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

[tall73]

I don't feel the need to divide it up that way.

You just did.

Paidiske said:​

​

My view of inspiration isn't that the Holy Spirit dictated every choice of word and rhetorical device. In fact, I'm pretty sure He didn't. Paul can get doctrine right but still express himself poorly.​

You just said the expression was Paul. Did you not?

 

[Paidiske]

You just said the expression was Paul. Did you not?

I meant something slightly more nuanced than that; that we can trust the doctrine - the understanding of God, and salvation, and so on - that Scripture presents for us, without having to see the particular way that doctrine is expressed as anything more than incidental.

 

[tall73]

I meant something slightly more nuanced than that; that we can trust the doctrine - the understanding of God, and salvation, and so on - that Scripture presents for us, without having to see the particular way that doctrine is expressed as anything more than incidental.

I think we could discuss that aspect more, but for now, let's get back to the text.

Romans 13:1-5 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. (NKJV)​

So what do you think the doctrine is in the above passage?

 

[Paidiske]

My interest in this thread is arguing against views of wifely submission which underpin abusive dynamics. The rest, I'm not inclined to get into.

 

[tall73]

My interest in this thread is arguing against views of wifely submission which underpin abusive dynamics. The rest, I'm not inclined to get into.

I think for your view of wifely submission, you are very wise to not get into it, as it would be hard to explain.

But it is your choice whether to engage or not.

 

[tall73]

​

No, actually, I'm not just disputing why. I'm disputing what some people think it means.

You already admitted they mentioned one-sided submission, and gave the why:

They wouldn't even need to mention one-sided submission if they weren't in a patriarchal culture where husbands ruled their households.

But it was pointed out the why didn't work, because their arguments were not based on Roman culture.

And now you are falling back to "well they just didn't mean that to start with".

You admitted they said it. So why did they say it? What does this mean, and why say it?

​

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)​

 

[Rose_bud]

I think we could discuss that aspect more, but for now, let's get back to the text.

Romans 13:1-5 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. (NKJV)​

So what do you think the doctrine is in the above passage?

Hi tall73

I know this would be digressing, but I would love to here your thoughts on this?. As this very passage was used by some Christian preachers to justify the apartheid regime in South Africa.

 

[Paidiske]

But it was pointed out the why didn't work, because their arguments were not based on Roman culture.

The arguments don't have to be based on Roman culture, for the reason that they need to address it at all to be Roman culture.

And now you are falling back to "well they just didn't mean that to start with".

From my very first post in this thread, my position was that one-sided submission was not what was meant. It's not falling back; it's consisentency.

You admitted they said it. So why did they say it? What does this mean, and why say it?

​

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)​

You have to start with verse 21, which says "be subject to one another." Only then does verse 22 go on to say "wives, to your own husbands" (the verb isn't even repeated, it's implied from verse 21).

So, submit to one another; and wives, within that dynamic, particularly to your own husbands (and notably, not to others outside your marriage). But while acknowledging the particular station of wives, who need to recognise their own legal subjection to their husbands, the whole point is about mutual submission; mutual love; mutual service. That's what it means, and that's what Paul is urging on his readers.

 

[Rose_bud]

Following from post #37 and #85

After the rebellion in Eden, we know Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden and she conceives and has children. We know their children endure the same suffering and pain that they do in their mandate of Genesis 1 which God said they would endure in Genesis 3. A lot occurs between Genesis 3 and the call of Abraham. He is called out and takes with him, his sister-wife.

The relationship of the Patriarch and Matriarch of the Promise Seed is not perfect or the ideal either. They still operate within the framework of a fallen world.

Both Abraham and Sarah are flawed and God's engagement with them is within the flawed social context of their time. The patriarchal narratives contain social customs similar to contemporary texts from Mari and Nuzi. This ancient material provides valuable information, enriching our understanding of the time. To the modern reader, the decisions and practices may be foreign and frowned but typical for their period.

To have a sister-wife was not uncommon
To have Hagar bear children for Sarah was not uncommon. To have more than one wife was not uncommon. Was it God's ideal. I don't believe it was.

Did Sarah call him master, yes. She was adhering to the social norms of her times.

Almost every relationship in the bible is wrought with pain, suffering, conflict especially when not founded in Christ who came to redeem humanity in every area.

When God reveals his law to Israel on how they are to respond to each other. It is also counter cultural to the social norms of there day. Both male and female Israelites were called to the royal law. Love God and love others. Not only men. And not only woman but both.

 

[tall73]

I have limited time at the moment, so I will address only a few of the side issues here, but will get to the weightier issues as I have a chance.

The arguments don't have to be based on Roman culture, for the reason that they need to address it at all to be Roman culture.

If the reasons given are theological, then the claim that it had to be given because of Roman culture is completely yours. It doesn't come from the text.

Now you have said that the Holy Spirit inspires correct DOCTRINE, but the expression may be human. If Paul is laying out statements about submitting in theological terms, then that is doctrine, not just cultural concession, and not even necessitated by culture.

From my very first post in this thread, my position was that one-sided submission was not what was meant. It's not falling back; it's consisentency.

I agree that your position on mutual submission has been consistent, and I have not taken issue with that, because that is in the text.

The falling back is referring to your statement that their is one sided submission, but because of Roman culture. But then you didn't defend that.

Since you are now attempting to defend it again, now in the form of the "law", we can ignore the falling back statement. Let's look at the text.

But while acknowledging the particular station of wives, who need to recognise their own legal subjection to their husbands

If it is about legal submission, how can you avoid discussing Romans 13? You have just put it at the center of a debate on wives submitting.

 

[tall73]

You have to start with verse 21, which says "be subject to one another." Only then does verse 22 go on to say "wives, to your own husbands" (the verb isn't even repeated, it's implied from verse 21).

That depends. We see it in the Byzantine text. But we can leave textual criticism to the side.

But it is also repeated again in verse 24, and in this case connected to the comparison of the church submitting to Christ, and wives to husbands in all things.

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ, 23 ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος. 24 ἀλλὰ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί. (SBL NT)

 

[Paidiske]

If the reasons given are theological, then the claim that it had to be given because of Roman culture is completely yours.

Not at all. It fits with the overall context and the bigger picture we are given of Christian relationships and marriage.

Now you have said that the Holy Spirit inspires correct DOCTRINE, but the expression may be human. If Paul is laying out statements about submitting in theological terms, then that is doctrine, not just cultural concession, and not even necessitated by culture.

By doctrine, my tradition means those things which pertain to salvation. Not to every theologically laden idea.

The falling back is referring to your statement that their is one sided submission, but because of Roman culture.

I wouldn't even say that's quite accurate. I would say that the particular situation of wives is addressed in a one-sided way, because of their legal and social position. The submission really isn't one-sided at all, but their situation demands particular comment.

If it is about legal submission, how can you avoid discussing Romans 13? You have just put it at the center of a debate on wives submitting.

The legal situation is the context. But I don't want to get derailed into arguments about the role of government and conscientious objection and all the places a discussion of submission to government could go, because I'm really not interested in that, in this thread.

 

[Rose_bud]

Following from post #37 and #85

After the rebellion in Eden, we know Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden and she conceives and has children. We know their children endure the same suffering and pain that they do in their mandate of Genesis 1 which God said they would endure in Genesis 3. A lot occurs between Genesis 3 and the call of Abraham. He is called out and takes with him, his sister-wife.

The relationship of the Patriarch and Matriarch of the Promise Seed is not perfect or the ideal either. They still operate within the framework of a fallen world.

Both Abraham and Sarah are flawed and God's engagement with them is within the flawed social context of their time. The patriarchal narratives contain social customs similar to contemporary texts from Mari and Nuzi. This ancient material provides valuable information, enriching our understanding of the time. To the modern reader, the decisions and practices may be foreign and frowned but typical for their period.

To have a sister-wife was not uncommon
To have Hagar bear children for Sarah was not uncommon. To have more than one wife was not uncommon. Was it God's ideal. I don't believe it was.

Did Sarah call him master, yes. She was adhering to the social norms of her times.

Almost every relationship in the bible is wrought with pain, suffering, conflict especially when not founded in Christ who came to redeem humanity in every area.

When God reveals his law to Israel on how they are to respond to each other. It is also counter cultural to the social norms of there day. Both male and female Israelites were called to the royal law. Love God and love others. Not only men. And not only woman but both.

Jesus is not born into a perfect world. But yet it is this very world he comes to redeem.

How he interacts with the woman at the well, shows us that He would transcend the boundaries of social norms to redeem, to the disbelief of his disciples. He is counter-cultural. His interaction with the woman caught in adultery speaks volumes of his concern for how woman are treated. For the law of Moses was to both parties transgressing the marriage covenant.

But what is interesting is that when asked about divorce. Jesus points back to Genesis 1 as the ideal. Not Moses law, for it was allowed due to the unforgiving nature of humanity. But it was never the ideal.

Jesus redeems both male and female to mutual service and submission, to lay down there lives for the other. Both are called to do as He did.

 

[tall73]

Every time I think we are going to talk about the text, we wind up back at your view of inspiration. Because now, you are not only saying that Paul may be spiritually abusing the recipients of Scripture, but that only a selection of things is actually true or accurate, when before you indicated you accept Scripture as inspired.

I would respond that while this is part of the canon of inspired Scripture, we need to read critically.

I would appreciate it if you would stop asking me if particular verses are inspired, as if that is in question.

I am arguing in good faith, accepting the inspiration of Scripture and its usefulness for teaching, correction, training in righteousness, etc.

There are definitely times when the way Paul expresses himself would be... suspect... by today's professional standards. He can be downright manipulative at times. At the very least, we cannot always look at the way he writes, and take that as a model for church leadership today.

Alright, let's ask this then. Was it abuse when Paul wrote it to his audience?

We can't know. I think there are other examples in his letters that are more obviously problematic.

My view of inspiration isn't that the Holy Spirit dictated every choice of word and rhetorical device. In fact, I'm pretty sure He didn't. Paul can get doctrine right but still express himself poorly.

Now you have said that the Holy Spirit inspires correct DOCTRINE, but the expression may be human. If Paul is laying out statements about submitting in theological terms, then that is doctrine, not just cultural concession, and not even necessitated by culture.

By doctrine, my tradition means those things which pertain to salvation. Not to every theologically laden idea.

So which verses of Ephesians 5-6 do you see as inspired? Which verses do you see in Ephesians 5-6 that are accurate and true?

And what exactly do you mean by inspired if it could still just be Paul writing a letter to some people, and occasionally spiritually abusing them in your view, except for the parts dealing with salvation?

 

[Paidiske]

Because now, you are not only saying that Paul may be spiritually abusing the recipients of Scripture, but that only a selection of things is actually true or accurate, when before you indicated you accept Scripture as inspired.

Inspired is not the same as inerrant.

So which verses of Ephesians 5-6 do you see as inspired?

All of them.

Which verses do you see in Ephesians 5-6 that are accurate and true?

This isn't a helpful question, from where I'm standing. It's not, "which verses are true," but, "what is the truth opened up by these verses"?

And what exactly do you mean by inspired if it could still just be Paul writing a letter to some people, and occasionally spiritually abusing them in your view, except for the parts dealing with salvation?

I hold to a classic Anglican position that Scripture tells us everything we need to know for salvation. Beyond that, in my own more personal understanding, that Scripture is inspired means that God has spoken and is speaking to us through these texts. But it doesn't impose a particular way of reading or understanding or encountering the truth of God in those texts.

 

[tall73]

Inspired is not the same as inerrant.

So which verses in Ephesians 5-6 did the Holy Spirit inspire, but Paul flubbed by his spiritually abusive views, in your position?

All of them.

So the verse about the wife submitting to the husband in everything, as the church does to Christ, that is inspired?

Or is that just Paul spiritually abusing in your view?

This isn't a helpful question, from where I'm standing. It's not, "which verses are true," but, "what is the truth opened up by these verses"?

But you reject out of hand anything said that doesn't match your notion of truth, and ascribe it to Paul spiritually abusing.

Beyond that, in my own more personal understanding, that Scripture is inspired means that God has spoken and is speaking to us through these texts. But it doesn't impose a particular way of reading or understanding or encountering the truth of God in those texts.

So there is no actual truthful reading of most of the text that God intended in your personal view?

 

[Paidiske]

So which verses in Ephesians 5-6 did the Holy Spirit inspire, but Paul flubbed by his spiritually abusive views, in your position?

Again, this is not at all how I see it, and is a really unhelpful question.

So the verse about the wife submitting to the husband in everything, as the church does to Christ, that is inspired?

Yes.

Or is that just Paul spiritually abusing in your view?

I have been very careful not to say that Paul was spiritually abusive.

But you reject out of hand anything said that doesn't match your notion of truth,

No. I have a very robust, coherent, canonical hermeneutic, and a view of what is "truth" in these matters that takes in to account Scripture, tradition, the best of our secular academic disciplines, and lived experience. I've developed that over a long time and changed my mind on various aspects of it many times. It's not rejecting out of hand a foreign idea, but I'm long past having patience with cherry picking a verse or two and building a theological anthropology on that basis, especially when that theological anthropology is demonstrably harmful.

So there is no actual truthful reading of most of the text that God intended in your personal view?

One single reading? No. That would be incredibly reductive and simplistic.

 

[tall73]

Hi tall73

I know this would be digressing, but I would love to here your thoughts on this?. As this very passage was used by some Christian preachers to justify the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Romans 13:1-5​

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. (NKJV)​

• The text indicates that governing authorities are ordained of God
• The authority given to them is limited to a particular sphere, of punishing the wrong doer and commending those who do well.
• Those who resist the authorities in this role of punishing the wrong doer and commending those who do well are resisting the ordinance of God.

The limits inherent in this then are

• It is delegated authority from God and does not trump His instructions
• It is limited to the moral realm

So we see that the apostles often did resist authority when it overstepped its bounds, going against what God said.

This is seen in Acts 4, for instance, when Peter and John state that they cannot listen to the sanhedrin instead of God:

Acts 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)​

In the case of apartheid, there is certainly no warrant for such in Scripture. And it is based on a false premise:

Acts 17:26-27 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us (NKJV)​

God made of one blood every nation of men.

 

[tall73]

I have been very careful not to say that Paul was spiritually abusive.

By saying we can't be sure if he did in Romans 13, but that there are many that are worse?

Alright, let's ask this then. Was it abuse when Paul wrote it to his audience?

We can't know. I think there are other examples in his letters that are more obviously problematic.

Why do you have to be careful? Is there some fine line? Did Paul spiritually abuse his hearers in any part of Scripture, in your view? Yes or no is fine.

And if he did, in your view, do you think the Spirit inspired that part as well?

 

[Paidiske]

By saying we can't be sure if he did in Romans 13, but that there are many that are worse?

There are other passages that stand out more as potentially manipulative or coercive. Even then I wouldn't say it was outright abusive, given we only have the text to go by, and know nothing else of the relationship between the writer and recipients.

Why do you have to be careful? Is there some fine line? Did Paul spiritually abuse his hearers in any part of Scripture, in your view? Yes or no is fine.

I am saying that there are some places where his text certainly could be taken that way, but at this distance it's a judgement call we can't make.

And if he did, in your view, do you thin the Spirit inspired that part as well?

Why do you keep asking me this? I have made it clear. All Scripture is inspired.