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

[Paidiske]

I was asking if Jesus did, or did not, practice mutual submission.

It might be helpful to read the edited bit I added into that last post, because I was having difficulty articulating what I meant.

But I would say that in his human life, Jesus modelled aspects of mutual submission, but that as God, the whole concept really just is kind of a category error.

 

[tall73]

I mean, there's a fundamental asymmetry in that relationship of creator and creature that can never really be mutual in the way a relationship between two people can. But part of what Christ modelled for us is not exploiting that asymmetry.

It might be helpful to read the edited bit I added into that last post, because I was having difficulty articulating what I meant.

But I would say that in his human life, Jesus modelled aspects of mutual submission, but that as God, the whole concept really just is kind of a category error.

He was God while on earth, though, correct? And He practiced mutual submission, despite being Master, Lord, Christ?

If you say He modeled aspects of mutual submission, then mutual submission is a mindset that can be shown by even the highest authority, to those of the lowest status.

Can you show the same type of self-sacrificing love to your child, though there is an inherent power balance? I would say yes.

Doesn't Galatians 5 describe mutual submission, just in slightly different terms?

Galatians 5:13​

13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (NKJV)​

Jesus came to serve, by His own words:

Mark 10:42-45​

42 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. 44 And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (NKJV)​

I would say that is mutual submission. It is serving one another in love, with the highest possible authority, exceeding all others, as the example.

He says let that mind be in you...

Philippians 2:1-8​

1 Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.​

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. (NKJV)​

 

[tall73]

This is why I say that sometimes a parent, a church leader, or whatever, needs to act in a way which is not mutual submission. Even if it's in the best interests of the other (or of the church community as a whole), and necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the parental or leadership role, by virtue of the fact that it is a one-sided exercise of power, it is not mutual submission.

An individual act, yes. But they can practice mutual submission in some of their acts, nonetheless, correct?

 

[Paidiske]

He was God while on earth, though, correct? And He practiced mutual submission, despite being Master, Lord, Christ?

We're talking about God; our very existence is only because God wills it and sustains it. You can't talk about mutual submission in that kind of situation.

If you say He modeled aspects of mutual submission, then mutual submission is a mindset that can be shown by even the highest authority, to those of the lowest status.

I mean that he did things like wash his disciples' feet in order to show them how to relate to one another.

Can you show the same type of self-sacrificing love to your child, though there is an inherent power balance? I would say yes.

But what I cannot do, is insist that my child go to bed on time, or brushes her teeth, or whatever, even when she doesn't want to, and call that "mutual submission." It is not.

I would say that is mutual submission. It is serving one another in love,

No, submission goes beyond love, even beyond service. There is an inherent power exchange in it. Now, when I give up my power for your sake, and you give up your power for my sake, it can still be mutual. But if only one gives up power, but the other retains power over the other, (even if being as loving and as serving as he can within that), that is not mutual submission.

An individual act, yes. But they can practice mutual submission in some of their acts, nonetheless, correct?

Yes, but that is why I said we needed to be very clear about roles. Because sometimes the role will require stepping away from mutual submission.

 

[tall73]

We're talking about God; our very existence is only because God wills it and sustains it. You can't talk about mutual submission in that kind of situation.

Ok, so Jesus is not our example in mutual submission?

No, submission goes beyond love, even beyond service. There is an inherent power exchange in it. Now, when I give up my power for your sake, and you give up your power for my sake, it can still be mutual. But if only one gives up power, but the other retains power over the other, (even if being as loving and as serving as he can within that), that is not mutual submission.

So Jesus is not our example of mutual submission? By these definitions, He couldn't be.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok, so Jesus is not our example in mutual submission?

So Jesus is not our example of mutual submission? By these definitions, He couldn't be.

In his human life, in how he modelled being with others, I think he can be. As God, even though we worship a God who emptied himself into a human form and went to the cross for our sake, the notion is ridiculous. The creator cannot order himself under the power/authority of the creature.

 

[tall73]

In his human life, in how he modelled being with others, I think he can be.

So let's take a concrete example of this. Jesus, at 12 years old, having just taught and asked questions of the teachers in Jerusalem, submitted to his parents, as the commandment indicates, correct?

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)​

​

Luke 2:51 51 Καὶ κατέβη μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ναζαρέτ· καὶ ἦν ὑποτασσόμενος αὐτοῖς. Καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ διετήρει πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς. (Greek NT: Byzantine Greek Unparsed Text)​

 

[Paidiske]

So let's take a concrete example of this. Jesus, at 12 years old, having just taught and asked questions of the teachers in Jerusalem, submitted to his parents, as the commandment indicates, correct?

Sure.

 

[tall73]

Sure.

And Jesus, while submitting to His parents, did not in fact become less than Divine while doing so, correct?

He placed Himself under submission. He yielded to authority.

 

[Paidiske]

And Jesus, while submitting to His parents, did not in fact become less than Divine while doing so, correct?

He placed Himself under submission. He yielded to authority.

But that's exactly what I said. In his human life, Jesus modelled mutual submission in his human relationships.

But it's not as if the Creator of the universe actually submitted His full being to humanity. That's... an ontological impossibility.

I don't really know why it matters, anyway. My point is that "submission" involves power exchange. This is the problem with one-sided submission in marriage. It permanently and systematically disempowers the wife.

 

[tall73]

No, submission goes beyond love, even beyond service. There is an inherent power exchange in it. Now, when I give up my power for your sake, and you give up your power for my sake, it can still be mutual. But if only one gives up power, but the other retains power over the other, (even if being as loving and as serving as he can within that), that is not mutual submission.

Yes, but that is why I said we needed to be very clear about roles. Because sometimes the role will require stepping away from mutual submission.

I think this is one of the problems I am having with how you have articulated your view.

I am seeing submit to one another as equivalent to serving one another, as equivalent to not seeing others as better than yourselves, as equivalent with looking out for the interests of others, as equivalent with self-sacrificing love that lays down one's life for a friend,. These are all concepts that are, at base level, saying putting others ahead of yourself.

These are by definition actions. Or at least, they don't have meaning until they are put into actions.

Your idea of "mutual submission" that views it in terms of a relationship, rather than actions, means that you have an impossibility, and not submission at all.

If you are both equal, and acting as equal, no one is submitting to anyone. You are both equal. There is no submission.

On the other hand, if mutual submission is having that same mind that Christ had, being in very nature God, but yet serving others, putting them first, even submitting to His own creatures, such as His parents, dying on the cross for His creatures, then that is actual submission, placing yourself in a station below the other for a moment, to serve, and it is possible throughout every relationship, no matter how different in power.

 

[Paidiske]

I am seeing submit to one another as equivalent to serving one another, as equivalent to not seeing others as better than yourselves, as equivalent with looking out for the interests of others, as equivalent with self-sacrificing love that lays down one's life for a friend,. These are all concepts that are, at base level, saying putting others ahead of yourself.

These are by definition actions.

Your idea of "mutual submission" that views it in terms of a relationship, rather than actions, means that you have an impossibility, and not submission at all.

If you are both equal, and acting as equal, no one is submitting to anyone. You are both equal. There is no submission.

On the other hand, if mutual submission is having that same mind that Christ had, being in very nature God, but yet serving others, putting them first, even submitting to His own creatures, then that is actual submission, and it is possible throughout every relationship, no matter how different in power.

Okay, let me see if I can put it this way.

You can serve someone, see them as your equal, look out for their interests, love them... and not "submit" to them. Submission isn't in the service, the equality, the loving; it is in ordering your will, your actions, your priorities, in line with their will. We submit to God by doing what God would have us do. We submit to an employer by doing what the employer would have us do.

So, we come to the first century church, which exists in an environment where the submission of wives to husbands is a given. He has the legal right to force her to submit, even to the point of killing her if he wishes. And what do the apostles say? Well, sure, husbands, you have the right, but set it aside. Find out what's important to your wife. Her needs, her wishes, her hopes and dreams, her vocation and gifting (whatever), and use your power to further them, in love and mutuality and equality. And they say to the wives, look, legally you're subject to him. So from that position, don't undermine, manipulate, seek outside influence, or whatever. Use what resources you have to do good to your husband and serve his agenda. The two of you are one flesh, so seek unity and be "one" in all things.

If both of you are seeking to understand and further the will, the needs, the wishes, the hopes and dreams, the vocations and giftings, of the other, to make a unified whole of the best of both of you, you become a team that's greater than the sum of its parts. That's mutual submission. But one-sided submission says he sets the agenda, (sure, in love and service he might consider her needs and desires, but it's not like she can really do anything if he doesn't) and she has to serve it.

You can be equal and never submit to the other, sure (although I'd think that would make marriage difficult). But you can be equal and submit to one another by each choosing to make the needs and wishes etc. of the other an ordering principle in your own decision making.

 

[tall73]

Okay, let me see if I can put it this way.

You can serve someone, see them as your equal, look out for their interests, love them... and not "submit" to them. Submission isn't in the service, the equality, the loving; it is in ordering your will, your actions, your priorities, in line with their will. We submit to God by doing what God would have us do. We submit to an employer by doing what the employer would have us do.

Yes, in fact, after I typed that I was about to refine it to say that to submit is to yield to the will of another. That specific act may spring from the other motivations listed, so they would not be equivalent.

So that is a fair critique.

 

[tall73]

So, we come to the first century church, which exists in an environment where the submission of wives to husbands is a given. He has the legal right to force her to submit, even to the point of killing her if he wishes. And what do the apostles say? Well, sure, husbands, you have the right, but set it aside.

Yes. He can yield his will to the will of the spouse, in specific acts for her good.

But you can be equal and submit to one another by each choosing to make the needs and wishes etc. of the other an ordering principle in your own decision making.

And you can be higher than the other party, and still yield as well, as we just said in the case of Christ yielding to His parents. So a higher role on the part of one does not rule out submitting to one another in love.

And here is the issue. Paul argued that the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church. If Christ is the example, and He yielded, without becoming anything other than what He was, then so can the husband.

Paul doesn't argue against headship. He argues against improper use of headship. And He says to follow the example of the Head of the Church, when He laid down His life for the church.

That is a theological argument, based on the Headship, and example, of Christ. He is not just alluding to a Roman concept. Because the Romans had no concept of following the example of Christ.

He says that the husband is head. And then he tells the husband what real Headship looks like, in the example of Christ.

 

[Paidiske]

So a higher role on the part of one does not rule out submitting to one another in love.

But I still come back to, what is the role distinction you're arguing for? I really have no idea, at this point, what you think the "role" of a husband is, if you agree that he is to submit to his wife, as she is to submit to him. What does being "head" entail in practical terms, if it's not ruling power?

 

[tall73]

Now that we have an idea of what submission entails, a yielding to the will of the other, in this case, willingly, for their good, I will move on to roles shortly. I had hoped to quite some time ago, but it made more sense to discuss differences on the submission aspect.

With our current definition we have a number of examples where in the parent/child relationship we see yielding. Parents go places, do activities, etc. that they may not prefer all the time for their child. And children certainly may not wish to do all that their parents indicate, but they yield, often willingly, to do so, even in roles of very different authority.

 

[Rose_bud]

But I still come back to, what is the role distinction you're arguing for? I really have no idea, at this point, what you think the "role" of a husband is, if you agree that he is to submit to his wife, as she is to submit to him. What does being "head" entail in practical terms, if it's not ruling power?

This is why I decided to rest my case. We went in circles, but never beyond this point.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Now that we have an idea of what submission entails, a yielding to the will of the other, in this case, willingly, for their good, I will move on to roles shortly. I had hoped to quite some time ago, but it made more sense to discuss differences on the submission aspect.

With our current definition we have a number of examples where in the parent/child relationship we see yielding. Parents go places, do activities, etc. that they may not prefer all the time for their child. And children certainly may not wish to do all that their parents indicate, but they yield, often willingly, to do so, even in roles of very different authority.

I watch your discussion and see that the conversation is about the form of relationships (subordination), but the motives for this submission are not discussed. You can obey out of fear of punishment, or you can obey out of love. You can lead out of lust for power, or you can also lead out of love (in the interests of the person being led, and not just in your own interests).

Imagine a situation where an academic supervisor at a college or university says that I will not supervise a student because then I must exercise power, and I do not want that. Will he help the student or harm him? Of course it will do harm. He will also do harm when he says: prepare for your thesis defense as you wish, I allow you to do everything!

Or Christ says to the apostle: go, catch a fish, take a valuable coin out of its mouth and pay the tax for yourself and for me. And the disciple says to Christ: why are you commanding me? Go and catch some fish yourself! Why should I do this?

In the first case, the supervisor has no sympathy for the student: he does not care whether the student receives a diploma or not. And in the second case (if a disciple of Christ said so), it would mean that the student has no love for the teacher, because there is no respect (there is no love without respect).

 

[ValeriyK2022]

If the husband leads the family not in his own interests, but based on the interests of the whole family, and the wife does not want to obey him, then there are 2 options: 1) he does this out of lust for power and then, perhaps, the wife is right; 2) he does it out of love, and his wife, out of pride, does not want to obey.

Like Eve in Paradise: God said not to eat the apple, but she did. Adam was not obliged to obey his wife in this case (one must obey God more than man) and out of love he had to be persistent (himsrlf does not eat and restrain his wife).

 

[tall73]

I watch your discussion and see that the conversation is about the form of relationships (subordination), but the motives for this submission are not discussed.

Yes, it has taken this long to come to some agreement that mutual submission is possible between people when one has a role with higher authority. The motives relate to the roles. By all means, carry on the conversation. I will join in when I can.