Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In the church, yes. In marriage... I wouldn't agree.
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.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.
Sure, because of the developmental immaturity of the child. Over time, as the child becomes an adult, that inequality will lessen.Would you agree there is unequal submission in the parent/child role? (And no, of course I am not equating them).
Hi tall73No. 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:
1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
How does this work in real life, give examples. What situation do you see potential conflict
"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.
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.
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.
in other words, you are counting on a miracle and magic to do the right thing. Give one example of that happening.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.
so again it assumes miracles and magic, hope, and pray that God will come to the rescue. while ignoring the violation and the abuse.I Peter this was their prayers being hindered. But also, there is the judgment as well.
no that is not accountability, that is a consequence of his disobedience.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.
most Christians don't follow Christ any wayThose not staying Christian would not be listening to apostles, so the advice in Ephesians wouldn't figure in for them.
CorrectI agree, we are not.
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.
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.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)
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.
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.
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.
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are misrepresenting God to the world. God is not an oppressor, he is not advocating for oppression, you are.
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.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.
I also read somewhere that Nathan was held responsible for not restraining Saul (his father) from going to the fortune teller.
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).
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.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.
none of this is relevant to the discussion.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.
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 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.
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. nowYes, 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.
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.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.
none of this is relevant to the discussion.
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.
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.
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 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
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).
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.”
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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?