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

[tall73]

Southern Baptists are the largest Baptist convention. The Southern Baptist Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states:

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.​

The American Baptist Churches USA policy statement On Women and Men as Partners in Church and Society takes a different view. The document is rather long. Here is a key phrase related to the topic:

We affirm that the practice of partnership between women and men can be most effectively taught in the home with the church's active help. This means that the father and the mother should model mutual love and respect for the gifts and qualities that each brings to their marriage and the home they have established.​

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what Scripture says on the topic. Should wives submit to husbands? Should wives and husbands be equal partners?

The topic is NOT about whether women should be preachers, priests, elders, overseers, bishops, pastors, deacons, should teach, etc. That may be a topic for another thread for Baptists at some point. But this is looking at the relation between wives and husbands.

 

[tall73]

Some texts that have been put forth as relating to the issue. Feel free to add others:

Genesis 1:27

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NKJV)​

Genesis 2:18-25

18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.​

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.​

23 And Adam said:​

“This is now bone of my bones​

And flesh of my flesh;​

She shall be called Woman,​

Because she was taken out of Man.”​

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.​

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (NKJV)​

​

Genesis 3:16

16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” (NKJV)​

​

Matthew 20:25-28

25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (NKJV)​

​

Mark 9:33-35

33 Then He came to Capernaum. And when He was in the house He asked them, “What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. 35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” (NKJV)​

1 Corinthians 7:3-5

3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (NKJV)​

​

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.​

13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (NKJV)​

Galatians 3:26-29

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (NKJV)​

​

Galatians 5:13

13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (NKJV)​

​

Ephesians 5:21-33

21 submitting to one another in the fear of God. (NKJV)22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.​

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (NKJV)​

Colossians 3:18-19

18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.​

19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them. (NKJV)​

Titus 2:1-5

1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. (NKJV)​

​

1 Peter 3:1-7

1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.​

7 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. (NKJV)​

 

[tall73]

My view currently is that texts like I Peter 3 seem pretty straight-forward, and do indicate wives submit to husbands. Though it also warns husbands to treat wives honorably.

There appears to be no situation unique to a given area, because he addresses churches in various Roman provinces:

1 Peter 1:1 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,​

​

He ties it to holy women of the past, taking it beyond the local situation:

1 Peter 3:5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands​

​

He references a specific OT passage for support:

1 Peter 3:6 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.​

​

Genesis 18:12 . 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” (NKJV)​

​

Peter references cautions to men against treating wives poorly, and assures that women are co-heirs of salvation:

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.​

Peter was married, as we see reference to his mother-in-law, and Paul's statement about him having a believing wife. So while some have at times indicated Paul's view may be shaped by his unmarried state, the same would not be true of Peter.

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever.​

​

1 Corinthians 9:5 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?​

The passage shows continuity between the behavior of holy women of old, and those in the New Testament era, in a variety of locations.

In its cautions regarding treatment of wives it also parallels Ephesians 5.

In its relating that wives are co-heirs of the grace of life it parallels Galatians 3, where there is no male or female in Christ in regards to being heirs of the promise.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

My view currently is that texts like I Peter 3 seem pretty straight-forward, and do indicate wives submit to husbands. Though it also warns husbands to treat wives honorably.

There appears to be no situation unique to a given area, because he addresses churches in various Roman provinces:

1 Peter 1:1 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,​

​

He ties it to holy women of the past, taking it beyond the local situation:

1 Peter 3:5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands​

​

He references a specific OT passage for support:

1 Peter 3:6 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.​

​

Genesis 18:12 . 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” (NKJV)​

​

Peter references cautions to men against treating wives poorly, and assures that women are co-heirs of salvation:

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.​

Peter was married, as we see reference to his mother-in-law, and Paul's statement about him having a believing wife. So while some have at times indicated Paul's view may be shaped by his unmarried state, the same would not be true of Peter.

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever.​

​

1 Corinthians 9:5 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?​

The passage shows continuity between the behavior of holy women of old, and those in the New Testament era, in a variety of locations.

In its cautions regarding treatment of wives it also parallels Ephesians 5.

In its relating that wives are co-heirs of the grace of life it parallels Galatians 3, where there is no male or female in Christ in regards to being heirs of the promise.

One rarely hears a sermon where, like Peter does, Sarah is presented as an example for the wives to call/treat their husband as their lord/master (kyrios) and submit to her (hopefully holy, loving and considerate) husband.

On the other hand, there are countless sermons where husbands are admonished to love/respect/protect their wives and be better husbands.

This selective asymmetry in churches is unhealthy, frustrating and unlike the clear statements both Paul and Peter make .. a matter of double standards, quite possibly influenced by modern society and its emphasis on and expectation of egalitarianism. I am aware of the arguments the egalitarian theologians use; I just find them not credible after consideration.

 

[tall73]

One rarely hears a sermon where, like Peter does, Sarah is presented as an example for the wives to call/treat their husband as their lord/master (kyrios) and submit to her (hopefully holy, loving and considerate) husband.

On the other hand, there are countless sermons where husbands are admonished to love/respect/protect their wives and be better husbands.

This selective asymmetry in churches is unhealthy, frustrating and unlike the clear statements both Paul and Peter make .. a matter of double standards, quite possibly influenced by modern society and its emphasis on and expectation of egalitarianism. I am aware of the arguments the egalitarian theologians use; I just find them not credible after consideration.

If someone is preaching through Ephesians or I Peter, etc. then both should be covered, because they both appear in the text.

So in the same text where Peter says that men should honor their wives so that their prayers are not hindered, he also says that Sarah called Abraham lord.

In the same text where Paul says wives respect husbands, he tells the husband to love his wife as Christ loves the church, giving himself up for her.

 

[tall73]

Some texts to keep in mind when reading about submission:

​

Matthew 20:25-28

25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (NKJV)​

​

Mark 9:33-35

33 Then He came to Capernaum. And when He was in the house He asked them, “What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. 35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” (NKJV)​

​

Galatians 5:13

13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (NKJV)​

​

For Christians who are in roles of authority, they are not to lord it over others. And all of us are called to serve one another.

 

[tall73]

Another aspect that is often discussed is Ephesians 5:21:

Ephesians 5:17-21 17

Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God. (NKJV)​

Some interpret this verse only in the sense that submission is called for by different classes in society, then spelled out (wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters).

On the other hand, in light of Galatians 5:13, there is still mutual submission, one to another, in all relationships:

Galatians 5:13

13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (NKJV)​

And this element is seen in some of the cautions to those in authority. They are not wielding their own power, or directed by their own whims, but have delegated authority from God, which involves responsibility, and serving the other.

• The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church, and as his own body.
• The father is not to provoke his children
• The master is not to threaten

There is not to be self-seeking, or looking for your own interests. And the people who are exercising authority (husbands, parents, masters) are given accountability and guidelines.

This does not set aside the submission described (children are still told to obey parents), but it does indicate that Christian parenting is not just dictatorial (we all serve or children in many ways, looking for their best interest).

 

[tall73]

Regarding delegated authority, I remember a time when I was listening to some political show on the radio, and I disagreed with the take of one of the commentators. I called the person a fool. And my daughter said "Jesus says that if you call someone fool you are in danger of hell fire".

I acknowledged she was right and repented of saying it.

As a father I have some authority over my children. But that authority is from God, and only in line with what He says. She was correct to rebuke me.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Some texts to keep in mind when reading about submission:

​

Matthew 20:25-28

25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (NKJV)​

​

Mark 9:33-35

33 Then He came to Capernaum. And when He was in the house He asked them, “What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. 35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” (NKJV)​

​

Galatians 5:13

13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (NKJV)​

​

For Christians who are in roles of authority, they are not to lord it over others. And all of us are called to serve one another.

Leadership always comes with authority but should always come with the best interests of the whole (country, church, business, family) in mind and thus is about serving. But to define leadership and authority in terms of serving only is a half-truth and missing the point of leadership.

A leader is not defined by the obligation to serve (because any member of the country/church/business/family is supposed to do that, including the leader), but is defined by the authority to make decisions and the position/capacity to enforce that. Without authority there is no responsibility, and without authority there is no leadership - but only a think tank.

For Ephesians 5:21 I indeed think that's the general attitude but then specified in detail for the different classes after that in the letter like you indicated. Whenever the topic of submission of wives to their husbands is brought up among Christians these days, it strikes me that instantly the far majority of the energy/time is devoted to emphasizing the husband should not behave like a dictator (what is that anyway?). The reflex seems to be to deflect attention from the point Paul makes, submission to her husband as to Christ. Christ has authority over the husband; and the husband has authority over his wife - nowadays most Western believers find that asymmetrical aspect in marriage very hard to accept; and then try to get out of the discomfort zone by defining leadership as 'serving', but that's basically dismantling and ignoring Paul's entire point in Ephesians 5:22-24.

 

[tall73]

Whenever the topic of submission of wives to their husbands is brought up among Christians these days, it strikes me that instantly the far majority of the energy/time is devoted to emphasizing the husband should not behave like a dictator

The majority of the passage is dedicated to how the husband should act, as it is a picture of how Christ treats the church. So it is not surprising if people emphasize that.

Ephesians 5:21-33

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (NKJV)


But yes, however one interprets submitting to one another, it doesn't negate the need for submission in the other contexts, or else the other contexts would not need to be spelled out.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

The majority of the passage is dedicated to how the husband should act, as it is a picture of how Christ treats the church. So it is not surprising if people emphasize that.

Ephesians 5:21-33

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
.....

But yes, however one interprets submitting to one another, it doesn't negate the need for submission in the other contexts, or else the other contexts would not need to be spelled out.

That's exactly my point. In Ephesians 5:22-24 Paul is addressing the women exhorting them how to behave, but when this passage is discussed in sermons in 9 out of 10 times it is turned into a lecture addressing men how not to behave simply because it has become politically incorrect to admonish women to listen/obey/submit to their men and their authority or calling them master/lord.

That doesn't take away anything from Paul's instructions to husbands in the verse 25-31, but those are never the point of contention - I've never heard from a man who had a problem accepting the appropriateness of those instructions (apart from their implementation).

 

[Paidiske]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what Scripture says on the topic. Should wives submit to husbands? Should wives and husbands be equal partners?

I would say both. We are called to submit to one another, and wifely submission to husbands is only within that dynamic of mutual submimssion. It is not a one-way dynamic of control, but a two-way dynamic of service.

Within the first century, this had to be spoken about in a way which acknowledged the very real social situation of wives and husbands; the pater familias literally had the power of life and death over everyone in his household. But that doesn't mean that Greco-Roman social norms are binding on all Christians for all time.

 

[tall73]

Within the first century, this had to be spoken about in a way which acknowledged the very real social situation of wives and husbands; the pater familias literally had the power of life and death over everyone in his household. But that doesn't mean that Greco-Roman social norms are binding on all Christians for all time.

So you think the following is primarily about Roman social norms, and not necessarily ordained by God?

Ephesians 5:22-28

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself (NKJV)​

​

It does not seem the comparison of the husband's love and service on behalf of the wife to that of Christ for the church reflects Roman norms.

And I would imagine you acknowledge that Ephesians 5 does not at all allow a Christian husband to kill his family.

 

[tall73]

But that doesn't mean that Greco-Roman social norms are binding on all Christians for all time.

What about the norms of holy women of old?

1 Peter 3:5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands​

​

That was not intended by God?

 

[Paidiske]

So you think the following is primarily about Roman social norms, and not necessarily ordained by God?

I think Paul, (or whoever wrote the letter, but "Paul" for convenience), is making an argument for marital mutual love and service (that's the bit that's ordained by God), that is necessarily shaped by the legal and social reality of marriage in the culture in which he wrote (that's the Greco-Roman social norms).

Is the comparison of the husband's love and service on behalf of the wife to that of Christ for the church an accident of Roman norms?

It's a convenient illustration. Husbands, be like Christ; he, and not the Greek despot (absolute ruler of a household), is your example.

And I would imagine you acknowledge that Ephesians 5 does not at all allow a Christian husband to kill his family.

No, but people using it to argue for wifely submission all too often use it to excuse abuse, and urge women to stay in abusive situations, because they see it as a wife's Christian duty to submit unconditionally.

 

[tall73]

I think Paul, (or whoever wrote the letter, but "Paul" for convenience), is making an argument for marital mutual love and service (that's the bit that's ordained by God), that is necessarily shaped by the legal and social reality of marriage in the culture in which he wrote (that's the Greco-Roman social norms).

It's a convenient illustration. Husbands, be like Christ; he, and not the Greek despot (absolute ruler of a household), is your example.

No, but people using it to argue for wifely submission all too often use it to excuse abuse, and urge women to stay in abusive situations, because they see it as a wife's Christian duty to submit unconditionally.

I apologize, I edited slightly as you were responding. Just letting folks know so they don't think you failed to address some aspect, as it may not have been there prior.

But I think the gist is the same.

 

[Paidiske]

What about the norms of holy women of old?

1 Peter 3:5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands​

​

That was not intended by God?

Peter is making an argument similar to Paul's for mutual love and service in marriage. And, in particular, seems concerned for wives married to unbelieving husbands. Conforming to the social norm of male control would have kept those women safe(r).

I do not believe that God intended these passages to be read as giving husbands unconditional control over their wives. That runs against the grain of too much of Scripture.

 

[tall73]

I think Paul, (or whoever wrote the letter, but "Paul" for convenience), is making an argument for marital mutual love and service (that's the bit that's ordained by God), that is necessarily shaped by the legal and social reality of marriage in the culture in which he wrote (that's the Greco-Roman social norms).

So God did not intend that the man be head of the wife?

It's a convenient illustration. Husbands, be like Christ; he, and not the Greek despot (absolute ruler of a household), is your example.

We agree Christ is the example.

No, but people using it to argue for wifely submission all too often use it to excuse abuse, and urge women to stay in abusive situations, because they see it as a wife's Christian duty to submit unconditionally.

I would hope we could agree that Christian principles are not invalidated by people's rejection of them.

A husband abusing his wife is going DIRECTLY against what Paul said in that text.

 

[Paidiske]

So God did not intend that the man be head of the wife?

We would have to look at what is meant by "head." There are a couple of good articles here:
An Overview of Paul’s Use of Kephalē (“Head”) - Marg Mowczko

Kephalē ("head") as Metaphor in First-Century Texts - Marg Mowczko

Here are some ancient Greek texts, contemporary with the apostle Paul's writings, that use the word kephalē ("head").

margmowczko.com

My own sense is probably slightly different from some of her conclusions, but I agree with her that God did not mean that a husband is head of the wife in the sense of controlling her.

A husband abusing his wife is going DIRECTLY against what Paul said in that text.

But that is not the point. The point is the wife's obligation. Calling for submission, no matter what, is the issue.

 

[tall73]

Peter is making an argument similar to Paul's for mutual love and service in marriage. And, in particular, seems concerned for wives married to unbelieving husbands. Conforming to the social norm of male control would have kept those women safe(r).

A. We agree he has a concern for some who are married to unbelieving husbands. And this is an extension of the overall theme of Christians responding to a hostile culture.

B. I think we can make a stronger argument for Peter responding to the Greek despot argument than Paul in Ephesians, as the Greek despot would have little interest in following the example of Christ, apart from Christian faith.

C. It does not appear that he simply advises them to submit in every wish of the unbelieving husband, for the sake of safety. But rather, he thinks a Christian example of service will win over even the unbeliever, in some cases.

D. He is not addressing only the wife of an unbelieving husband. His example of Sarah, and the advice to believing husbands on the need to honor his wife indicates this.

E. I don't think you addressed the part I asked about.

He doesn't speak just of the Roman culture in his time. He says holy women of old did this. Was that God's will?

​

I do not believe that God intended these passages to be read as giving husbands unconditional control over their wives. That runs against the grain of too much of Scripture.

Of course it is not unconditional. He gives conditions right in the text to believing husbands, as does Paul in Ephesians 5. And more to the point, if it is authority given by God, then it is answerable to God.

If it is just an accident of culture, then perhaps you don't see it that way.