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

[Adventist Dissident]

@ Tall73
I want to make one more point and how it relates to the topic. The Sabbath. This comes down to power and how one uses it.

The first commandment says thou shalt have not other Gods before me.
The second is not to misrepresent God.
The third is there will be a penalty if you Misrepresent God.
The fourth tells you who God is and How to represent him with the power you hold
He is the Creator, He uses power for life-giving purposes, for healthy relationships, peace, and prosperity, being fruitful and multiply, for fun and good things in abundance and generosity, and then sets a time to party with his creation. Returning once every 7 days.

Before granting any person power they must agree to all four. the fourth being the command to follow God's example and use power the way he did. without that one can say they believe in God and misrepresent him to the world. This is the basis of the objection to your view. You are misrepresenting God to the world. God is not an oppressor, he is not advocating for oppression, you are. your mindset is not I am going to do good by as many people as possible, your mindset is I want power, respect me. So sorry I cannot go along with that. Just another reason to observe the Sabbath.

 

[tall73]

@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.

No, I am not playing. The issue involves nearly everyone on the planet, so we agree it has large ramifications.

I have shown you very clearly there is a universal theological position that trumps your interpretation.

I hope to get to your points in turn.

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.

No, in fact, I have made many decisions of considerable consequence based on study of Scripture, and dialogue on such. And so have you.

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.

It is not unfair to ask people to discuss the texts.

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.

Do as you wish. I will respond to your posts, in the thread, because they are now on the record. You need not reply again. You may reply again if you desire.

Now let's start with your first history claim:

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

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.

You made a broad claim about the culture. I pointed out a primary source example that showed your claim was overly broad, from Scripture.

Women certainly had more limited options in Jewish and Roman culture. But Lydia was a business woman.

Here is well-regarded egalitarian scholar Craig Kenner speaking about Lydia. He says by this period women were sometimes engaged in business. And he notes women could be managers.

Also, you said that women could not own property. But she did own property. Hence her extending hospitality.

From the Cultural Study Bible which Keener edited for the NT portion:

She apparently heads her own household, which could mean that she was widowed, divorced, or a prosperous freedwoman.​

​

Dealers in purple could be persons of means, although Lydia is technically a foreigner in the city. Hospitality was a prized virtue in the ancient Mediterranean world, and Lydia would count it an honor for this ministry team to stay with her.​

Keener, Craig S.; Walton, John H.. NKJV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (p. 9708). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.​

And the reason this is significant, is not because I am saying exceptions make the rule. But rather, because Paul had no issue at all with her being in business as a dealer of purple, or working, or selling, etc.

And neither do I.

So this is both a counterpoint to saying that Roman culture limited all women from owning property, or doing business, as it was more complicated than that, depending on what your situation was in the culture.

But it is also a correction to the views of some who think that women should not be able to be in business, etc.

Nor did Paul have any issue with her being over her household. In fact, it was a blessing to the church as it allowed her to show hospitality.

 

[tall73]

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.

Yes, the text is a corrective to such notions that women cannot engage in business, etc. as my post above this one notes. Paul had no issue with Lydia being a business woman, etc. and neither do I. Nor is being an engineer, etc. a problem. None of the texts limit women from participating in trade, work, etc. And examples in the text show they did participate.

My wife worked when we were in college, and for a time after. During my time initially out of college my wife went with me in ministry which we enjoyed. We were fortunate that she was able to stay home with the kids when they were younger, as we recognize for many that is not a possibility. And then she again went to work, including for a time when health prevented me from doing so. I was also blessed to be at home with the kids during that stretch, at a time when they were in formative years and we could really discuss a lot of matters of life and faith.

I agree with you that no one can mediate another's relationship to Christ. Christ is our Mediator before God, and we are all, male and female ,to come boldly to the throne of grace.

Children likewise have to have their own faith. That does not mean as a parent I did not have an obligation to my children to raise them to know God. But I wouldn't be doing that fully if I did not help them to have their own relationship with God.

We encouraged each of our children when they married and moved out of the house to go to their own church, so that they would not be under our influence for that reason. You honor father and mother, but still leave father and mother and cleave to your spouse. And we wanted them to continue the faith they started in their own setting, which they have. As I mentioned, my son in law is now a pastor as well, which we are glad to see.

Nor did Paul prevent women studying theology, just as Jesus did not, and Mary sat at His feet, which He encouraged Martha was the better thing to be chosen.

 

[tall73]

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!

Glad you actually read it all! I hope you contribute more to the conversation as well.

 

[tall73]

That has never been my claim. I have never said you endorse such a thing.

Thank you, as this clarifies for any who are confused on that point.

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.

I do not deny that a number of factors figure into such, including some rigid gender roles, etc.

But I am yet convinced that the text outlines headship, and does so in theological terms, and that if done as outlined it is not abuse, but actually what God said to do through the New Testament apostles, in specifically addressing husband/wife relations.

Therefore I cannot see any submission on the part of wives, or any headship on the part of husbands as abuse in its own right, because the text does not say that at all.

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.

Her example doesn't undermine mutuality. Her example is definitely used by Peter to note submission, however. And not just hers, but holy women of old.

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 do not disregard secular academics. And I found the domestic abuse commission in Australia to be far more than the United States has done. And a number of the measures taken will hopefully bear fruit. I discussed that as part of a number of discussion on use of weapons. Some of the various warning signs of controlling personalities were certainly something for people to keep in mind.

(As an aside, In general I found Australian commissions are much better at collecting and sharing data, and taking concrete steps to address issues. The USA has most statistics, but doesn't seem to take any actions. And England makes it quite difficult to find a lot of the statistics to start with.)

But part of the reason I posted about the breaking of bones, is because we are both agreed on some things that are abuse. And moreover, we are actually agreed that someone micro-managing all the affairs of the spouse is not at all what God intended either, and is abuse.

But there is still a meaning to the theological arguments in Ephesians 5 and I Peter 3, etc., and I am not at liberty to set aside Scripture because of secular academics, though I don't disregard them either.

And I dare say you will likely not convince most people who are on the complementarian side of the incorrectness of their view if you won't look at the Scripture arguments regarding that view, because that is their standard.

I am not interested in doing so.

Then me noting that you are not doing so is not an attack.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

No, I am not playing. The issue involves nearly everyone on the planet, so we agree it has large ramifications.



I hope to get to your points in turn.



No, in fact, I have made many decisions of considerable consequence based on study of Scripture, and dialogue on such. And so have you.



It is not unfair to ask people to discuss the texts.


Do as you wish. I will respond to your posts, in the thread, because they are now on the record. You need not reply again. You may reply again if you desire.

Now let's start with your first history claim:








You made a broad claim about the culture. I pointed out a primary source example that showed your claim was overly broad, from Scripture.

Women certainly had more limited options in Jewish and Roman culture. But Lydia was a business woman.

Here is well-regarded egalitarian scholar Craig Kenner speaking about Lydia. He says by this period women were sometimes engaged in business. And he notes women could be managers.

Also, you said that women could not own property. But she did own property. Hence her extending hospitality.

From the Cultural Study Bible which Keener edited for the NT portion:

She apparently heads her own household, which could mean that she was widowed, divorced, or a prosperous freedwoman.​

​

Dealers in purple could be persons of means, although Lydia is technically a foreigner in the city. Hospitality was a prized virtue in the ancient Mediterranean world, and Lydia would count it an honor for this ministry team to stay with her.​

Keener, Craig S.; Walton, John H.. NKJV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (p. 9708). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.​

And the reason this is significant, is not because I am saying exceptions make the rule. But rather, because Paul had no issue at all with her being in business as a dealer of purple, or working, or selling, etc.

And neither do I.

So this is both a counterpoint to saying that Roman culture limited all women from owning property, or doing business, as it was more complicated than that, depending on what your situation was in the culture.

But it is also a correction to the views of some who think that women should not be able to be in business, etc.

Nor did Paul have any issue with her being over her household. In fact, it was a blessing to the church as it allowed her to show hospitality.

I think this may be a difference of source rather than a difference of fact. My source is an atheist scholar who I had also off my discussions with. Your seems to be zondervan scholars who maybe taking an egalitarian approach to be more appealing but may not back it up with fact. Lydia may also be the exception to the rule. I gave you my source you gave me yours. So I'm not sure what to do here.

 

[tall73]

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.

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

There is no cultural context missing. The services of the Christians were often in homes. But whether in homes or not women were still part of it.

Also, Priscilla took Apollos aside at the synagogue, where they heard him.

Acts 18:24-26
24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (NKJV)

Likewise, the Jews did not allow women to even be in the service, read the Torah, or ask questions.

The first of those claims is not substantiated. Women were in the synagogues:

See above where Priscilla was in the synagogue.

and:

Luke 13:10-14
10 Now He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. 11 And behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bent over and could in no way raise herself up. 12 But when Jesus saw her, He called her to Him and said to her, “Woman, you are loosed from your infirmity.” 13 And He laid His hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.
14 But the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath; and he said to the crowd, “There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.” (NKJV)

Acts 9:1-2
1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (NKJV)

Acts 17:1-4
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas. (NKJV)


However, more to the point was your comment:

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.

To which I replied:

Yes, Mary sitting at Jesus' feet is showing discipleship.

By "yes" I mean I agree that this was counter-cultural. Women were usually not allowed to be disciples. And Jesus did not regard that but encouraged them to be His disciples.

And this shows that Jesus did not give way to culture.

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

Overlooking your polemical phrasing, you seem to have missed that I was agreeing it was against Jewish culture.

You might see it this time. It was against Jewish culture that Jesus taught female disciples.

And that is evidence that He was not bending to culture.

 

[Paidiske]

But I am yet convinced that the text outlines headship, and does so in theological terms, and that if done as outlined it is not abuse, but actually what God said to do through the New Testament apostles, in specifically addressing husband/wife relations.

So what does "headship" mean to you? If you are arguing for something other than mutual submission, what exactly are you arguing for, and what are its limits?

Because as I see it, as it is outlined "headship" cannot give a husband power and control over his wife; and the second we get into that territory, we absolutely are talking about abuse.

Her example doesn't undermine mutuality.

You seem to be arguing that it does, in that it entails one-sided submission for wives as a norm.

And I found the domestic abuse commission in Australia to be far more than the United States has done. And a number of the measures taken will hopefully bear fruit.

One of the measures taken has been primary prevention work in faith communities, which I've been a part of. Some of that work has been about exactly this; doing grassroots work on Scriptural understanding in order to challenge attitudes which underpin abuse.

And moreover, we are actually agreed that someone micro-managing all the affairs of the spouse is not at all what God intended either, and is abuse.

I'm not just pushing back on micro-managing. I'm pushing back on any dynamic of power and control.

And I dare say you will likely not convince most people who are on the complementarian side of the incorrectness of their view if you won't look at the Scripture arguments regarding that view, because that is their standard.

I don't expect a complementarian to be convinced by Scriptural arguments, because they have Scriptural arguments and are convinced they have the right way to understand those Scriptures. I think the only way we are likely to get traction on that, is to show the fruit; to show how those arguments shape attitudes and behaviours which are harmful. And that then challenges the Scriptural hermeneutic.

Then me noting that you are not doing so is not an attack.

No, but your comments went well beyond that.

 

[tall73]

I think this may be a difference of source rather than a difference of fact. My source is an atheist scholar who I had also off my discussions with. Your seems to be zondervan scholars who maybe taking an egalitarian approach to be more appealing but may not back it up with fact. Lydia may also be the exception to the rule. I gave you my source you gave me yours. So I'm not sure what to do here.

Given my source is from Scripture, and a primary source, I would say you might look at it.

But beyond that, I noted that it is the exception to the rule, and that it is also indicative of a more complex set of facts than you stated. Widows, people who had a number of children, freed women, etc. could be free of male guardianship. Some wealthy women did exercise more freedom in business.

https://pompeiicommitment.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Women_in_Pompeii.pdf

If you want a more neutral source, here is a discussion on what the archaeological discoveries in Pompeii showed about women, not only in pagan religious life, in which they were quite prominent, but also outside of such, in public life. Discussion of women in various fields, and even a woman who rented out property is referenced.

But the larger point I was making was that the church took no issue at all with this exception. Nor did Paul put any limits in the text on women in business.

 

[Rose_bud]

Yes, the text is a corrective to such notions that women cannot engage in business, etc. as my post above this one notes. Paul had no issue with Lydia being a business woman, etc. and neither do I. Nor is being an engineer, etc. a problem. None of the texts limit women from participating in trade, work, etc. And examples in the text show they did participate.

My wife worked when we were in college, and for a time after. During my time initially out of college my wife went with me in ministry which we enjoyed. We were fortunate that she was able to stay home with the kids when they were younger, as we recognize for many that is not a possibility. And then she again went to work, including for a time when health prevented me from doing so. I was also blessed to be at home with the kids during that stretch, at a time when they were in formative years and we could really discuss a lot of matters of life and faith.

I agree with you that no one can mediate another's relationship to Christ. Christ is our Mediator before God, and we are all, male and female ,to come boldly to the throne of grace.

Children likewise have to have their own faith. That does not mean as a parent I did not have an obligation to my children to raise them to know God. But I wouldn't be doing that fully if I did not help them to have their own relationship with God.

We encouraged each of our children when they married and moved out of the house to go to their own church, so that they would not be under our influence for that reason. You honor father and mother, but still leave father and mother and cleave to your spouse. And we wanted them to continue the faith they started in their own setting, which they have. As I mentioned, my son in law is now a pastor as well, which we are glad to see.

Nor did Paul prevent women studying theology, just as Jesus did not, and Mary sat at His feet, which He encouraged Martha was the better thing to be chosen.

From your post it appears as if you practice mutual submission but you argue differently from Scripture. ( I could be understanding this wrong)
Some of my friends do likewise, they practice mutual submission but preach differently. They would submit to each other behind closed doors, but in public it's something different altogether? For some it is ego-driven, for others they were taught to believe that the man rules and makes the final decisions but they also know that putting that belief in practice creates dissonance.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

From your post it appears as if you practice mutual submission but you argue differently from Scripture. ( I could be understanding this wrong)
Some of my friends do likewise, they practice mutual submission but preach differently. They would submit to each other behind closed doors, but in public it's something different altogether? For some it is ego-driven, for others they were taught to believe that the man rules and makes the final decisions but they also know that putting that belief in practice creates dissonance.

The dissonance is not necessary if headship/authority of one party is accepted and properly practised.

A most useful analogy for marriage with proper headship/authority can be found in the Captain/Co-pilot (=also known as First Officer) duo for flying a plane. The Captain is always in control, what he decides will happen - no matter what. But he needs his Co-pilot to fly the plane safely, he will listen to whatever his Co-pilot will inform or warn him about, he will carefully consider any requests from the Co-pilot - but at the end of the day, whatever disagreement may exist between the two, it's the Captain who will make the final call, always ..

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Given my source is from Scripture, and a primary source, I would say you might look at it.

But beyond that, I noted that it is the exception to the rule, and that it is also indicative of a more complex set of facts than you stated. Widows, people who had a number of children, freed women, etc. could be free of male guardianship. Some wealthy women did exercise more freedom in business.

https://pompeiicommitment.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Women_in_Pompeii.pdf

If you want a more neutral source, here is a discussion on what the archaeological discoveries in Pompeii showed about women, not only in pagan religious life, in which they were quite prominent, but also outside of such, in public life. Discussion of women in various fields, and even a woman who rented out property is referenced.

But the larger point I was making was that the church took no issue at all with this exception. Nor did Paul put any limits in the text on women in business.

again you are missing the point. this is not about women's roles in society at large but in the church in particular, trying to drown the issue in minutia is an avoidance tactic. the issue is the 4 universal rules I pointed out. You have not addressed those in relationship to the text in Ephesus, both of which cannot be true at the same time.

 

[Rose_bud]

Continuing from my previous posts

When Paul writes to encourage the Colossian wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives. It is within the overall context of believers being tempted to turn from the faith to hollow deceptive philosophy and the elemental spiritual forces of the world.

He goes on to emphasize who Christ really is and what He has done by rescuing and redeeming humanity. His death and resurrection ushered in a new humanity.

This new humanity had Jesus Christ as its head. Paul mentions this a few times, and that he was contending for them, that they grow in wisdom and knowledge of who this invisible image of God truly is. The head of every power and authority. That he had reconciled all of them in Him and that they were to live out this most precious glad tidings. Regardless of ethnicity, gender and class and social status they were all redeemed by the true Head. In Christ they were brought to absolute fullness. As long as they were in Him they had nothing to fear, He trumped every power by His death and resurrection. He goes on to mention their freedom from shadows, freedom from forces, human traditions, commands and teachings. Things that appear to be wise. He goes on to tell them, what they were like before Christ, and to throw off the old ways of life. They were to now live out the new reality they had in Christ. The ability to bear with one another, to forgive. They were free to choose a better way of serving one another. Choosing peace and truly loving. Loving one another as Christ did. It's with this understanding wives are to be under, because they knew who they were in Christ. It's with this understanding men are to love. Theologically as an image the relationships are all about Him, both the male and female. He alone is the Head. He loved enough to come under. Does it mean wives are not to love and be harsh with the husbands of course not. Does it mean that men are not to be come under as fitting in the Lord of course not.

 

[Rose_bud]

The dissonance is not necessary if headship/authority of one party is accepted and properly practised.

A most useful analogy for marriage with proper headship/authority can be found in the Captain/Co-pilot (=also known as First Officer) duo for flying a plane. The Captain is always in control, what he decides will happen - no matter what. But he needs his Co-pilot to fly the plane safely, he will listen to whatever his Co-pilot will inform or warn him about, he will carefully consider any requests from the Co-pilot - but at the end of the day, whatever disagreement may exist between the two, it's the Captain who will make the final call, always ..

Hey Reluctant Theologian

The internal dissonance arises because the more they look to Christ, the practice and preaching doesn't make sense.

You have an interesting analogy. I disagree a Christian marriage is not between two people but three. Or alternatively two (male and female is one flesh and this flesh united to Jesus). Either way, Jesus is at the helm. With the co-pilot/s, both taking guidance from Him. He is the true pilot if we try to steer ourselves, we more often than not take unnecessary detours.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Continuing from my previous posts

When Paul writes to encourage the Colossian wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives. It is within the overall context of believers being tempted to turn from the faith to hollow deceptive philosophy and the elemental spiritual forces of the world.

He goes on to emphasize who Christ really is and what He has done by rescuing and redeeming humanity. His death and resurrection ushered in a new humanity.

This new humanity had Jesus Christ as its head. Paul mentions this a few times, and that he was contending for them, that they grow in wisdom and knowledge of who this invisible image of God truly is. The head of every power and authority. That he had reconciled all of them in Him and that they were to live out this most precious glad tidings. Regardless of ethnicity, gender and class and social status they were all redeemed by the true Head. In Christ they were brought to absolute fullness. As long as they were in Him they had nothing to fear, He trumped every power by His death and resurrection. He goes on to mention their freedom from shadows, freedom from forces, human traditions, commands and teachings. Things that appear to be wise. He goes on to tell them, what they were like before Christ, and to throw off the old ways of life. They were to now live out the new reality they had in Christ. The ability to bear with one another, to forgive. They were free to choose a better way of serving one another. Choosing peace and truly loving. Loving one another as Christ did. It's with this understanding wives are to be under, because they knew who they were in Christ. It's with this understanding men are to love. Theologically as an image the relationships are all about Him, both the male and female. He alone is the Head. He loved enough to come under. Does it mean wives are not to love and be harsh with the husbands of course not. Does it mean that men are not to be come under as fitting in the Lord of course not.

hey someone know the gospel and how it affects relationships.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Hey Reluctant Theologian

You have an interesting analogy. I disagree a Christian marriage is not between two people but three. Or alternatively two (male and female is one flesh and this flesh united to Jesus). Either way, Jesus is at the helm. With the co-pilot/s, both taking guidance from Him. He is the true pilot if we try to steer ourselves, we more often than not take unnecessary detours.

Hi Rose Bud

Thanks for your reply, obviously I would respectfully disagree, as I interpret headship/submission/reverence/fear as detailed by Paul to match the airplane control situation. I'm aware egalitarians avoid any hint of hierarchy - just we find that hierarchy literally everywhere in real-life apart from marriage as well. I'm not able to deem Paul's instructions and theological motivations as 'culturally dependent' - I've tried, but I can't do that without surrendering logic with a brain transplant.

Authority hierarchies are everywhere in life (workplace, schools, public space (police), army, church, marriage, aviation, ships), and they seem to work well to prevent chaos. We don't call those power/control situations by definition 'abuse' (as @Paidiske would submit).

 

[Rose_bud]

Hi Rose Bud

Thanks for your reply, obviously I would respectfully disagree, as I interpret headship/submission/reverence/fear as detailed by Paul to match the airplane control situation. I'm aware egalitarians avoid any hint of hierarchy - just we find that hierarchy literally everywhere in real-life apart from marriage as well. I'm not able to deem Paul's instructions and theological motivations as 'culturally dependent' - I've tried, but I can't do that without surrendering logic with a brain transplant.

Authority hierarchies are everywhere in life (workplace, schools, public space (police), army, church, marriage, aviation, ships), and they seem to work well to prevent chaos. We don't call those power/control situations by definition 'abuse' (as @Paidiske would submit).

No worries each to their own. But I do prayerfully hope that you will allow Christ to have the final say in a marriage. If we go back to Abraham and Sarah, the point isn't that Abraham had the say about Isaac or even that Sarah had her way. The point is that God was progressively revealing Himself and had a plan of redemption that no human being could truly fathom. He must have the final say always.

I believe that He is the head of all powers and authority. And one day it will become a lived reality, regardless of what our current situations are. This is my hope.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

No worries each to their own. But I do prayerfully hope that you will allow Christ to have the final say in a marriage. If we go back to Abraham and Sarah, the point isn't that Abraham had the say about Isaac or even that Sarah had her way. The point is that God was progressively revealing Himself and had a plan of redemption that no human being could truly fathom. He must have the final say always.

I believe that He is the head of all powers and authority. And one day it will become a lived reality, regardless of what our current situations are. This is my hope.

Amen to that. Isn't it Paul also highlighting that Christ is the head of every man (1 Corinthians 11:3), and the head of woman is the man ... any human in authority still has another authority to be accountable to. E.g. Paul telling slave owners to behave properly towards their slaves because these slave owners (masters themselves) also have a master (= God).

 

[Rose_bud]

Amen to that. Isn't it Paul also highlighting that Christ is the head of every man (1 Corinthians 11:3), and the head of woman is the man ... any human in authority still has another authority to be accountable to. E.g. Paul telling slave owners to behave properly towards their slaves because these slave owners (masters themselves) also have a master (= God).

I'm going to get to Corinthians as part of the movement through the rescue/redemption posts which we are in.

But in respect to what I was trying to point out earlier is that the hope is that all things will take its rightful place. In some things we know He is the head of all power and authority but the problem is male wants to be second under that head, but male is not. The new humanity is. Hopefully you read the Genesis post. My understanding is what some call the already but not yet, and some areas of our lives we experience this tension.

I know the thread is not about slavery but I'll follow your lead only to make a point not to discuss in detail. For those under slavery even though they had to obey their master this was not the ideal, the ideal was always only one master - Jesus, for no one should have the right to another human being. But here is the theological truth he came as a slave to subvert the system of slavery. Dealing with the root-sin. Resulting in one person, manipulating and grabbing the power to control another. The system was oppressive. But Paul says you can endure for now, we look to our Hope for change. He changes the person as they look to Him in how to change the system. Although change took time, change came, albeit it not perfectly we see this in most parts of the world today. The same for ethnicities that pitted their superiority above the other. And I do believe change will happen for marriages. For their have always been prophetic voices, lamenting and hoping for change, the question is, who are they? For we know from the two above examples of ethnicity and slavery it was also the "church" that hindered the change. My hope is still in Christ to redeem all these things. The person, the systems as well as the structures.

 

[tall73]

From your post it appears as if you practice mutual submission but you argue differently from Scripture. ( I could be understanding this wrong)

I understand what you are saying, and I disagree with elements of it. But I think this is a good place to start to clarify.

Notice, I have not said I do not practice mutual submission. I have said it is described, and referred to the parallel text in Galatians.

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)​

​

​

​

Nor do I reject headship.

​