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

[Adventist Dissident]

Headship and servanthood are not two different models in the text. It is Christ, the Head, who shows what servant leadership looks like. And then he says the husband should do the same, as head of the wife.

Ephesians 5:22-28 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.​

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. (NKJV)​

You have not addressed that.

tall I have lost faith in this discussion and in you. so I see no point in discussing this any further. I don't believe you have the well-being of others in mind so this discussion will go not anywere. I know you to well to draw any other conclusion.

 

[tall73]

If Ananias had commanded his wife to lie, would she have been wrong not to? I have my ideas about that, but I'd like to hear from others first.

If a husband commands something that goes against God's command, then God's command is higher. The husband only holds any authority by delegation of God. She should not do it.

We see a similar situation with submission to authorities.

Acta 4:18-20 18 So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” (NKJV)​

We see the same with Daniel in the lion's den, etc.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

What kind of things is he saying no to? Do you have a lot of these conversations?

That is a bit foreign to me, because I don't think we have many conversations like that. Or maybe I am just missing something?

So, for example, one says, I want to go walking together in the park today, and the other says they are too tired, and doesn't want to go? I mean, I suppose in that case it is saying no. But if either of us is too tired to go and says so, we don't see it as dictating. It just means the other is too tired, and it doesn't make sense to compel them.

One prime example is that he is strictly a cat person while I am a cat AND dog person. If it were up to me, I would have one of each. Upon the death of an elderly cat, he would be more than willing to replace it with a kitten, or even two kittens, but not with a puppy. He just doesn't want a dog, and his no vote blocks me from having one. So it looks as if I will never again for the rest of my life have a dog, no matter how much I may want one. If I know he badly wants something, I would not be nearly as likely to say no to him.

 

[tall73]

tall I have lost faith in this discussion and in you. so I see no point in discussing this any further. I don't believe you have the well-being of others in mind so this discussion will go not anywere. I know you to well to draw any other conclusion.

I do not agree with your representations. You are welcome back to the conversation whenever you choose, and to call me whenever you want.

God bless

 

[tall73]

One prime example is that he is strictly a cat person while I am a cat AND dog person. If it were up to me, I would have one of each. Upon the death of an elderly cat, he would be more than willing to replace it with a kitten, or even two kittens, but not with a puppy. He just doesn't want a dog, and his no vote blocks me from having one. So it looks as if I will never again for the rest of my life have a dog, no matter how much I may want one. If I know he badly wants something, I would not be nearly as likely to say no to him.

Does he have any particular reason he doesn't want a dog?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I do not agree with your representations. You are welcome back to the conversation whenever you choose, and to call me whenever you want.

God bless

of course, you don't. You are not able to yield on matters. That is why you continue insisting on advocating for slavery for people. You are against self-determination, are for someone else determining other people's lives without their consent. If you thought you were wrong you would stop. Why would I want to advocate for enslaving people, good people don't do that and good Christians don't do that. When you want to reconsider your messaging and emphasis I might reconsider until then, There is nothing for me in this conversation.

 

[Rose_bud]

Thank you as well for being willing to spell out your view from Scripture. I would like to know your views on the Corinthians passages, 1 Timothy 2, etc., but I understand if you do not wish to post them here.

In the egalitarian section you could post the whole study, without debate, adding to what you have already stated. If you do, please link me to it. Those passage in particular are ones I am re-thinking. And while we both did not come to agreement, I do concur that it has been good to study the Scriptures on these points.

Thanks, I will post in the suggested thread and post the link here so whoever has been following can weigh the full approach holistictally (creation, fall, rescue/redemption and consummation). Each person would then be able to weigh for themselves. The approach will consider the full corpus of Scripture. How God reveals how relationships were before the fall, after the fall, how God has brought about redemption/rescue of relationships where one party elevates themselves above another. Finally what the final hope for all relationships are. The hope of humanity united in Christ as the True Head. This would also consider aspects of the already/ not yet and our responsibility in bringing about the final hope as a lived reality.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

tall73 said:​

​

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.​

A husband is not a god. But a husband is said to be head, under the leadership of Christ who is the head of the church.

A parent is not a god either, but is supposed to have authority under the leadership of Christ.

And you speak of the honor system. But I didn't say that. I said God holds to account all people in responsibility. He judges kings, he judges overseers, he judges teachers, he judges parents, and he judges husbands. Any authority is delegated authority, and is to be used in line with His will.

I already cited Peter in this regard:

​

1 Peter 3:7 7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.​

​

Prayers are hindered by dishonoring the wife who is also an heir together of life.

Here is another text where God refuses to receive the offerings of those who have broken faith with their wife:

Malachi 2:13-16 13 And this is the second thing you do:​

You cover the altar of the LORD with tears,​

With weeping and crying;​

So He does not regard the offering anymore,​

Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.​

14 Yet you say, “For what reason?”​

Because the LORD has been witness​

Between you and the wife of your youth,​

With whom you have dealt treacherously;​

Yet she is your companion​

And your wife by covenant.​

15 But did He not make them one,​

Having a remnant of the Spirit?​

And why one?​

He seeks godly offspring.​

Therefore take heed to your spirit,​

And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.​

16 “For the LORD God of Israel says​

That He hates divorce,​

For it covers one’s garment with violence,”​

Says the LORD of hosts.​

“Therefore take heed to your spirit,​

That you do not deal treacherously.” (NKJV)​

​

I have also spoken in the thread about instances where the church should rebuke a husband.

I have also spoken in the thread about how authorities, who do not bear the sword in vain, have legitimate authority over husbands when they violate the law by abusing.

And what do you offer? You say I am advocating "magic".



No, I am saying that if a Christian hears the Lord, He will understand He is accountable to the Lord. If the passage says to love as Christ loves, then that doesn't mean the husband does whatever he wants, or dictates, or abuses.

And I am saying God will judge in this life, and the life to come, because the Scriptures say that. But it is also is true that some think because the Lord does not prevent every abuse that He will not judge. They are incorrect, as the Scriptures point out.

And you have offered no other means to address abuse than I have. There is legitimate authority in the world. There are legitimate churches who step in at times to help in cases of abuse. There are legitimate authorities that arrest abusers.

If you say I have to prevent all abuse in the world because I am reading the text for what it says--that Christ is head of the church, and the husband is the head of the wife, and should follow Christ's example, then that is illogical. I cannot prevent all abuse. And my view is not calling for abuse.

Headship is not abuse, or you are saying Christ is an abuser for being the Head.



Since you cannot, in fact, quote me saying anything remotely like that, and I have throughout insisted that they only act in God's authority, and should follow His example, and what He has said to do that is untrue.




That if Christ is Head, then headship is not slavery.

And the text also says that the husband has headship over the woman. And that is not slavery either. The husband is to love His wife as Christ did the church.





Which is not, in fact, my position.




Nor does the text. So you should address what it actually says:

Ephesians 5:22-28 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.​

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. (NKJV)​

It says the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the Head of the church. And the husband should love her as Christ loves the church.

Headship is not wrong. And Christian headship should follow the example of Christ.

headship is slavery

 

[tall73]

of course, you don't. You are not able to yield on matters. That is why you continue insisting on advocating for slavery for people. You are against self-determination, are for someone else determining other people's lives without their consent. If you thought you were wrong you would stop. Why would I want to advocate for enslaving people, good people don't do that and good Christians don't do that. When you want to reconsider your messaging and emphasis I might reconsider until then, There is nothing for me in this conversation.

We are not called to yield on views of Scripture. I have to have evidence for that.

We are called to love others.

I have not lost faith in you, and would be willing to speak to you whenever you want, because you are my friend. If you wish not to, that is up to you.

God bless

 

[tall73]

Thanks, I will post in the suggested thread and post the link here so whoever has been following can weigh the full approach holistictally (creation, fall, rescue/redemption and consummation). Each person would then be able to weigh for themselves.

Thank you

 

[Adventist Dissident]

We are not called to yield on views of Scripture. I have to have evidence for that.

We are called to love others.

which you don't and you are not advocating for

I have not lost faith in you, and would be willing to speak to you whenever you want, because you are my friend. If you wish not to, that is up to you.

you are saying this for the benefit of CF, the actual reality is you walked away from our friendship last year, when I needed your support. this is common practice with you.

 

[tall73]

which you don't and you are not advocating for

you are saying this for the benefit of CF, the actual reality is you walked away from our friendship last year, I needed your support. this is common practice with you.

I did not walk away. I called you and you would not speak.

I wrote to you on here as well.

At one point your number changed.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I did not walk away. I called you and you would not speak.

I got 1 phone call i took it

I wrote to you on here as well.

At one point your number changed.

my number has not changed in 4 years so this is an error on your part.

 

[tall73]

I got 1 phone call i took it



my number has not changed in 4 years so this is an error on your part.

I bookmarked the other number that you called me on. I don't know what it was. But my impression was the other was not working, because you said it was not. Then you later said it was.

Since we are talking in PM, I will continue there.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

What kind of things is he saying no to? Do you have a lot of these conversations?

That is a bit foreign to me, because I don't think we have many conversations like that. Or maybe I am just missing something?

So, for example, one says, I want to go walking together in the park today, and the other says they are too tired, and doesn't want to go? I mean, I suppose in that case it is saying no. But if either of us is too tired to go and says so, we don't see it as dictating. It just means the other is too tired, and it doesn't make sense to compel them.

In most cases, yes. But sometimes there are exceptional cases. When the apostles were fishing all night (and fish are caught better at night than in the morning), Jesus Christ approached them and offered to cast the net again. What would happen if they said: we fished all night and didn’t catch anything and we’re very tired, so we won’t catch anything. Jesus invited them a couple more times, telling them they would see something special. But the apostles would have remained inexorable: we don’t want anything, leave us alone now, we’re tired.

 

[tall73]

In most cases, yes. But sometimes there are exceptional cases. When the apostles were fishing all night (and fish are caught better at night than in the morning), Jesus Christ approached them and offered to cast the net again. What would happen if they said: we fished all night and didn’t catch anything and we’re very tired, so we won’t catch anything. Jesus invited them a couple more times, telling them they would see something special. But the apostles would have remained inexorable: we don’t want anything, leave us alone now, we’re tired.

Well, in any case ,we are glad they did throw in the net!

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Does he have any particular reason he doesn't want a dog?

Nope.

 

[Paidiske]

But that is not what we see in the case of wives submitting to husbands. Paul and Peter both uphold it.

I've been away for a couple of days and am just catching up now, I may have missed some nuance in the discussion.

However, I did notice this, and I actually disagree. I would argue that the way Paul and Peter write to husbands, radically undermines one-sided submission. Yes, they tell wives to submit to husbands. They also tell husbands to submit to, and love, and honour their wives. Legal realities of the culture notwithstanding, they did all they could to level the playing field, while still upholding the goodness of marriage.

Now, perhaps you will do what @Paidiske did not do when I asked, and spell out how you practice mutual submission. She referred me to books.

I do not recall you asking me how I practice mutual submission? I referred you to books on egalitarian scholarship, and on conflict resolution more generally, but I did not think you were asking me about my own practices.

If that is what you meant, quite simply, we are equals. Neither of us has a trump card by reason of our biology (nor do I have one by reason of my church role, either). Usually we plan together, trying to take into account what's important to both of us, and trying to make sure those important things are worked towards together as a team.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

If you want one-sided submission by women, Islam is calling.

 

[tall73]

I do not recall you asking me how I practice mutual submission? I referred you to books on egalitarian scholarship, and on conflict resolution more generally, but I did not think you were asking me about my own practices.

But if you have two committed people, who place God first, and want what is best for each other, and try to resolve all issues by agreement, it is still possible in a sinful world to have completely different views on the best course of action to take on some important matter. And some decisions need to be made, one way or the other. They cannot be deferred indefinitely, because sometimes that is itself a decision. If after protracted prayer, discussion, potentially seeking outside views for wisdom ,etc. there is no resolution of the different views, I would not call that agreement. I would call it disagreement. And it either needs to be resolved through some means, or it will be constant.

​

Sure. And there are a number of ways to approach resolving it, other than giving the person with a Y chromosome an automatic trump card.

Explain the various methods of resolving it.

There are whole books out there on the topic. You can do your own research. My only point is, giving one person an automatic trump card by reason of their biology is not the only possibility.

I was asking you how you resolve issues when you have to make a decision, you have prayed and have no answer, etc. and you still disagree. You said there are books on the subject

Regarding your recent answer here:

Usually we plan together, trying to take into account what's important to both of us, and trying to make sure those important things are worked towards together as a team.

This is what we do on a routine basis.

The four exceptions to that were when we could not resolve the issue, and have to have a decision, have received no answer to prayer, or other way to resolve it.

Since she agreed to resolve it by me making a decision, that is what we did. I am asking what you would do.

And as I mentioned, in two cases I granted her side, because it related more to her area, and would be a larger burden on her. That was how I interpreted the advice to lay down you life for your wife.

In another situation, which is the only one we recall the details, it involved a potential physical safety issue for one our children, that we disagreed on the likelyhood of it coming into play. I decided that the child's safety would come first, though it inconvenienced both of us considerably. It was not my preferred course of action either, but it was more certain to prevent injury or death to my child, who was too young to make his own assessment.

I am asking you how you handle such situations, where a decision needs to be made, you can't delay indefinitely, and you disagree.