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

[tall73]

In the church, yes. In marriage... I wouldn't agree.

Would you agree there is unequal submission in the parent/child role? (And no, of course I am not equating them).

And this is a role not based on giftedness--at least other than not having the gift of remaining single to serve the Lord. In this case, it is a role based on the need and capacity of the child. But it is also God ordained.

 

[Paidiske]

Then Mutual submission does not rule out roles. Or even greater honor, or greater accountability, or stricter judgment, etc.

There is legitimate authority, even in a community that practices mutual submission. Mutual submission is a mind of service, following the example of Christ, not a restructuring of all roles to equality in all respects.

I think you're talking about two different things. As I said before, there are aspects of being in a position of authority/responsibility/accountability where mutual submission is not possible (I would argue, because both of you are actually submitting to something else). It's not that mutual submission rules out roles; it's that roles sometimes preclude mutual submission.

But I do not see that as being true in marriage in the same way.

Would you agree there is unequal submission in the parent/child role? (And no, of course I am not equating them).

Sure, because of the developmental immaturity of the child. Over time, as the child becomes an adult, that inequality will lessen.

 

[Rose_bud]

No. I am not making an equivalent role between husbands and teachers. Husbands do not all have the spiritual gift of teaching. Nor are they all in roles as teachers in the church.

The reason for mentioning teachers in that context was to point out that some roles, by their nature, carry more responsibility, and accountability. Does everyone have accountability for how they use their gifts? Yes, but James still says this:

James 3:1​

1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. ​

​

​

Hi tall73

Thank you for clarifying. Yes everyone is accountable for their gifts. I agree some roles require more responsibility and accountability, as a teacher as it has a greater impact on how others understand God. Also the false teaching that the apostles had opposed, hindered the work of God greatly. As @Adventist Heretic had correctly pointed out, He is not to be misrepresented.

In the previous post you indicated this role is headship. How do you practice this?
Is it that as husband the final say in the marriage is the husband when their is an impasse? The one poster indicated that this was his understanding is this yours as well?

 

[tall73]

How does this work in real life, give examples. What situation do you see potential conflict

I have discussed some of that earlier in the thread, and am getting to that slowly. But had some ground to cover first.

Next I will be speaking about roles.

Any role differentation is not about conflict, because there was no conflict pre-fall.

"Exorted" this is the problem right here. Exort means to strongly encourage. meaning it is optional not required. It's on the honor system Christ commands that you are to serve one another in Love . This is not an exortation this is a command. not lording power over people is a command, not an exortation.

I am not at all disputing it is a command. It is not optional. I am saying he spent a good deal of time in the passage strongly encouraging them to do all those things, which are commands, and spelling out what that looked like.

But, as the discussion on the most recent pages was getting at, even within mutual submission, there are different roles and positions which are not all equal. A parent/child relationship is by nature one of unequal authority and submission, as the most extreme example, and again, I am not saying they are the same relationship as husband and wife.

There can still be an attitude of service and looking out for others, laying down one's life from those in authority.

so you are relying on the honor system, and you are counting on the husband to be Christian and remain Christian. there is too much unaccountablity here.

No, I said the opposite in fact. I said that the Lord will hold them accoutable if they do not treat their wife honorably, referencing I Peter. But we can look at other texts on that as well, if need be.

I Peter this was their prayers being hindered. But also, there is the judgment as well.

And we see in the creation account that Adam was the one through whom death came, per the text--one man, Adam, though both sinned. That is accountability.

Those not staying Christian would not be listening to apostles, so the advice in Ephesians wouldn't figure in for them.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I have discussed some of that earlier in the thread, and am getting to that slowly. But had some ground to cover first.

Next I will be speaking about roles.

Any role differentation is not about conflict, because there was no conflict pre-fall.



I am not at all disputing it is a command. It is not optional. I am saying he spent a good deal of time in the passage strongly encouraging them to do all those things, which are commands, and spelling out what that looked like.

But, as the discussion on the most recent pages was getting at, even within mutual submission, there are different roles and positions which are not all equal. A parent/child relationship is by nature one of unequal authority and submission, as the most extreme example, and again, I am not saying they are the same relationship as husband and wife.

There can still be an attitude of service and looking out for others, laying down one's life from those in authority.

No, I said the opposite in fact. I said that the Lord will hold them accoutable if they do not treat their wife honorably, referencing I Peter. But we can look at other texts on that as well, if need be.

in other words, you are counting on a miracle and magic to do the right thing. Give one example of that happening.

I Peter this was their prayers being hindered. But also, there is the judgment as well.

so again it assumes miracles and magic, hope, and pray that God will come to the rescue. while ignoring the violation and the abuse.

And we see in the creation account that Adam was the one through whom death came, per the text--one man, Adam, though both sinned. That is accountability.

no that is not accountability, that is a consequence of his disobedience.

Those not staying Christian would not be listening to apostles, so the advice in Ephesians wouldn't figure in for them.

most Christians don't follow Christ any way

 

[Rose_bud]

I agree, we are not.

Correct

Mutual submission does not mean everyone is equal, or that no one has authority. That is why it is spelled out in a mindset, and actions of service and love, rather than equality of station. Not everyone will have the same role. Christ was still Son of Man, Son of God, the I AM, and while His actions were that of a servant, which was condescension, He did not cease to be what He was.

I don't believe I've said that mutual submission is that everyone is the same. What I have said is that we are all one in Christ, there is no longer, race distinction, class distinctions or gender distinctions that elevate one above the other. But rather that we all have to come under (submit to each other) to raise each other up.

However, In a sense we are all "equal" at the foot of the Cross, needing a Saviour. Race, class and gender is not enough to bring one closer to God. When we mutually submit in the Lord. No one stands one head above another before Christ, regardless of roles.

He said to the disciples they call him Teacher and Lord, and they say well. He is Teacher and Lord. And it was in that role that He still served.

John 13:12-17 12 So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. 16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. (NKJV)​

​

Yes, Jesus is Rabbi and Master, but he is doing so much more in this passage, than role playing (excuse the pun). He is preparing them for what comes next. He will no longer be with them as a Teacher and Master. Just as he physically demonstrated the role of a servant. A prelude to the great service shown out of a love for them, he would die for them as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. He literally took on a different role. He came to serve and give up His life as a ransom for many. They were to serve one another, none is more important than the other.

The issue is not renouncing titles or station, but serving, whatever one's title or station, or place, in the same self-sacrificing way as Christ.

I agree with this a teacher is not going to renounce becoming a teacher, but will serve. But a teacher is male or female. I'm interested to know what the title and station of a husband is in a marriage, beside husband of course. What is the role of the husband and how is it practiced?

In the list of relationships following the call for mutual submission in Ephesians 5 you have husbands and wives, parents and children and slaves and masters.
They all involve power dynamics that are not equal, per the text. And of course they all vary greatly in the nature of the relationship.

Parents have legitimate authority over their children. Children submit in an unuequal way. And of course, in the case of children, the relationship is far different, because of the capacity of the child is not the same as an adult. But parents still have authority, children still submit, parents have accountability for their parenting. And parents still can show an attitude of service, humility, and the mindset that is mutual submission with their children, by looking to the child's interests rather than their own, laying down their lives for their children

And this is a role that would presumably have carried authority even prior to sin. For that matter, Jesus knew no sin, but He also subitted to HIs parent's authority, at 12 years old, even after amazing the teachers in Jerusalem

Luke 2:51-52 51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (NKJV)

As to slave masters, Paul and Peter both do not call for equal roles, though they are all sons and all inherit in Christ.

But at the same time, slavery is not viewed as a positive role, and not argued for on theological grounds, as are relation of child and parent and wife and husband.
As was already pointed out in I Corinthians 7 Paul said we should not be slaves of men, if you can buy your freedom do so, but if you cannot, don't let it trouble you. And he appealed for the release of Onesimus so that he could serve as a brother. He did not support that role, but he did recognize the unequal relationship, and put limits on its abuse.

In the context of Ephesians and Phillipians, the whole idea is to "lay it down" to subvert the aspects of title, role and responsibility that privileged one at the expense of another, that undermined each other. In the Greco-Roman household the male had authority over the whole household, the wife, the children and the slave. The adress is to all parties to the wife but more so to him, as husband, to children, to them as parents but specifically to him as father, and to him as master.

This "laying down" is truly magnified when we look at Him. The very Creator of heaven and earth, the sustainer of our beings. The life giving source of all that we are came down in the form of the very creature He created to lift us up. To be where He is (from above). From above to become a child, submitting to the very creatures he created.

Jesus existed in the “form of God,” where form refers to the essence of God, his qualities that are intrinsic and essential to His being. This is not structure, as God is Spirit (John 4:24), the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) whom no one has seen (John1:8). Even though this was his default nature, He did not entertain His equality with God as a prize. On the contrary, Jesus “emptied Himself” (“made Himself nothing”, becoming a servant). A servant was regarded as the lowest status in the ancient world. He did not give up his deity; he remained God. He was both God and man. He limited the independent use of divine attributes and prerogatives while on the earth. He surrendered his right to act on his own, but instead operated on the instruction of the Father, for the benefit of all humanity. He gave up his status and privilege to serve others.

This is what Christ asks us all to do when we engage each other. Give it up, the need to be above, the desire for power and control, regardless of what subtle form it appears.

 

[tall73]

I will now go back and address some arguments that I mentioned I would address.

Now we discussed how Jesus went against Jewish and Roman culture. He taught against divorce, even though the law made exception for it, due to hardness of heart, and even though some schools of Jewish thought allowed it with little regard for the woman. Jesus had no problem calling out wrong culture, and teaching what was true, and He did so from Eden, as you note.

Likewise, Jesus had no problem with having female disciples, who learned at His feet, which would be culturally scandalous. He still did it, and did not worry about culture.

And Paul had no issue stating that we should not be slaves of men, that you should buy your freedom if you can, and appealing for a slave to be freed, because he saw slavery as wrong, even though the culture did not.

If something was wrong they did not uphold it. But that is not what we see in the case of wives submitting to husbands. Paul and Peter both uphold it. Paul upholds it in a number of contexts. That is why I said you cannot say they are simply referring to culture if they make theological arguments supporting headship. The comments exist in a culture. But they do not go against the aspect of headship. They go against the Roman practice of tyrannical practices, by showing the example of Jesus.

Jesus is the head of the church. The husband is the head of the wife. The husband should imitate Jesus in the practice of headship, serving, and laying down his life.

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 not denied the culture of the Romans. Acknowledging a cultural background does not change the arguments being made. And the arguments being made are not derived from Roman culture. They are theological.

Ephesians 5:23-2423 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)

Male Headship was abslote in Roman society. if you did not obey you would die.

Yes. But the text does not deny headship of Christ, or the husband. It says the husband should imitate Christ in his headship.

Ephesians 5:2525 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her (NKJV)

Modified Male Headship. Love not power, but still abslote Male Headship

Not "modified" at all. It is the original headship. God has always been head of everything. And the husband is to imitate HIm, not just practice Roman tyrant-light.

If headship was wrong then Jesus would not be the head. But it is not wrong. And the husband is called to imitate it as head of the wife.

If wives submitting was wrong, it would not be endorsed. But it is endorsed repeatedly.

This is not an argument about Roman culture:

​

1 Corinthians 11:3 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (NKJV)​

​

Colossians 3:18 18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (NKJV)

Same as Roman cultuer except the Husband must play nice

​

Fitting in the Lord is certainly not about Roman culture! And the Romans were not exposing infants to death, selling their family into slavery, etc. because it was fitting the the Lord, who they did not regard.​

​

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.

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.

​

He is directly speaking of holy women of old. And no, THIS was not what the Roman culture was all about:​

​

1 Peter 3:4-5 let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands (NKJV)​

​

​

​

​

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

​

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

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.

You still didn't show anything in Ephesians 5 that speaks about temple prostitution. You just stated it had to be something, and proposed temple prostitution.

Explain why the presence of temple prostitutes, which did exist, would create the instruction given in Ephesians 5.

The argument Paul uses is that Christ is head of the church, and the man is head of the wife, and should follow Christ in His love that laid down His life. That is unrelated to prostitutes.

It does not do away with headship, but upholds it on both counts, that of Christ, and that of the husband.

 

[tall73]

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.

He says that we are all in Christ by faith. The argument in Galatians is that the gentiles started by the Spirit, and did not need to be circumcised, and keep the Jewish law, in order to be saved.

And as he discusses the argument he says:

Galatians 3:21-29​

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

​

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

Because all who by faith are in Christ, they inherit. They are all "sons" of God. Slaves and women did not have the same rights of inheritance in the culture. But in Christ they do inherit. They are also Abraham's seed, included in the promise. They are participants in salvation. They are worthy of honor, as anyone else in Christ.

It does not say that slaves are no longer slaves. The same Paul who wrote this, who argued that people should not be slaves, and if they could buy their freedom they should, also acknowledged that if they were slaves, they submitted.

The same Paul who wrote the above instructed wives to submit to husbands in not just one place, but in multiple places. And he based it on theological arguments, and compared the headship of the husband to the headship of Christ.

Peter also speaks of women being heirs together of the grace of life, in the same context he tells them to submit to their husbands, referencing the practice of holy women of old.

They made theological arguments in favor of wives submitting to husbands. And I outlined how Paul refers to the Eden account as he does so, when dealing with the indications of headship pre-fall.

Paul was quite extreme in his defense of liberty in the case of imposed circumcision, etc. He did not just fold on this issue. He argued for headship, and wives submitting.

 

[tall73]

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.

You claim that they were free of the curse, and it is a universal law, but then say Paul actually put them back under the curse in his directions!

Headship is not the curse. And he argues for it. I discussed at length the Eden account. Paul argues for headship prior to the fall.

You can address the arguments in that post here:

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

I elaborated on Ephesians on the previous thread, highlighting how Pauls position on the household code was revolutionary, and counter-cultural. In the Greco-Roman world the head/master is the husband. But now the head/master is doing things that would not necessarily befit his station. Paul...

www.christianforums.com

The curses made more difficult things that already existed. The man already tended the garden, but now he would have to grow food with difficulty, due to the curse on the ground. The woman was already to bear children, but now her sorrow in it would be magnified. The woman was already under headship, as Paul spells out in his references to the Eden account. The curse was that now that headship would turn into male dominance of women, which had been the unfortunately result since the fall.

Yes, the curse is rolled back. Not by removing headship. But in the husband, head of the wife, as upheld by Paul, following the example of the headship of Christ. Instead of dominating her, he loves her as his own body, and gives himself for her.

 

[tall73]

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.

Even in the former thread I posted that women prophesy, and posted such, in one of my first posts. I also referenced it here. Of course women have the Spirit. Of course women exercise spiritual gifts. I also referenced Priscilla teaching Apollos, and women being fellow laborers in the gospel with Paul.

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.

 

[tall73]

You are misrepresenting God to the world. God is not an oppressor, he is not advocating for oppression, you are.

Of course God is not an oppressor. Jesus is the head, and He gives Himself for the church. Headship is not oppression.

The husband is the head of the wife, and is to follow His example and give himself for her.

But it still says wives submit. That is not my writing. That is scripture.

Ephesians 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

 

[tall73]

Sorry, it took a while to get to this.

Im agree.

But there are objections.

The Bible repeatedly gives examples of responsibility for those around us. For example, the sons of the priest Eli committed sins and it was he who died. He was held accountable for failing to convince children not to sin. After all, he himself did not sin. He took responsibility for the children.

You have a couple of roles overlapping here. He is their father, but also the high priest. He did rebuke them. But when they did not heed the rebuke, he allowed them to stay in their position by which they brought the worship of God into disrepute, by their abuses. He should have, as high priest, removed them from their position.

I also read somewhere that Nathan was held responsible for not restraining Saul (his father) from going to the fortune teller.

Do you mean Jonathan? It just says Saul asked his servants, then went in disguise. Is there a reference to Jonathan knowing about this?

Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab, without asking her husband, obtained a vineyard for her husband through sin (by killing a righteous man). As a result of punishment from God, not only she was killed, but also her husband and children.

It is impossible to say that Christ always said only pleasant things to the church. He called Peter Satan, and drove the merchants out of the temple with a scourge, and threatened fiery hell. The Apostle, by the power of Christ, blinded Elimas the sorcerer, who was interfering with the conversion of the proconsul Paul in Crete; Simon the sorcerer also suffered. By the power of Christ, Ananias and Sapphira were killed to teach the rest of the church not to lie. And if you read “The Revelation of John the Theologian,” then in general the 7 churches of Asia Minor are very harshly denounced.

And this is the question: when is it better to remain silent, simply showing your love, and when should love be tough, like for a child who is trying to get his fingers into an electrical outlet?

Sometimes tough measures are necessary towards the husband in order to save both him and the family (I mean, so that they don’t think that I think men are always right).

Certainly, and either husband or wife should appeal to the other to turn away from transgression. But in regards to submission, if the wife is not hearing her husband, would more appeals to hear do any good? The husband is still commanded to love his wife, in any case.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Even in the former thread I posted that women prophesy, and posted such, in one of my first posts. I also referenced it here. Of course women have the Spirit. Of course women exercise spiritual gifts. I also referenced Priscilla teaching Apollos, and women being fellow laborers in the gospel with Paul.

ok tall, but you seem to be repeating facts, but avoiding conclusion. If the spirit is given to them, then the gift of preaching and teaching can also be given to them as the Lord sees fit. you seem not to want to take it to its conclusion. You seem to have determined the answer before the evidence to be examined. If a woman manifests the gift of preaching should she be allowed to preach? or do you take the view that God would never give a woman the gift of preaching.

 

[tall73]

ok tall, but you seem to be repeating facts, but avoiding conclusion. If the spirit is given to them, then the gift of preaching and teaching can also be given to them as the Lord sees fit. you seem not to want to take it to its conclusion. You seem to have determined the answer before the evidence to be examined. If a woman manifests the gift of preaching should she be allowed to preach? or do you take the view that God would never give a woman the gift of preaching.

Given that I just related that Priscilla taught Apollos, how would I not think women could teach?

If I quoted that women were co-laborers with Paul in the gospel, why would I think they cannot proclaim the gospel?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

You claim that they were free of the curse, and it is a universal law, but then say Paul actually put them back under the curse in his directions!

Headship is not the curse. And he argues for it. I discussed at length the Eden account. Paul argues for headship prior to the fall.

You can address the arguments in that post here:

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

I elaborated on Ephesians on the previous thread, highlighting how Pauls position on the household code was revolutionary, and counter-cultural. In the Greco-Roman world the head/master is the husband. But now the head/master is doing things that would not necessarily befit his station. Paul...

www.christianforums.com

The curses made more difficult things that already existed. The man already tended the garden, but now he would have to grow food with difficulty, due to the curse on the ground.

none of this is relevant to the discussion.

The woman was already to bear children, but now her sorrow in it would be magnified. The woman was already under headship, as Paul spells out in his references to the Eden account.

so you are saying that in your view Eve was a slave and a second-class citizen from creation and existed to meet the needs of her husband without regard to her own desires? That is what is wrong with your view. If you don't understand the problem now then the problem is you. Do not see how that could be a problem for some people. That is not Love.

The curse was that now that headship would turn into male dominance of women, which had been the unfortunately result since the fall.

Yes, the curse is rolled back. Not by removing headship. But in the husband, head of the wife, as upheld by Paul, following the example of the headship of Christ. Instead of dominating her, he loves her as his own body, and gives himself for her.

Why do you insist on the headship model? it sounds like you want divine sanction to boss people around. There is no servanthood from you ever. You keep conflating the home life and the Church life, why is that? you are saying at home the man is the boss of his wife and at church, Christ is the boss of the church and man is the boss of the wife. now

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Sorry, it took a while to get to this.


You have a couple of roles overlapping here. He is their father, but also the high priest. He did rebuke them. But when they did not heed the rebuke, he allowed them to stay in their position by which they brought the worship of God into disrepute, by their abuses. He should have, as high priest, removed them from their position.

Do you mean Jonathan? It just says Saul asked his servants, then went in disguise. Is there a reference to Jonathan knowing about this?

Certainly, and either husband or wife should appeal to the other to turn away from transgression. But in regards to submission, if the wife is not hearing her husband, would more appeals to hear do any good? The husband is still commanded to love his wife, in any case.

The high priest is in greater responsibility than an ordinary father, since he has more power. But it seems to me that an ordinary father is also responsible for the actions of his children if he did not make enough efforts to stop them.

Regarding Jonathan and Saul, I referred to the words of the holy fathers. Not everything is contained in the Scriptures. Some things were passed down through generations in oral tradition (Hebrew and then Christian). But even now you can see many cases when neighbors are responsible before God if they did not keep a loved one from sin (if they could do this).

And not only fathers for their children, but also wives for their husbands, and husbands for their wives. If I’m not mistaken, Pontius Pilate’s wife suffered along with him, although she asked her husband not to do anything bad to that Righteous One (but Pilate did not listen to her).

Love is not indulgence in vices. One of the Christian saints of the 4th century (Reverend Ephraim the Syrian) wrote to his disciples: “Whoever, in his love, is indifferent to the shortcomings of his beloved, hates without realizing it.”

The great Christian mentor of the 5th century, Saint John Chrysostom, said that affection is not always and not everything needed for everyone in loven, sometimes severity is also needed (in relation to those whom affectionateness makes worse), he also said, referring to the apostle: “Rebuke them strictly so that they may be sound in the faith." Therefore, he says, rebuke them because they have a daring, insidious and unbridled disposition... If they are prone to lies, insidious, gluttonous and careless, then they need a strong word of reproof; such a person cannot be touched by meekness.”

The Monk Paisius the Svyatogorets (one of the most prudent saints of the 20th century) said that the reasoning of love dictates the form of helping one’s neighbor: “If, for example, a person is a glutton, then there is no need to feed him delicious dishes all the time because this will harm him. Tasty food must be prepared, if a person suffers from a lack of appetite. If a person has a love for truth and you show him great love, then he will change in a good way and will try to thank you. And if a person is arrogant, then the manifestations of such love make him even more arrogant... When you do. you see that the manifestation of such love does not bring any benefit, then you reduce it, but you also do it with reasoning and love.”

 

[tall73]

none of this is relevant to the discussion.

No, the texts are not irrelevant. I looked at each of the points raised in detail.

so you are saying that in your view Eve was a slave and a second-class citizen from creation and existed to meet the needs of her husband without regard to her own desires? That is what is wrong with your view. If you don't understand the problem now then the problem is you. Do not see how that could be a problem for some people. That is not Love.

There are two heads argued for.

Are you saying that Adam was a slave, a second-class citizen from creation, and existed to meet the needs of God, without regard to his own desires?

Headship is not the problem. Christ is head. Adam was not a slave. And neither was Eve. Their problem started when they became slaves of sin.

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)​

That is what is wrong with your view. If you don't understand the problem now then the problem is you. Do not see how that could be a problem for some people. That is not Love.

God is head, and God is love.

1 Corinthians 11:3 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God (NKJV)​

​

1 John 4:7-11 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (NKJV)​

Why do you insist on the headship model?

Because the text says it.

it sounds like you want divine sanction to boss people around.
There is no servanthood from you ever.

I have repeatedly noted what the text says, that the man, who is head of the wife, is to follow the example of Christ, who is the the head of the church, in Christ's example of service.

you are saying at home the man is the boss of his wife and at church, Christ is the boss of the church and man is the boss of the wife. now

I am saying Christ is the head of the church, and I don't think this is a disagreement among us. Do you not think the repeated texts about Christ being the head of the church are accurate?

If you do think they are accurate, then your issue is not with headship. And so your objection to the text speaking of headship needs to be reconsidered in light of the text.

 

[tall73]

The high priest is in greater responsibility than an ordinary father, since he has more power. But it seems to me that an ordinary father is also responsible for the actions of his children if he did not make enough efforts to stop them.

We agree on the point, and that he did not do enough in either role to stop them. But the means of the high priest role were greater than that of the father's role. He could appeal and rebuke as a father, and He did. But he also could remove them by his authority as high priest. And he did not.

Regarding Jonathan and Saul, I referred to the words of the holy fathers. Not everything is contained in the Scriptures. Some things were passed down through generations in oral tradition (Hebrew and then Christian). But even now you can see many cases when neighbors are responsible before God if they did not keep a loved one from sin (if they could do this).

I suspected that was what you meant, but was unable to find the reference.

Love is not indulgence in vices. One of the Christian saints of the 4th century (Reverend Ephraim the Syrian) wrote to his disciples: “Whoever, in his love, is indifferent to the shortcomings of his beloved, hates without realizing it.”

Which is why I mentioned that husband or wife should make appeal when they see the other sinning.

The great Christian mentor of the 5th century, Saint John Chrysostom, said that affection is not always and not everything needed for everyone in loven, sometimes severity is also needed (in relation to those whom affectionateness makes worse), he also said, referring to the apostle: “Rebuke them strictly so that they may be sound in the faith." Therefore, he says, rebuke them because they have a daring, insidious and unbridled disposition... If they are prone to lies, insidious, gluttonous and careless, then they need a strong word of reproof; such a person cannot be touched by meekness.”

Yet, in this connection with marriage, we are instructed what to do in 1 Peter.

I had Chrysostom's quote in mind when I replied to you:

"But what," one may say, "if a wife reverence me not?" Never mind, you are to love, fulfill your own duty. For though that which is due from others may not follow, we ought of course to do our duty. This is an example of what I mean. He says, "submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ." And what then if another submit not himself? Still obey thou the law of God. Just so, I say, is it also here. Let the wife at least, though she be not loved, still reverence notwithstanding, that nothing may lie at her door; and let the husband, though his wife reverence him not, still show her love notwithstanding, that he himself be not wanting in any point. For each has received his own.​

​

This is in agreement with 1 Peter:

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

 

[Rose_bud]

Of course God is not an oppressor. Jesus is the head, and He gives Himself for the church. Headship is not oppression.

The husband is the head of the wife, and is to follow His example and give himself for her.

But it still says wives submit. That is not my writing. That is scripture.

Ephesians 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

Scripture is also...

‭Ephesians 5:21
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.