am do not count myself inferior to my pastor in any way. But I obey him. And as you pointed out one of the roots of this is to "arrange in an orderly manner". Which makes sense as obeying my pastor maintains order within the church. But none of this makes my pastor a supieror person or a supierior Christian. It makes him the man that God has put in place to lead me.

I belive right after these instructions to husbands and wives, Paul gives instructions to children in which he says to obey their parents. He doesn't tell the children its because his parents are superior to them, he tells the children its because God put them in place to take care of him/her so he/she aught to willingly and lovlingly obey.

Leaders are not superior to their followers. Especially a Christian leader.

Now one could say that the church is inferior to Christ. However we have to look at how Paul is using this as a metaphor. Obey like the church obeys. But not everything is exactly the same. The husband is not God, which means he can't act like God and it also means that while the wife obeys him willingly, she does not view him as a supieror person.

 

[LJSGM]

You say that command is too strong of a word, well I will say that obey is too strong as well because it implies that they were commanded. You obey a command.

an interptation of a word from NT greek has to be able to be applied to the rest of the verses that use it, so in the original greek, it was found in one sentence that went along something like this... "Submit to one another, wives as to their husbands, unto the Lord." Now if we were to say that Paul is telling us to submit to one another, does "loving obedience" apply well here? Is he telling men to "lovingly obey" other men? NO, so this can not be the proper interpretation.

This word was also used in reference to battle as well, meaning to support another. Also, a teacher can be "submitted" to his students and the cause of helping them.

But, I rather think it is refering to servanthood, which was the most common theme in the bible. To be subject to another is to serve them, but not because they are our "masters."

 

[Luther073082]

You say that command is too strong of a word, well I will say that obey is too strong as well because it implies that they were commanded. You obey a command.

an interptation of a word from NT greek has to be able to be applied to the rest of the verses that use it, so in the original greek, it was found in one sentence that went along something like this... "Submit to one another, wives as to their husbands, unto the Lord." Now if we were to say that Paul is telling us to submit to one another, does "loving obedience" apply well here? Is he telling men to "lovingly obey" other men? NO, so this can not be the proper interpretation.

Yes he is.

He is telling men to obey those Christians whom God gives them as leaders.

I do submit to other Christian men. My pastor is one, but I also submit to the youth leader (as I'm a Sunday school teacher) I submit to the guy we have in charge of ushering, I submit to all of the congregation's elders. When we had a vicar I submitted to him.

Typically as I'm a more experienced teacher my co-teachers have tended to submit to me. And also when I am charged with a specific task those helping me with that task submit to me. An example of this would be with ushering. When I am the head usher, other people who are ushers will submit to me in doing that job. When they are charged with being a head usher, I in turn will submit to them.

Submission. . . that is willful obedience keeps order as well as maintains an atmostphere of love. That is true in a church, that is true in my Sunday school class. It allows one person to lead smoothly and unhindered. Learning to obey willingly is a vital part of the life of the church.

However I will disagree. Commands do not always proceed obedience. My pastor has never commanded me to do anything. He says "Will you do. . . " as in "Will you hold my litergical binder as I perform this baptism." "Will you help me distrubite communion today." "Will you teach the students about this please."

The answer is yes to all of those. Yes is willing obedience. I do it because I was asked to by my leader. My leader does not lead by orders or commands but by polite questions or suggestions. He knows as well as I that he really can't MAKE me do anything. I choose to obey him as a leader and I can choose not to just as easily. Thats the willing part of the obedience thing. If you look at Christ and his diciples and how he led them. The diciples obeyed willingly. Anyone one of them could just turn around and say "You know I've had enough of this, I'm gonna go back to fishing."

 

[LJSGM]

Yes he is.

He is telling men to obey those Christians whom God gives them as leaders.

For a fact, that verse does not say "leaders," it says to submit to one another.

It's not good to make additions to the scriptures....

 

[Luther073082]

For a fact, that verse does not say "leaders," it says to submit to one another.

It's not good to make additions to the scriptures....

Leaders are not always put into a formal position. Very often they are not.

Submission can be as simple as asking someone how you can help them with something and then when they tell you to go do it.

I can't speak to if the greek words are the same in the verse in Epheseans that you speak of. Sometimes the same english word is used for different greek words. (For example love is used in place of 3 different greek words)

However I can say (and you've seen it confirmed) that in the passage in which we speak "Wives submit to your husbands" the word does mean willing obedience. You can't change the meaning of the greek just because you don't like it.

 

[LJSGM]

However I can say (and you've seen it confirmed) that in the passage in which we speak "Wives submit to your husbands" the word does mean willing obedience. You can't change the meaning of the greek just because you don't like it.

This is coming from the woman who said previously, I believe, that men do not command their wives, so if they do not, then what is it that women have to obey?

I didn't change the meaning of the word. There is a word for "obey" Which Paul does not use, for the scriptures tell children to "obey" their parents. Why didn't Paul just tell them to "lovingly obey" then?

I think you should go back to studying rather then believing everything you're told.

 

[Windmill]

Not inferior. Inferior isn't in there.

Inferior indicates that they arn't as good as their husbands or not as valuable. Which is both defies common sense and is denied elsewhere in the bible.

I am do not count myself inferior to my pastor in any way. But I obey him. And as you pointed out one of the roots of this is to "arrange in an orderly manner". Which makes sense as obeying my pastor maintains order within the church. But none of this makes my pastor a supieror person or a supierior Christian. It makes him the man that God has put in place to lead me.

I belive right after these instructions to husbands and wives, Paul gives instructions to children in which he says to obey their parents. He doesn't tell the children its because his parents are superior to them, he tells the children its because God put them in place to take care of him/her so he/she aught to willingly and lovlingly obey.

Leaders are not superior to their followers. Especially a Christian leader.

Now one could say that the church is inferior to Christ. However we have to look at how Paul is using this as a metaphor. Obey like the church obeys. But not everything is exactly the same. The husband is not God, which means he can't act like God and it also means that while the wife obeys him willingly, she does not view him as a supieror person.

The word says inferior position.

 

[Windmill]

The interesting thing is you have Ephesians 5:21 and verses 24-25 sort of in direct confliction with each other.

Ephesians 5:21

Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Ephesians 5:24-25

Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Now, looking at those, it is interesting.

The words I've put in ittalics are both "ὑποτάσσω" and they both mean;

to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

Now the word I've underlined is "ἀλλήλων" which means;

Genitive plural from G243 reduplicated; one another. (Sometimes with G3326 or G4314.): - each other, mutual, one another, (the other), (them-, your-) selves, (selves) together [sometimes with G3326 or G4314].

So it would seem in Ephesians 5:21 that it is saying that there is to be mutual submission with everyone.

In Ephesians 5:24, we however see a direct command specifically to wives to be in submission to their husbands.

In Ehpesians 5:25, we don't see that same commandment. Submission is not told of husbands. What is however told of them to do I've underlined in red. It is translated from the word "παραδίδωμι" which means;

to surrender, that is, yield up, intrust, transmit: - betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend.

So instead of being called to be in submission they are instead called to surrender to their wives...

Its not just that they "love" their wives and "want the best for them" and that they will "answer to God" they are called to surrender for their wives. In a sense, give up.

What does it mean to give oneself up for another?

Luther, what do you think about this? I am interested

To me, it would seem the wife is being told to be submissive and the husband is being told to serve the wife. I.e. the wife be obedient to the husband, and the husband essentially give himself up- including his desires- for the wife.

It seems to me to sort of amount to the same thing. The wife is commanded to obey her husbands wishes, and the husband is commanded to give the wife her wishes.... which actually benefits the wife far more

In effect, I think that the verses come together to amount to pretty much going back to what Ephesians 5:21 is saying.

 

[Luther073082]

inferior position.

Subordinate??

This is one of the problems of translation. But I think of inferior as being someone that is not as valuable as another. When I think of subordinate I think of someone who follows the instructions of another.

It seems to me to sort of amount to the same thing. The wife is commanded to obey her husbands wishes, and the husband is commanded to give the wife her wishes.... which actually benefits the wife far more

In effect, I think that the verses come together to amount to pretty much going back to what Ephesians 5:21 is saying.

Yes and no.

I would say the word should be to sacrifice on behalf of. (As Christ sacrificed.)

I would correct what you are saying to

"The wife is commanded to obey her husband, and the husband is commanded to put his wife's needs/wishes ahead of his own."

Just leaving "give the wife her wishes" is very open ended and could be taken to extremes. I would not think God would tell the husband that if his wife wants some expensive earrings and the husband wants to eat that he would say that the husband should get her the earrings and starve.

In discussing this verse in a bible study one person put it fairly well when he said that it basically says.

"Wives, live for your husbands. Husband's die for your wives"

I think a lot of women flip out when they see submit to your husbands but don't read that second part about what their husbands should do for them. "Love your wives as Christ loved the church." That means that while there is a leadership responsibility on the husbands lets not forget that the leadership is a responsibility.

And to be honest having spent some time in leadership; anyone who doesn't understand that has never been in any position of leadership or they have taken their positions far too lightly.

(I'm not counting this as a leadership position howeverI've been doing ballroom dance on and off for about 7 years now. I've danced with more people then I can count. (Which is typical). I can count the number of women who wanted to or relished the idea of leading on one hand. I can follow in some dances, I've learned the woman's part. Many times the woman's part is more complex then the man's I've offered to follow to many many times. 98% of women in ballroom dance will turn down the offer to lead. If you talk to them, they don't like to lead or they are afraid of it.

The leader has to make sure we don't run into anything or anyone. (not always easy in the least). The leader has to make sure to think ahead and to not freeze and to come up with a new plan in a split second if the dance traffic changes suddenly. He has to make sure you follow the rythm of the music. He has to make sure he's not throwing anything at you that you can't do. He has to communicate what he wants clearly but with not too much force. And unless its extremly clear the follower was screwing, all mistakes are assumed to be the fault of the leader.

And ultimatly he is responsible for your physical well being. Making sure you don't get hurt. Even if you trip over your own feet, he is charged with keeping you standing.

Leadership is far from a game of playing dictator. And you are only effective as a leader so much as your followers trust you.

 

[Windmill]

Subordinate??

This is one of the problems of translation. But I think of inferior as being someone that is not as valuable as another. When I think of subordinate I think of someone who follows the instructions of another.

I presented to you the greek and gave you its translation into English. Its made pretty clear that its an inferior position. You think of it as subordinate but I'm talking about what the Greek word says here.

Are we at the same level of Christ? Or is he above us?

Yes and no.

I would say the word should be to sacrifice on behalf of. (As Christ sacrificed.)

I would correct what you are saying to

"The wife is commanded to obey her husband, and the husband is commanded to put his wife's needs/wishes ahead of his own."

Just leaving "give the wife her wishes" is very open ended and could be taken to extremes. I would not think God would tell the husband that if his wife wants some expensive earrings and the husband wants to eat that he would say that the husband should get her the earrings and starve.

In discussing this verse in a bible study one person put it fairly well when he said that it basically says.

"Wives, live for your husbands. Husband's die for your wives"

No. The verse isn't "Wives, live for your husbands. Husband's, die for your wives." It is;

"Wives, obey your husbands wishes. Husbands, give yourself up for your wives."

I mean look at the Greek I have you. You are very much emphasising the Greek but you don't seem to be referencing it much. I referenced it to give backing to my claims. You haven't.

I think a lot of women flip out when they see submit to your husbands but don't read that second part about what their husbands should do for them. "Love your wives as Christ loved the church." That means that while there is a leadership responsibility on the husbands lets not forget that the leadership is a responsibility.

And to be honest having spent some time in leadership; anyone who doesn't understand that has never been in any position of leadership or they have taken their positions far too lightly.

To me it doesn't sound like you like the idea of surrendering yourself completely to your wives wishes but you wish for her to surrender herself entirely to you.

The verse clearly says to surrender yourself to your wife, I mean look at the Greek. It is give up. Thats why it talks about being put in prison- in being given up to the authorities to be under their care. Its about surrendering yourself to your wife.

I mean it could be just as vague to say a wife must obey her husband.

When it is "submit" for the wife thats very clear but when its "give up" for the husbands, suddenly now its "too vauge" and could "mean anything"? I'm sorry it really sounds like you're struggling with the burden that you have been given but expect the female race to be the ones to give themselves up for you.

Your rewriting of the verse doesn't make any sense. Where does responsiblity come into the verse? How? The word means to surrender, to give up. And so thats got nothing to do with protecting your wife. That has everything to do with being alive and giving ones self up for the wife.

But that is a very hard thing to do isn't it? You want to have a life too? So do women.

(I'm not counting this as a leadership position howeverI've been doing ballroom dance on and off for about 7 years now. I've danced with more people then I can count. (Which is typical). I can count the number of women who wanted to or relished the idea of leading on one hand. I can follow in some dances, I've learned the woman's part. Many times the woman's part is more complex then the man's I've offered to follow to many many times. 98% of women in ballroom dance will turn down the offer to lead. If you talk to them, they don't like to lead or they are afraid of it.

OK. You take the example of ballroom dancing, and say women don't like to lead?

In dancing, women don't lead. Especially ballroom dancing. Why? Well, two reasons.

1) Women having usually been taught to lead in ballroom dancing, and so they don't know how. Of course they would be anxious.
2) Men usually lead because of their physical strength. The person leading needs to guide the other, physically. Its difficult to do that when the person is much stronger than you. Few would argue women are as phyiscally strong as men!

And your argument has no reason for being there.

1) I never argued women like to take leadership. It is not a relevant point.
2) Any reasoning for your idea that since women like to lead its good men do because men like to lead falls down entirely when you find examples of women that like to lead and men that like to follow.
3) That is completely sexist. Plenty of women like to lead. I think its ridiculous to asert otherwise. Go outside of conservative Christianity you'll find women in all sorts of leadership positions, and women that tend to be the dominant one in a relationship (though usually the two are sort of equal, but she is the less passive of the two) and their relationship is perfectly happy.

Also, as my boyfriend said, you need a better analogy.

Ask 100 women, would they like to take leadership over the finances in the house. I'm sure at least half of them would say "yes plz".

The leader has to make sure we don't run into anything or anyone. (not always easy in the least). The leader has to make sure to think ahead and to not freeze and to come up with a new plan in a split second if the dance traffic changes suddenly. He has to make sure you follow the rythm of the music. He has to make sure he's not throwing anything at you that you can't do. He has to communicate what he wants clearly but with not too much force. And unless its extremly clear the follower was screwing, all mistakes are assumed to be the fault of the leader.

And ultimatly he is responsible for your physical well being. Making sure you don't get hurt. Even if you trip over your own feet, he is charged with keeping you standing.

Leadership is far from a game of playing dictator. And you are only effective as a leader so much as your followers trust you.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Greek.

Your responsiblity of leading and how oh-so-very-hard-woe-is-the-leader-woman-should-be-very-happy-to-now-live-their-lives-for-the-men-even-though-they-don't-want-to-sacrifice-their-lives-for-the-women-even-though-Christ-died-a-painful-death-even-though-he-didn't-want-to-for-humanity-and-you're-called-to-be-like-Christ has absolutely no baring on the argument anyway.

The verses speak nothing of the "burden" of responsiblity in being the leader.

The description is one of you being entirely selfless as Christ was and giving your lives up for the women.

To me, I could easily see how the interpretation could be taken to show the traditional gender roles: man is the head, women is the inferior who obeys- and see how Paul flipped them to show how they're supposed to be carried out- that they come back to Ephesians 5:21 anyway. Woman submits the the man, the man gives himself up for her, and you essentially just have the results of Ephesians 5:21 anyway.

I mean seriously, please take the Greek, and explain your ideas, and your definitions, based upon it.

I am enjoying this discussion, it is good, I probably come off as very cheeky and sarcastic in a rude way, I am sorry if I do, it is just the nature in which I speak normally And its being very blunt in what I see from you, but I'm totally ready to be proven wrong.

Seriously though, where is this "the man is the protector of the wife" mentality coming from? Nothing in the pssage indicates that. It talks about caring for the wife, but thats it. The main emphasis is on the fact that you are to love your wife as yourself and the emphasis is also placed upon Christs self-sacrificing which is used to explain the extent of which you are to love your wives. To give up your own self even to the point of death. That is the emphasis. Not this "leadership" you describe- this leadership that you've described in great detail, where did this role description come from, biblically?

I hear this description a lot, and I just don't get where it comes from.

To simply take the mention of church and therefore point this detailed description of how you're responsible for this and that and now responsible for your wives physical safety and responsible for if she "fails" to meet want you wanted her to do (for whatever reasons) well what? The point of that part was emphasising the the glory of Christs death. Besides, Christ did not send out commands to have the church become pure. It became pure and without blemish because of his sacrifices. He sacrificed for the good of the church, so that it might become that. Its not calling you to responsibly "lead" your wife but to sacrifice ourself for your wives benefit if the part of the church is somehow related to what you have been called to do. Its not an issue of responsiblity- Christ wasn't irresponsible if he chose to not die. He sacrficed himself. A far more fitting description IMHO

To me, it appears like you want to take the wife-obeys-the-husband to the max, but don't want to take the call of sacrifice to the max.

On the flipside, if the husband wants to go and buy a car- should the wife disobey and hide their savings in a bank account before he goes and spends it on an extravagent car? Yes, or no?

And if no: to what point must she obey to? And to what point must the husband sacrifice himself for his wife?

 

[LJSGM]

The problem is that the word submit was translated by men, and that definition is just a guess. There is a word for obey, and it was not used. I do not think submit and obey are one and the same thing.

I feel as if serving is a much better understanding but still not perfect, in that obey is to be compulsitory and immediate, while with submit one keeps their own person and authority over their own will, but gives to the other freely.