Does Submit = Obey?

[Why?]

Marriage is a partnership, not an ownership.

My husband is the bread-winner right now as I raise our child. That was MY decision, not his. He'd rather have me working. We talked about it and agreed that I would go back to work when our child went to school full-time. We make all of our decisions together.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

My official answer is "Yes, but", because if I just said yes, some people would skim my post

Yes, submission ultimately leads to obedience in the situation where the husband and wife do not agree. Even if she doesn't think it's the wise choice, the wife should follow her husband's leadership. But, this needs to be taken in the context of the Christian marriage. Husbands need to honor their wives and respect them. When a decision needs to be made, if the two disagree at the start, they need to discuss why and come to a mutual conclusion. In the rare situation, ideally that never happens, when they just cannot find common ground, the wife should follow the husband's decision.

On the other hand, this is easily classified as a "gray area," which I'd say is covered by Romans 14. God convicts my fiance and I as I described above... he could convict another couple in another way. It's only my place to deal with my own walk and convictions

 

[Svt4Him]

Actually, I am not talking about two different types of authority. Because the same sentence in the Bible that tells us to submit to one another (mutual submission), infers that wives submit (Ephesians 5). The passage doesn’t even say “wives submit”, but we know this meaning is intended because the grammatical structure into which the phrase “wives to their husbands” indicates that it is referring to the word submit (in the context of mutual submission) at the beginning of the sentence. The passage tells us to submit to one another, and for wives to do so as well (in the same sentence). Same sentence, same submission. I think it would a huge leap to say that the kind of submission required of a wife is different from mutual submission since the two statements are in the same sentence and the wife part only an extension of the mutual.

Where do we get this idea that the husband exclusive authority over the wife? I can recall the Bible telling us that the husband and wife have authority over each other. If the wife also has authority over the husband, then the whole government hierarchy illustration simply doesn’t work. Since they have mutual authority over each other, and they mutually submit, each should be willing to give themselves to the other - not this one leads, one obeys business.

There are many, not just the one. The link is good, and provides a few verses.

Wasn't there a 52657986654 page thread on this not too long ago?

 

[bliz]

Some folks may not like the idea that much, but in Genesis, God wasn't fooling around when he said that Man would RULE over Woman.

Ah, and as far as definitions go, yes it looks to be that submit does mean to obey, no matter anyone else's personal views on how they want to see it.

Yes, in Genesis 3:16 God does say that the husband will rule over wife. It was part of the consequences of The Fall. After Adam and Eve sinned, God changed the rules. Childbirth is going be far more painful, getting food to eat now requires toil, the ground will produce thorns and thistles and wives will desire their husbands and their husbands will rule over them. These are the result of The Fall, not part of God's original plan for the earth and for the people He had created.

Through history, some Christians have tried to force us to live under the conditions of The Fall. For example, for a long time it was considered a serious sin to attempt to ease a woman's pain during childbirth. Poor Eufame MacLayne in 16th centurary Scotland was punished for taking a pain reducing herb during a difficult labor with twins. She and babies survived, but they took the babies from her arms and burned her at the stake becasue use of the herb was "against God's law."

I believe the people in Eufame's town mistook God's statement of punishment for a statement of God's law. Imagine if when you were a kid you told others that your parent's punishment of you was how things always were in your homes. "I'm not allowed to go outside." "My Mom won't let me play with my brother." "I have to stay in my room all the time." Such statement are not an accurate picture of how your parent's structured your home life or how they want it to normally be.

If, based on Genesis we are going to accept that husbands will rule over wives, we must not allow anyone to take any steps to minimize pain during childbirth. And we should not try and kill thistles and thorns or use any labor saving devices during the producation of food. The conditions of The Fall are not what God wanted for us but a consequence of sin. The death of Jesus provided a way to free us from the consequences of sin. How can we, after such a great sacrifice, choose to turn back and live under the consequences of sin again?

 

[jazzbird]

If submit and obey are exactly the same thing, how come a distinction is made between what wives are to do and what children are to do?

Colossians 3:18-20 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

Wasn't there a 52657986654 page thread on this not too long ago?

I must have missed that. I'll have to look into it. Don't mean to rehash things that have already been discussed.

 

[jazzbird]

Ah, yes. There was a 20 page thread this spring on why wives must submit. I guess my question isn't so much why we are to submit, but whether we are to obey. I just see a difference between these words, but perhaps it is an unimportant nuance. I understand how a Godly marriage should function - at least I think I do. I don't mean to nit-pick.

 

[Leanna]

Well I'm glad that I am not the only one who isn't convinced on the woman obey husband statement.

I would like to add that if the husband is loving his wife as Christ loved the church, he would give in on a lot of those unimportant decisions that makes the wife happy. Like decisions about paint. (Yes, I am still on the paint issue)

Also there is such a thing as Positional Leadership. If you work at a place and you follow your boss simply because he is hired at that position, then all he has is positional leadership. If you follow him because of his position as well as your respect for him as a leader then he is doing a much better job as a boss. If a husband is waving his supposed positional leadership around in his wife's face, he must not have very good leadership skills.

 

[Cordy]

If submit and obey are exactly the same thing, how come a distinction is made between what wives are to do and what children are to do?

Colossians 3:18-20 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

Good point, Jazzbird. That is very observant of you.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Well I'm glad that I am not the only one who isn't convinced on the woman obey husband statement.

I would like to add that if the husband is loving his wife as Christ loved the church, he would give in on a lot of those unimportant decisions that makes the wife happy. Like decisions about paint. (Yes, I am still on the paint issue)

Also there is such a thing as Positional Leadership. If you work at a place and you follow your boss simply because he is hired at that position, then all he has is positional leadership. If you follow him because of his position as well as your respect for him as a leader then he is doing a much better job as a boss. If a husband is waving his supposed positional leadership around in his wife's face, he must not have very good leadership skills.

That's why I said that the situation where the wife should back down and obey what the husband says should be rare and ideally never happen

 

[alaskamolly]

I'll answer the question!


The difference between a wife's obedience and a child's is that a child is MADE to obey. Force is used, if necessary, to make a child obey. He/she doesn't get a choice in the matter--Example:

Dad says, "Do not run out in the street."

Child: "But I'm going to. To bad, sucker!"

Dad (*now sitting on child*): "Sorry, pal, but you're not going to run out into the street."



The main difference there is that a wife CHOOSES her position and CHOOSES her response, unlike a child.

Another huge difference is that a child is immature, whereas the woman is an adult. The relationship is not master/servant, but husband/wife, meaning the obedience given is not that of a servant who must obey or be beaten, but that of a beloved helpmate who desires to see her husband's goals come to fruition. She serves him willingly, "as unto the Lord," and he loves her willingly, "as Christ loved His bride."




Hupatasso, the Greek word for submit in Ephesians and Colossians, makes all the difference. It's a military term, as others have brought out, that means RANK ORDER. It does NOT mean 'worth order,' because men and women are WORTH the same to God. (1 Cor. 11 :11 is clear on that).

Scholars are clear that this word is rarely seen outside of ancient military documents, making it even more apparent that Paul chose to use this word on purpose, to illustrate his point.

Just as a sargeant submits to the rank of a general (not because the general has a better personality, or is a human of greater worth, but simply because of the stars on his uniform), so a wife submits not to the person of her husband, but to his rank--the rank given by GOD.


Point: this fact is abused, no doubt about it. Husbands have assumed leadership over their wives in a spirit of oppression, and it's done terrible damage. But equally damaging has been the husband who abdicates leadership altogether.

Let's face it. Humans are fallen and sinful, and the only way the marraige relationship is going to be beautiful is when it is powered by GOD Himself, living in the husband and wife, and expressing Himself through them.

The fact that authority has and can be abused in no way negates the command God gave to husbands and wives. Everything and anything can go wrong when we humans touch it, but that doesn't mean we throw it all out the window.

He knows (better than we do!) what we need, and sometimes, as one sinner sang, you don't get what you want, "but you get what you need." I'd rather be found obeying God than be fighting against Him, personally... It's much smarter!!! Heeheehee...




My 2 Pennies!
Love in Him,
Molly

 

[jazzbird]

Thanks Molly. I like that distinction that you make. I think that is what was bothering me about the word obedience. I still don't know that I see a wife's role as obedience as much as submission, but I agree with what you said about the roles of the family. Do you think there is a distinction between the definition of obedience and submission, or do you see them as the same word?

 

[wonder111]

this is the best interpretation i've read

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/130/story_13009_1.html

 

[wonder111]

obey and submit are not the same words, if that were true, than both would have to obey eachother....(submit yourselves to one another)

plus the important thing to remember is that Christ said he lowered himself to servant level as a leader, he said instead of being served at the table, he was serving the others. If all Christians do this to one another, there would never be any problems

 

[herev]

Wives are told to submit to their husbands, as husbands are the head of the household.

Does this mean that wives are to obey their husbands?
​

Not in my house!!!

 

[Jenna]

Awesome post, Molly.

 

[desi]

Yes, submt means to defer to and obey. Its a simple concept some people won't 'get' their whole lives.

 

[LiberatedChick]

Good post Molly.

I think the main problem people have with the word obedience is that it sparks up images of slavery or mindless agreement. If I was playing a word association game and the person before me said "obedient" I know the first thing that would spring to my mind is an image of a little puppy dog obeying it's masters every command to do tricks etc. But that's not the way it should be when obedience is applied to a marriage...we're not expected to say "yes master", "sure master", "I'll do that right away master". Obedience does not make us slaves or nothing more than dogs who'd jump off a cliff if our owner told us to or anything else that's also negative. It just means that in the grand scheme of things God assigned husbands the role of leader.

 

[jazzbird]

Yes, submt means to defer to and obey. Its a simple concept some people won't 'get' their whole lives.

Well, it's not the concept of submitting that I don't get. So many people simply say "yes, submit and obey are the exact same thing," but where is the scriptural support that proves this assertion? Yes, I know that one of the definitions of Hupatasso is obey, but it is not the only definition, and I don't think it is the best.

I know I may just be splitting hairs, but it really bothers me when it comes to some marriages that are unhealthy due to an exageration of the husband's power in the home. The husband/wife relationship becomes one of parent/child, or something. Now, I know that we all agree that that is not what the marriage relationship is to be, but I think that it can be dangerous to make no distinction between the words submit and obey. Am I crazy?

 

[wonder111]

than I guess we all have to obey eachother

 

[Ruhama]

Husbands and wives are to put each other first with mutual submission, not only putting each other's needs first but their wants too a lot of the time. The husband is to lead and in situations where the two cannot agree, he is given the tie breaking vote.

This is how I view it. I know that at least for my husband it is a huge boon to his self esteem to have a strong willed wife who nevertheless submits to his judgment. Not saying I always succeed at that but I try. Usually we can reach a good compromise and that makes me happy.

However I wanted to add something, in reply to Jenna's post earlier on. When God said the Man would rule over the woman, that was a prediction not a command, and it was part of the list of curses he pronounced after the Fall.

So I do not take that as the ideal nor God's will, rather the original blessing in the garden of an Ezer ke-negdo: an equal partner-helper. (If someone quarrels that helper means unequal, consider that God is usually the one referred to as Ezer.)

That is my view on things.