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

[Reasonably Sane]

tall73 said:​

It is not a "not true Scotman" kind of argument.​

​

If I said "no Christian husband would abuse his wife" that would be a no true Scotsman type of argument. I said you are misrepresenting the implications of the actual reading.​

​

No one would get bruises and broken bones from the husband following this:​

​

Ephesians 5:24-29​

​

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. (NKJV)​

​

The text rules out breaking bones completely. Not one person who you saw with broken bones was in that condition because the person who inflicted such damage was following what this text said. So this smear towards my view of following what Ephesians says can be dispensed with.​

People can cite Scripture wrongly to justify anything! If abusers cite this to justify their abuse,

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. (NKJV)​

we can fairly say they are simply twisting. Loving their own wives as Christ loved the church is clearly not in line with breaking her bones.

And I rather doubt any of them cited that portion to you to justify their position.

If you are saying they only cited "wives submit to your husbands", without looking at the rest, I am sure some do.

But then are they actually going by the principle we have been discussing? Of course not. So that doesn't invalidate what we have been discussing.

They are simply pulling things from the entire statement which they like, and ignoring the parts they do not like. Which ironically, is the same thing that you are doing here, but a different direction. They are failing to look at all of what is said. You are also refusing to look at all of what was said.

And even "wives submit to your husbands" does not say break her bones, which is ridiculous. You cannot blame that type of abuse on the text. Nor can you claim that my reading in this thread of the text leads to such abuse. Because it rules out any such behavior.

People have twisted MANY Scriptures. That does not invalidate the Scriptures.



There is no reading of the text that justified breaking bones. Those who do so have to only look at the parts they like. But the actual reading is not responsible for that. And neither do I have to answer for someone ele picking one verse, and ignoring the rest. It does not reflect on the actual reading, or my view of it.

Now, I am willing to entertain your reading IF you actually engage the arguments in the text. You are the one who is unwilling to entertain an argument that goes against your "nuanced" view.

So again I am asking you to look at the arguments in the text--the whole text--not just the parts you like--because that is what looking at Scripture involves.



We agree it can only be rightly understood in the context, including the previous verse.



Then you are not interested in looking at what Scripture says. If you are not interested in looking at all of it, instead of just the parts you want, then you are not looking at Scripture.

The abuser who twists the Scripture, and it certainly is twisting to get from love your wives as Christ loves the church, to breaking bones, is also looking at just the part he wants, and not the part that rebukes him.

And no, I am not accusing you of anything morally equivalent. I am saying you are employing the same method. You won't look at the parts you don't care for, in detail.

Neither his approach, which looks at only part of the text, or your approach, which looks at only a different part of the text, without addressing specifics of Paul and Peter's arguments, is really looking at Scripture. It is only looking at the parts desired.

If you change your mind and want to engage the specifics, within the very verses that most closely address this topic, by apostles, in the New Testament, then we can.

If not, it looks like @Rose_bud is working towards a detailed presentation, and folks can engage with that once it is completed.

I had a disagreement with one of the elders in a small church my wife and I had started attending when we first moved to our new home in rural Kentucky from Seattle. I was kind of appalled that he could not really support his position on the topic at all. He was in his late 60's and had been a "bible believing, church going" Christian his whole life. But the interesting part was that though I was simply trying to discuss the subject, he was getting angrier and angrier as it went on. Finally, he held up his big bible and said (yelled, really), "I believe what the bible says!" To which I replied, "So do I. Where we differ is interpretation." I had to leave that church because I didn't want to be a "dividing spirit".

I learned something I noticed after visiting a lot of the small churches in this area (and there are a LOT - I was in a southern Gospel band that would tour around and do their Sunday evening services sometimes). That is, a lot of these people were taught in sunday school as a child, what they were to believe in the bible and they simply believed it their whole life. Often they didn't really "study" the bible, but "read" it, and often even memorized a lot of scripture. But they simply accepted what an older person had taught them as a child and that was what they believed their whole life. And that is why a lot of Muslims believe what they believe. Basically it is error being passed from generation to generation.

BTW, what we were debating was this.

 

[tall73]

I had a disagreement with one of the elders in a small church my wife and I had started attending when we first moved to our new home in rural Kentucky from Seattle. I was kind of appalled that he could not really support his position on the topic at all. He was in his late 60's and had been a "bible believing, church going" Christian his whole life. But the interesting part was that though I was simply trying to discuss the subject, he was getting angrier and angrier as it went on. Finally, he held up his big bible and said (yelled, really), "I believe what the bible says!" To which I replied, "So do I. Where we differ is interpretation." I had to leave that church because I didn't want to be a "dividing spirit".

I learned something I noticed after visiting a lot of the small churches in this area (and there are a LOT - I was in a southern Gospel band that would tour around and do their Sunday evening services sometimes). That is, a lot of these people were taught in sunday school as a child, what they were to believe in the bible and they simply believed it their whole life. Often they didn't really "study" the bible, but "read" it, and often even memorized a lot of scripture. But they simply accepted what an older person had taught them as a child and that was what they believed their whole life. And that is why a lot of Muslims believe what they believe. Basically it is error being passed from generation to generation.

BTW, what we were debating was this.

Just so that we don't get the thread off -topic, or shut down, please note that aspects of conditionalist teaching (Annihilationism) are limited to this forum: Controversial Christian Theology

(And some congregational fora I think. Pretty sure they still allow it in the Traditional and Progressive Adventist forums, since SDA hold to conditionalism).

 

[Paidiske]

People can cite Scripture wrongly to justify anything! If abusers cite this to justify their abuse,

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. (NKJV)​

we can fairly say they are simply twisting. Loving their own wives as Christ loved the church is clearly not in line with breaking her bones.

And yet when I point out that loving their own wives as Christ loved the Church is clearly not in line with any other form of abuse, including coercion and control, that is different how?

And I rather doubt any of them cited that portion to you to justify their position.

Actually, they have. Both in the "let their wives be [subject]" part and, bizarrely, the stuff about washing and cleansing to remove any spot or wrinkle, which they took as a mandate to "discipline" any faults they saw in their wives.

They are simply pulling things from the entire statement which they like, and ignoring the parts they do not like. Which ironically, is the same thing that you are doing here, but a different direction. They are failing to look at all of what is said. You are also refusing to look at all of what was said.

No, I am not. You are misrepresenting my position.

You cannot blame that type of abuse on the text.

I do not blame it on the text. I blame it on the arguments people build from the text, about one-sided submission; about hierarchy and control in marriage.

Nor can you claim that my reading in this thread of the text leads to such abuse.

Actually... I'd say there's a problem with that. We know, from extensive research done with perpetrators of domestic violence, that it tends to be underpinned by three key attitudes. Acceptance of violence; valuing hierarchy, power and control in the relationship; and rigid gender roles.

Any reading of Scripture which promotes those attitudes, singly or in aggregate, has been shown to lead to abuse.

There is no reading of the text that justified breaking bones.

Demonstrably false, since some people who behave this way point to such texts in justification.

I'm not saying it's a good reading; it's clearly a deeply problematic reading. But it is a reading of the text.

Now, I am willing to entertain your reading IF you actually engage the arguments in the text.

I've made my point. If you want to understand egalitarian scholarship on those passages there are plenty of scholars you can consult.

Then you are not interested in looking at what Scripture says.

More accurately, I am not interested in having that discussion in this thread. And why would I, with someone who consistently posts in a way which comes across as an attack? I count nine derogatory "you-" statements, directed at me, in this post to which I'm responding. That doesn't create an environment in which I wish to engage beyond what is necessary to make what I consider the most important point.

You won't look at the parts you don't care for, in detail.

With you, in this thread, no, I'm not interested. That doesn't mean I don't read, study, reflect on, think about, and read more widely about, these texts. I do that a very great deal.

 

[tall73]

Actually, they have. Both in the "let their wives be [subject]" part and, bizarrely, the stuff about washing and cleansing to remove any spot or wrinkle, which they took as a mandate to "discipline" any faults they saw in their wives.

That is certainly appalling that they have indicated such. I accept correction on that point.

I'm not saying it's a good reading; it's clearly a deeply problematic reading. But it is a reading of the text.

You acknowledge it is a depraved reading of the text. But it is also ignoring the parts they don't want:

For instance,

​

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.​

​

Would rule out their position. They are selectively reading the text, distorting it, to justify their actions.

However, when you take an extreme example of people clearly saying what the text does not say, and clearly ignoring what it does say, and then compare it to others who have noted the text in no way justifies bruises, breaking of bones, etc. that is simply smearing. the other position.

I am not responsible for every depraved person who ignores various portions of the passage so that he can beat his wife. He certainly didn't hear that he can beat his wife from me, OR from Ephesians. Because it is not stated by either one.

Now you seem to indicate that you consider all of them alike. Because you consider wives submitting to husbands, or unequal power dynamics, to be abuse in its own right.

But you have been unwilling to look at what Scripture says in the specific arguments in these passages. And looking at what the Scriptures say on this is purpose of the thread.

You acknowledge you submit to Christ. However, you rule out any God-ordained submission to humans. But the Scriptures do talk about this. You won't engage on the particulars. But then you continue to say that the Scriptures cannot hold to a view that includes submission to humans. Just as you would not look at submission to authorities in Romans 13, you won't look at the specific arguments about women submitting to husbands, headship etc.

And yet when I point out that loving their own wives as Christ loved the Church is clearly not in line with any other form of abuse, including coercion and control, that is different how?

What is different is that you have not established that willing submission to husbands is coercion. And you won't discuss the specific arguments that address it.

And unlike breaking bones of someone you are said to care for as your own body, which is clearly distorting the text, these elements, of wives submitting to husbands, are in the text. The element of submitting to the husband as Christ does the church is in the text. The element of headship is in the text. But you won't look at the specific arguments here.

Now you reference me using "you" statements. Yes, I am using you statements, because I am conversing with you. And I am describing what you have, and have not, been willing to address in the argument. If you disagree with a characterization, you can certainly challenge it. But you still have refused at every point to look into the particulars about submission to human authority which the Scriptures describe. And you have refused to look at particular arguments in the text from Peter and Paul.

I blame it on the arguments people build from the text, about one-sided submission; about hierarchy and control in marriage.

You are conflating arguments that people can commit violence, which the text never says, and rules out, to actually reading what the text says, which does indicate wives submitting to husbands.

They are not the same in that one is certainly not in the text, and one certainly is.

But you won't discuss the arguments of Peter and Paul here, and have ruled out any interpretation that looks at wives submitting to husbands in everything, though the text says it.

Actually... I'd say there's a problem with that. We know, from extensive research done with perpetrators of domestic violence, that it tends to be underpinned by three key attitudes. Acceptance of violence

And since it has been continually noted that Ephesians 5 does not in fact accept, endorse, or in any way allow violence, as spelled out by the text, my view does not accept violence, or endorse it in any way. So trying to pin domestic violence on my view is again smearing.

So now we are back to your claim that submission of wives to husband is itself abuse. And for that, we have to get into the text. Because the Bible does speak of submission of wives to husbands. And the Scriptures do not describe that as abuse.

I've made my point. If you want to understand egalitarian scholarship on those passages there are plenty of scholars you can consult.

I have consulted some of them. And I have been consulting more since the thread started.

But you came into the thread where the topic is discussing Scripture, not simply saying that books exist on the topic. You have been unwilling to engage the specific arguments in the text on a thread for that purpose, and instead have simply asserted what could not be a correct reading, by your standard.

I am pointing out that is not convincing. If you want to convince then you have to address the specific Scriptural arguments, which was the point of the thread.

More accurately, I am not interested in having that discussion in this thread. And why would I, with someone who consistently posts in a way which comes across as an attack?

I am attempting to engage with your position and your presuppositions. That is not attacking you. You are in a debate area, and in a thread with a specific topic. Asking you to discuss the topic is not an attack. Noting when you have not addressed the topic, is not an attack.

You have had the opportunity from the beginning to address the specific arguments of Paul and Peter, and chose not to. I don't think that my asking you to clarify your position on inspiration, or your presuppositions, or characterizing your views is in fact attacking, even if you do not care for my phrasing. Nor are they out of line in a debate area.

And at the same time, you have continually associated my view, and others in this thread who are looking at what the text says about submission, with domestic violence, with broken bones, etc.--despite our saying over and over that we do not endorse violence in any way, and despite saying repeatedly that the text does not permit such violence.

So whether you use "you" statements when smearing in such a way or not, it is still smearing. And it is not addressing the topic, which is what the Scriptures say on this topic.

With you, in this thread, no, I'm not interested. That doesn't mean I don't read, study, reflect on, think about, and read more widely about, these texts. I do that a very great deal.

Yes, just like in the thread that led to this one, people say the evidence is out there--but won't present it. I started this thread because people did not want to discuss the issues in that one. This thread was more focused, and specifically indicated that the purpose was for discussing what Scripture says.

You could have presented the information on the actual arguments of Peter and Paul in the text from your first post, without engaging with me at all. In fact, that is what one poster has been doing, and I have waited to see it play out. So far she is addressing specifics.

Instead, you have asserted what the reading cannot be. But you won't engage on specific arguments, on what the texts say.

That is your choice. However, that means that it will be up to someone else to address the actual arguments, and in the meantime folks will only see the position that has been laid out, that these arguments of Paul and Peter are not in fact related to Greco-Roman culture, but are instead theological arguements.

 

[Paidiske]

However, when you take an extreme example of people clearly saying what the text does not say, and clearly ignoring what it does say, and then compare it to others who have noted the text in no way justifies bruises, breaking of bones, etc. that is simply smearing. the other position.

I disagree. It all hinges on the questions of power and control. If we read the text in ways which give one person power and control over another, then we bolster the sense of justification and entitlement for the person who uses violence to enforce that power and control.

I am not responsible for every depraved person who ignores various portions of the passage so that he can beat his wife.

But we are all responsible for the way that we speak and teach about Scripture, and how that supports or calls into question the attitudes which underpin abuse.

Because you consider wives submitting to husbands, or unequal power dynamics, to be abuse in its own right.

I consider (and that consideration is informed by the best secular understandings of abuse and trauma) control of wives by husbands to be abuse in its own right. And the way that we talk about submission as a one-sided thing can certainly support this form of abuse.

But you have been unwilling to look at what Scripture says in the specific arguments in these passages.

Is there anything that Scripture says which would justify any form of abuse? No? Then for the purposes for which I've engaged in this thread, it's moot. None of those argumetns can justify abuse, control, coercion or the like.

However, you rule out any God-ordained submission to humans.

No, that's not what I've said.

Since the thread is about what the Scriptures say, you have simply not addressed the topic at all.

I certainly have. The original question to which I responded was: "Should wives submit to husbands? Should wives and husbands be equal partners?" I answered that both are true. Wives should submit to husbands, within a dynamic of mutual submission in which husbands and wives are equal partners. That was really the only point I wanted to make. Everything I have posted since then has been in response to what others have asked of me, but I am free to choose how I respond, and what I consider it unlikely to be helpful or fruitful to engage with.

What is different is that you have not established that willing submission to husbands is coercion.

But what I am pointing out, is that telling wives that they must submit, (in an unequal, one-sided way), that God commands it of them, is certainly coercion. It is to threaten them that if they do not submit on any particular matter, on any occasion, they are disobeying God, with all of the weighty consequences which come with that.

Yes, I am using you statements, because I am conversing with you. And I am describing what you have, and have not, been willing to address in the argument.

In a very accusatory way.

You are conflating arguments that people can commit violence, which the text never says, and rules out, to actually reading what the text says, which does indicate wives submitting to husbands.

I am pointing out that violence is only one dimension of abuse, and that particular readings of the text do support the attitudes which underpin various forms of abuse. Especially, in this context, spiritual abuse; the use of religious beliefs and authority to control others.

So now we are back to your claim that submission of wives to husband is itself abuse. And for that, we have to get into the text. Because the Bible does not see it as abuse.

The Bible doesn't see it as abuse because the Bible places it within a relationship of mutuality and equality. Remove that mutuality and equality, and you're in a completely different dynamic.

You have been unwilling to engage the specific arguments in the text on a thread for that purpose, and instead have simply asserted what could not be a correct reading.

I answered a very specific question posed in the OP. I have, in response to further questioning, explained why I answered that question the way I did. Since the specific arguments you have identified as important to your position have no real bearing on my position, I am not inclined to get dragged into discussing them in detail.

I don't think that ...characterizing your views is in fact attacking,

But those characterisations go beyond my views, to say things such as that I simply ignore, or refuse to look at, parts of Scripture I don't like. That is false, and I certainly take it an attack, since it suggests a lack of integrity as a Christian, as a priest, and as a forum participant.

And at the same time, you have continually associate my view, and others in this thread who are looking at what the text says about submission, with domestic violence, with broken bones, etc.--despite our saying over and over that we do not endorse violence in any way, and despite saying repeatedly that the text does not permit such violence.

Yes. I do make that association. Because the research into the attitudes of abusers shows that they tend to hold particular attitudes; and when we identify that our religious ideas align with and reinforce those attitudes, that should be a great big red flag about how our thinking can feed into supporting abuse. Even if we ourselves would never hit someone, would never say that such behaviour is acceptable, if we still make arguments which reinforce those attitudes, we contribute to a culture which normalises abuse in its various dynamics.

That is not a personal attack on anyone. I am not accusing you of being an abuser, or an abuse apologist. I am attempting to hold up a mirror to a very common blind spot and show people how our religious discourse can, inadvertently and without us ever intending it, have awful ramifications in the way that it contributes to cultural norms which underpin abuse.

And it is not addressing the topic, which is what the Scriptures say on this topic.

It is explaining why certain readings of the Scriptures are harmful, and highly questionable.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

However, when you take an extreme example of people clearly saying what the text does not say, and clearly ignoring what it does say, and then compare it to others who have noted the text in no way justifies bruises, breaking of bones, etc. that is simply smearing. the other position.​

​

I am not responsible for every depraved person who ignores various portions of the passage so that he can beat his wife. He certainly didn't hear that he can beat his wife from me, OR from Ephesians. Because it is not stated by either one.​

I disagree. It all hinges on the questions of power and control. If we read the text in ways which give one person power and control over another, then we bolster the sense of justification and entitlement for the person who uses violence to enforce that power and control..

Up is not down, even if you disagree.

Here are some of my statements in the thread:

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

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

I noted that any husband abusing his wife is going directly against the text. So the idea of excusing abuse is clearly not in the text. Those who do so are twisting the text. And again, Scriptural principles are not invalidated by people ignoring them or twisting them.

The text rules out breaking bones completely. Not one person who you saw with broken bones was in that condition because the person who inflicted such damage was following what this text said.

Loving their own wives as Christ loved the church is clearly not in line with breaking her bones.

And even "wives submit to your husbands" does not say break her bones, which is ridiculous. You cannot blame that type of abuse on the text. Nor can you claim that my reading in this thread of the text leads to such abuse. Because it rules out any such behavior.

The abuser who twists the Scripture, and it certainly is twisting to get from love your wives as Christ loves the church, to breaking bones, is also looking at just the part he wants, and not the part that rebukes him.

And since it has been continually noted that Ephesians 5 does not in fact accept, endorse, or in any way allow violence, as spelled out by the text, my view does not accept violence, or endorse it in any way. So trying to pin domestic violence on my view is again smearing.

These are the words I am responsible for, because those are the words I stated. And they clearly say the text does NOT promote, excuse, justify, abuse, and neither do I.

Therefore, anyone saying my view is promoting such is simply denying what was stated.

 

[Paidiske]

These are the words I am responsible for, because those are the words I stated. And they clearly say the text does NOT promote, excuse, justify, abuse, and neither do I.

Therefore, anyone saying my view is promoting such is simply denying what was stated.

No, I am not denying what was stated. I believe that you sincerely believe that nothing in your position promotes abuse. But - having seen the research on the attitudes held by abusers, and how those attitudes are often fostered by religious narratives around hierarchy, power, control and gender roles - I think there are clear problems with ideas around one-sided submission and how that does, in fact, promote abuse, even when that is not what is intended.

 

[tall73]

No, I am not denying what was stated. I believe that you sincerely believe that nothing in your position promotes abuse. But - having seen the research on the attitudes held by abusers, and how those attitudes are often fostered by religious narratives around hierarchy, power, control and gender roles - I think there are clear problems with ideas around one-sided submission and how that does, in fact, promote abuse, even when that is not what is intended.

I will address your earlier statement about attitudes, and one-sided submission as I have time.

But due to imprecision in my previous post I will ask a different way:

In your view, if someone reads my statements here, and yet breaks their wife's bones, am I responsible?

tall73 said:
And I would imagine you acknowledge that Ephesians 5 does not at all allow a Christian husband to kill his family.

tall73 said:
A husband abusing his wife is going DIRECTLY against what Paul said in that text.

tall73 said:
I noted that any husband abusing his wife is going directly against the text. So the idea of excusing abuse is clearly not in the text. Those who do so are twisting the text. And again, Scriptural principles are not invalidated by people ignoring them or twisting them.

tall73 said:
The text rules out breaking bones completely. Not one person who you saw with broken bones was in that condition because the person who inflicted such damage was following what this text said.

tall73 said:
Loving their own wives as Christ loved the church is clearly not in line with breaking her bones.

tall73 said:
And even "wives submit to your husbands" does not say break her bones, which is ridiculous. You cannot blame that type of abuse on the text. Nor can you claim that my reading in this thread of the text leads to such abuse. Because it rules out any such behavior.

tall73 said:
The abuser who twists the Scripture, and it certainly is twisting to get from love your wives as Christ loves the church, to breaking bones, is also looking at just the part he wants, and not the part that rebukes him.

tall73 said:
And since it has been continually noted that Ephesians 5 does not in fact accept, endorse, or in any way allow violence, as spelled out by the text, my view does not accept violence, or endorse it in any way.

 

[Paidiske]

But due to imprecision in my previous post I will ask a different way:

In your view, if someone reads my statements here, and yet breaks their wife's bones, am I responsible?

To say that any one person is responsible is far too simplistic. But I would say that if someone is abusive of their wife (not just physically but in any way), and feels entitled to be so in part because of teachings around these Scriptures, our church culture as a whole is partly responsible for having provided the underpinnings of that attitude of entitlement. And all of us have a part to play in how we shape that culture.

That is part of why I post in a thread like this at all; I feel responsible to speak up, to not leave those potentially dangerous ideas unchallenged. Because I feel my silence would make me, yes, partly responsible for abuse that is in any way the result of a church culture which turns a blind eye to the way its teachings foster the attitudes which underpin abuse.

 

[tall73]

To say that any one person is responsible is far too simplistic. But I would say that if someone is abusive of their wife (not just physically but in any way), and feels entitled to be so in part because of teachings around these Scriptures, our church culture as a whole is partly responsible for having provided the underpinnings of that attitude of entitlement. And all of us have a part to play in how we shape that culture.

I hope to get to your broader claims shortly. However, since you have associated my view with breaking of bones in your earlier statement, I want everyone in the thread to be clear on this point. By reading these statements, would you get the idea that I

a. do
b. do not

endorse husband's breaking their wives bones?

​

tall73 said:​

I noted that any husband abusing his wife is going directly against the text. So the idea of excusing abuse is clearly not in the text. Those who do so are twisting the text. And again, Scriptural principles are not invalidated by people ignoring them or twisting them.​

​

tall73 said:​

The text rules out breaking bones completely. Not one person who you saw with broken bones was in that condition because the person who inflicted such damage was following what this text said.​

​

tall73 said:​

Loving their own wives as Christ loved the church is clearly not in line with breaking her bones.​

​

tall73 said:​

And even "wives submit to your husbands" does not say break her bones, which is ridiculous. You cannot blame that type of abuse on the text. Nor can you claim that my reading in this thread of the text leads to such abuse. Because it rules out any such behavior.​

​

tall73 said:​

The abuser who twists the Scripture, and it certainly is twisting to get from love your wives as Christ loves the church, to breaking bones, is also looking at just the part he wants, and not the part that rebukes him.​

​

tall73 said:​

And since it has been continually noted that Ephesians 5 does not in fact accept, endorse, or in any way allow violence, as spelled out by the text, my view does not accept violence, or endorse it in any way.​

​

 

[tall73]

In addressing a recent post, I will quote from a number of places in the discussion so far:

Do you voluntarily submit to the leading of Christ?

Yes, I voluntarily submit to the leading of Christ.

Then voluntary submission to spiritual leadership is not abuse.

But a husband is not God. A one-sided relationship between two mentally competent human adults in which one is supposed to lead, and the other submit, over a lifetime, backed up with the claim that to ever deviate from that is to disobey God, is abusive.

24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)[/INDENT]

I do not see your standard in the text. I do see that it says as the church submits to Christ, let wives be submissive to their own husbands in everything.

And God is, as with everything, holy and just, and if He describes a husband loving as Christ loved the church, and wives submitting to that, then by definition it cannot be abuse.

But since we know that dynamics of control are abusive, then this must be a false understanding of God's will.

I cannot agree. It doesn't matter how loving he is, if she is required to submit, and he is, therefore, in control, that is abuse.

You have expressed your own view that you integrate secular academics into your analysis.

We cannot afford to ignore all the resources for wisdom and understanding that God has placed at our disposal.

You have been unwilling to engage the specific arguments in the text on a thread for that purpose, and instead have simply asserted what could not be a correct reading, by your standard.

Since the specific arguments you have identified as important to your position have no real bearing on my position, I am not inclined to get dragged into discussing them in detail.

Now with that background in mind, you said:

But I would say that if someone is abusive of their wife (not just physically but in any way), and feels entitled to be so in part because of teachings around these Scriptures, our church culture as a whole is partly responsible for having provided the underpinnings of that attitude of entitlement. And all of us have a part to play in how we shape that culture.

That is part of why I post in a thread like this at all; I feel responsible to speak up, to not leave those potentially dangerous ideas unchallenged.

If you speak up so as to not leave these potentially dangerous ideas of entitlement unchallenged, then choosing to not address specific arguments is a poor choice.

Those who are looking at Scripture and might misunderstand, are also, often, looking to Scripture to see what God indicates on this topic. They are looking at Scripture as defining what is good, right, holy, moral, etc.

So you can say that you didn't address the specific arguments of Paul and Peter because they have "no bearing" on your position. But this misses the point that the interpretations you are trying to speak up against rest on these specific arguments, from Scripture. So if you don't address them, you are not going to speak to the audience you indicate you are wishing to address.

If you believe that the views are false, you have to take on the false views, utilizing the standard that those who hold the view you disagree with are looking at--Scripture--specific arguments of NT apostles regarding the topic at hand.

If you don't feel these have any bearing on your view, I would say your view is not looking at all the information. But the larger point is that you will not be addressing the views of those you want to challenge if you don't address their reasons for believing them, and their standard, which is Scripture, not secular academics.

 

[tall73]

But those characterisations go beyond my views, to say things such as that I simply ignore, or refuse to look at, parts of Scripture I don't like. That is false, and I certainly take it an attack, since it suggests a lack of integrity as a Christian, as a priest, and as a forum participant.

• You indicate that you want to challenge false interpretations of Scripture that you see as potentially dangerous
• You are a Christian
• You are a priest
• You are a forum participant, in a thread discussing Scripture, in a theology debate area
• You read Greek
• You have indicated that the arguments outlined by Paul and Peter have been addressed by egalitarian scholars
• You indicate you are very familiar with the texts, and with the scholarly resources, and have given much time to reflection on the subject.

And you also indicate that you won't speak to the specific arguments by Paul and Peter that the proponents of these views you consider dangerous are basing their view on. Your most recent clarification is that they have no bearing on your view. But they do have a bearing on the view of those you are trying to reach.

I am asking why you cannot take the information you indicate you have close at hand, have pondered over, are certainly qualified to discuss, and address these arguments of Peter and Paul so as to show how the texts are actually in line with your view.

You of course, have a choice whether you want to do that. But I am puzzled why you say the answers are there, and you have them, and you have thought over them, but won't post them.

Should you choose to do so, here are the arguments again:

Arguments from the text	Roman culture?
Ephesians 5:23-24 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. (NKJV)	Not an argument conceding to Greco-Roman culture
Ephesians 5:25 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her (NKJV)	Not an argument conceding to Greco-Roman culture
Colossians 3:18 18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (NKJV)	Not an argument conceding to Greco-Roman culture
1 Peter 3:5-6 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.	Not an argument conceding to Greco-Roman culture

 

[Rose_bud]

@Rose_bud is working towards a detailed presentation, and folks can engage with that once it is completed.

Hi there

I know this is taking a bit of time. But I will get there. I must admit I'm very tempted to go directly to Revelation so we can see how the end ties in with the beginning. How the bridegroom and His bride (comprised of both male and female) is seen.

But thanks again for the patience.

 

[Rose_bud]

I thought I'd add this with regards to what is being said about the power and control dynamics. And share my own reference (which we all have) and we come with this background when understanding/interpreting scripture. As we reflect allowing the Word to inspect us as we yield, coming to His Word with all that we are.

I was raised in a home where the man is the 'priest' of the home. Performing all spiritual duties, wives are subservient and do not do without the authority of the father-male figure.

I went into my marriage with that understanding. So when my husband indicated that we do things together or that I did not need his permission to do certain things. It was a foreign concept.

I was convinced he was misled and not doing his 'spiritual' duties. But I didn't realize, he was free and I was not. He was secure in his Christian freedom and would not be manipulated by me (not my finest moments).

He didn't understand how this was difficult. I have a degree in Engineering, one of three females to graduate in my year. In respect of my vocation I was a leader to some of my male peers in the workplace.

In addition, he didn't have a dualistic understanding of God. I differentiated between the God of my Sundays and the God of my weekdays. In my workplace, God was present and this God had no problem with having female leadership, but the God of my home was different.

Later, when compelled by the Spirit to study theology. I also had my husbands full support, not because I needed his permission. But because it would affect the family dynamics. For while I was studying most of the family responsibilities resided with him, as I continued to work and study. So once more I was in a male dominated environment, but on spiritual reflection and engaging His Word, I realised that God had indeed prepared me for this male-dominated environment.

Later the responsibilities shifted and it became my time to stay home with the family. Which was an absolute pleasure. As I fully started understanding we are both free to live out our calling in Christ and to do what is best for those in our sphere of influence. Not one controlling the life of the other. But both working together.

Furthermore on spiritual reflection of my dads passing I realized that it was the male figures that guided and mediated my spiritual life, and not the Lord.

I claimed that Christ was my mediator but in reality I was looking for a mediator in my husband. He refused to assurp the role of Christ in my life.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Should you choose to do so, here are the arguments again:

Arguments from the text	Roman culture?
Ephesians 5:23-24 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. (NKJV)	Not an argument conceding to Greco-Roman culture Male Headship was abslote in Roman society. if you did not obey you would die.
Ephesians 5:25 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her (NKJV)	Not an argument conceding to Greco-Roman culture Modified Male Headship. Love not power, but still abslote Male Headship
Colossians 3:18 18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (NKJV)	Not an argument conceding to Greco-Roman culture Same as Roman cultuer except the Husband must play nice
1 Peter 3:5-6 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.	Not an argument conceding to Greco-Roman culture This is the same as Roman culture, the wife had to trust her husband no matter what, because he was her master and he must be obeyed.

Since you are not looking at the culture, you cannot say "It is not appealing to or modifying the culture". He is defiantly applying the text in a cultural context. highlighted in blue is the cultural context.

Try taking a class on Roman History. I took 2 classes from Dr. Greg Altadere from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. He addresses the issue of the role of women in Roman Society. It was much more like the Muslim world than we like to admit in the way they controlled their women. Women had no rights and were considered property and could be married, sold off, or killed by the father or husband at will. you need to examine this in more detail. That is the context. Women could not be educated, own property, vote, or do business. The only outlet they had for participating in society was Religion, which could range from Vestal Virgins to Temple Prostitutes. That is why Paul's prohibition is so odd. Roman would have thought it weird not to allow women to participate in religious services. Likewise, the Jews did not allow women to even be in the service, read the Torah, or ask questions. Remember they had the court of the Gentiles and the court of the women, they were kept outside. That is why Jesus's actions were so bizarre when teaching women it was not allowed. So he is going against the social culture of the Jews. That is why Paul's statements are so bizarre and controversial about " being neither male nor female, jew and gentile and rich and poor and slave and free" in Christ. This flies in the face of the exclusive male claims of dominance and power of both the Roman and Jewish worlds. The male-female model that you see in the NT and the Early Chruch writing is an innovation. let the Elder be the husband of one wife is addressing the need to follow the divine model outlined in Eden. It is the image of God, by now having multiple divorces and multiple you corrupt the image of God in the Male-Female model. This is Paul's overriding message Do not misrepresent God. That is the context of his statements in Ephesus. The image of God is being misrepresented by temple prostitutes shut up and sit down. That is contextual[/QUOTE]

 

[Paidiske]

I hope to get to your broader claims shortly. However, since you have associated my view with breaking of bones in your earlier statement, I want everyone in the thread to be clear on this point. By reading these statements, would you get the idea that I

a. do
b. do not

endorse husband's breaking their wives bones?

That has never been my claim. I have never said you endorse such a thing. What I am trying to do is get several layers deeper in terms of cultural norms and attitudes; recognising that social norms and religious ideologies of hierarchy, male power and control, and rigid gender roles, are part of what gives rise to such abuse, whether you endorse that abuse or not.

So you can say that you didn't address the specific arguments of Paul and Peter because they have "no bearing" on your position. But this misses the point that the interpretations you are trying to speak up against rest on these specific arguments, from Scripture. So if you don't address them, you are not going to speak to the audience you indicate you are wishing to address.

I don't agree. What we need to do is not tackle someone's reference (for example) to Sarah, but point out and put the emphasis on all the NT expectations of mutuality in marriage. That then puts the reference to Sarah in the proper perspective; her example cannot be taken as undermining mutuality, equality and partnership in marriage.

But the larger point is that you will not be addressing the views of those you want to challenge if you don't address their reasons for believing them, and their standard, which is Scripture, not secular academics.

I believe I can make my case from Scripture. However, I would say to anyone who wants to disregard the best contemporary understandings of abuse and trauma, that that is beyond foolish. It is wilfully destructive.

I am asking why you cannot take the information you indicate you have close at hand, have pondered over, are certainly qualified to discuss, and address these arguments of Peter and Paul so as to show how the texts are actually in line with your view.

I am not interested in doing so. I am here making the points I consider most important, which is pointing out the danger of particular ideas around relationships in marriage.

You are not ignorant, and you are quite capable of doing some of your own research, if you are truly interested in egalitarian scholarship on particular passages.

You of course, have a choice whether you want to do that. But I am puzzled why you say the answers are there, and you have them, and you have thought over them, but won't post them.

Partly because for me it would take the focus off the most important point. I am not experiencing this thread as a mutually respectful exchange, and I don't want to contribute beyond that.

 

[tall73]

Since you are not looking at the culture, you cannot say "It is not appealing to or modifying the culture". He is defiantly applying the text in a cultural context. highlighted in blue is the cultural context.

I have addressed culture arguments whenever they were raised, and contributed some to you in the other thread as well, regarding primary source material on artemis being called on in that culture to protect during child birth, etc. as a more likely cultural allusion in the 1 Timothy passage, based on the concepts present in the text.

If you are now willing to discuss, we certainly can. In the other thread you indicated you did not wish to discuss it at length.

Women could not be educated, own property, vote, or do business.

Lydia was a business woman. They met in her house.

The only outlet they had for participating in society was Religion, which could range from Vestal Virgins to Temple Prostitutes. That is why Paul's prohibition is so odd.

Paul didn't prevent them from participating in religion either. I noted in the other thread that I Corinthians indicates women prophesying and praying, Priscilla teaching Apollos, you referenced Philip's prophet daughters, he speaks of women being his fellow laborers in the gospel, etc.

Likewise, the Jews did not allow women to even be in the service, read the Torah, or ask questions. Remember they had the court of the Gentiles and the court of the women, they were kept outside. That is why Jesus's actions were so bizarre when teaching women it was not allowed. So he is going against the social culture of the Jews.

Yes, Mary sitting at Jesus' feet is showing discipleship. Paul also is not against women learning, as they are in the service, are encouraged to learn about anything also from their husbands at home, etc.

That is why Paul's statements are so bizarre and controversial about " being neither male nor female, jew and gentile and rich and poor and slave and free" in Christ. This flies in the face of the exclusive male claims of dominance and power of both the Roman and Jewish worlds. The male-female model that you see in the NT and the Early Chruch writing is an innovation.

Exactly! Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Peter, are conforming to Roman culture. They are instead preaching whatever is in line with sound doctrine. When it lines up with Roman culture, that is fine, and when it does not, they do not shy away from going against Roman culture.

Which is why we have to look at the theological arguments they make on headship, not just culture. They didn't just do whatever was cultural.

let the Elder be the husband of one wife is addressing the need to follow the divine model outlined in Eden. It is the image of God, by now having multiple divorces and multiple you corrupt the image of God in the Male-Female model.

Agreed. And in 1 Corinthians 7 he refers back to Jesus' statements in Matthew 19, etc. as well on this point, and back to Eden. This was against both some in the Jewish culture who took less strict standards on divorce, and against divorce in some parts of Roman culture. In Roman practice, especially in the upper class, women could ask for a divorce as well.

This is Paul's overriding message Do not misrepresent God. That is the context of his statements in Ephesus. The image of God is being misrepresented by temple prostitutes shut up and sit down. That is contextual

You have not shown anything in the text that suggests temple prostitutes. And you have to deal with his theological arguments.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I have addressed culture arguments whenever they were raised, and contributed some to you in the other thread as well, regarding primary source material on artemis being called on in that culture to protect during child birth, etc. as a more likely cultural allusion in the 1 Timothy passage, based on the concepts present in the text.

If you are now willing to discuss, we certainly can. In the other thread you indicated you did not wish to discuss it at length.

Lydia was a business woman. They met in her house.

you clearly don't know the culture or you would not have missed that it was a private home, Public life was off-limits. in other words, they had to stay at home, they could not go outside except to travel from point A to point B, again the only exception to that was religious life. she could not be a shop keeper.

Paul didn't prevent them from participating in religion either. I noted in the other thread that I Corinthians indicates women prophesying and praying, Priscilla teaching Apollos, you referenced Philip's prophet daughters, he speaks of women being his fellow laborers in the gospel, etc.

Again cultural context is missing, all of those were in homes not in public and yes women could be good slaves and help the cause, but again

Yes, Mary sitting at Jesus' feet is showing discipleship. Paul also is not against women learning, as they are in the service, are encouraged to learn about anything also from their husbands at home, etc.\

Again cultural context missing, the Jews did not allow that, so that was an improvement in their social life and standing. you seem to favor obedience and the slavery model in interpreting rather than the relationship model. Women are to be better slaves and Husbands are to be nicer slavemasters

Exactly! Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Peter, are conforming to Roman culture. They are instead preaching whatever is in line with sound doctrine. When it lines up with Roman culture, that is fine, and when it does not, they do not shy away from going against Roman culture.

again context is missing and you ignored the Jewish contradictions. it does not line up with Jewish Culture either it was new and innovative

Which is why we have to look at the theological arguments they make on headship, not just culture. They didn't just do whatever was cultural.

Nice way to sidestep the argument. you will do anything to ignore the image of God. Headship is being applied in a Roman context. not a biblical context and the Garden of EDEN.

Agreed. And in 1 Corinthians 7 he refers back to Jesus' statements in Matthew 19, etc. as well on this point, and back to Eden. This was against both some in the Jewish culture who took less strict standards on divorce, and against divorce in some parts of Roman culture. In Roman practice, especially in the upper class, women could ask for a divorce as well.

You have not shown anything in the text that suggests temple prostitutes. And you have to deal with his theological arguments.

I have shown you just ignored it so that you cannot claim ignorance I will detail the arguments here. first the theological arguments. these statements apply at all times in all circumstances.
1. " In Christ there is neither Male nor Female, Jew nor Gentile, Rich nor Poor, Slave nor Free" This applies at all times to all believers in all places, we are to treat our brothers and sisters in Christ with equality in all situations. Christ's injunction of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" applies here. Your view seems to contradict this. Your interpretation of the problems in Ephesus.
2. "Christ has come to remove the curse, becoming a curse for us." Your view seems to ignore this. The curse happened because Eve sinned and rebelled and so the man was to "rule over her" This is noted by Paul when addressing the issue in Ephesus. The removal of the curse is a universal law that applies at all times when a person comes to Christ they are not subject to the fall or the curse., yet Paul goes against it, Why? Why is the curse not removed from women? Something is up. That tells me it is a context problem. You have never addressed this.

3. "I will write my laws in their hearts and they will walk in my ways and do them" The New Covenant promises that people will be able to obey God and since obedience is the basis of standing before God the curse now is done away with. Obedience to the Law of God has always been the standard. This applies to men and women. As noted in scripture speaking to men "If you break my laws a woman will rule over you" Notice the limit placed on men, the law of God. The condition for rulership is obedience, not gender. Somehow because of the curse women were at risk of further disobedience so they were subjected to the men, This should be reversed because of the law being placed in the Hearts of women.
4. "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" Now there are other vs on the Spiritual Gifts. I know you know them so I won't list them. If the Holy Spirit is given to All and is placed in their hearts they can walk in God's way. Now if that is true it must be true for women. Now if the Holy Spirit is given to women, then the Spiritual Gifts must be given to women as well. Unless you are going to try to argue otherwise. Good luck with that. The Gifting includes Apostle, Prophets, Evangelists, Preachers, Teachers. Now you would argue that this does not apply to women, but only to men. If that is not the case then you are inconsistent in the application. 1 is the Holy Spirit given to women? Yes or NO? 2. Are the spiritual Gifts given to women? Yes or No,. if you say yes to 1 then you have to allow for 2 if the gifts are manifest. If you say no to 1 then you have to ask why is the Holy Spirit not given to women. But you won't argue that because you know that is not the case.

These are the Universal statements I look at when interpreting the passage. If they are true then it has to be contextual. There has to be something else going on. The only other explanation that does not violate the universal laws above is that he is addressing temple prostitution. Is there temple prostitution in Ephesus yes, that would constitute spiritual rebellion and would be a violation of the image of God laid down at creation. so it would be appropriate to say sit down and be quite for the glory of God, but that does not mean it is universal, it does not apply in all times and places. the Genesis model of the image of God is universal and applies at all times in all places.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Interesting discussion. I read it all.

On my own behalf, I would like to add that there is another argument for women not to obey. There are women who say that yes, a wife should submit to her husband, like the church to Christ. But only when the husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church. And if he loves less, then there should be no obedience.

That is, how a man can use the text about the obedience of women for manipulation. Women can also use it for manipulation. After all, it is clear that no husband in his entire life will become as perfect as Christ was, we are all imperfect (both men and women) and there are no limits to perfection. Therefore, to say that I will begin to obey my husband when he reaches complete perfection is also manipulation. It turns out that the wife, as it were, “rewards” her husband with obedience for his “perfection,” and at the same time, the main evaluator of the level of this “perfection” is herself.

In fact, the wife herself must be willing to do what pleases God. She must be willing to submit to her husband as the church does to Christ. By wanting to obey her husband, the wife wants to obey God. This pleases God and pleases Him. She does this not for the sake of her husband, but for the sake of God. The fact that the husband rejoices at this is a “side effect” from the fact that God rejoices at this!

 

[Adventist Dissident]

@tall73
AS far as wanting to discuss this. You don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of this being a hostel discussion with very serious ramifications. and you seem to want to play with this. I have shown you very clearly there is a universal theological position that trumps your interpretation. We have had many discussions offline so I won't rehash this here. Debate is a hobby for you and a tool for me. I don't want to waste my time on your hobby. As noted by others on the forum this is not seen as a friendly debate. I jumped in only because you seem to be cheating and being unfair. I have been monitoring this thread and others were doing a nice job so I kept out. but you tried to pull a fast one so I jumped in. I don't wish to go any further.