General v. Specific Submission--Submission in Marriage

[Johnnz]

JohnNZ,

I don't have time to look it up and put a lot of work into it now, but I know I've seen theological discussions of types of hierarchy that are not seen in the Trinity. On the one hand, Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God. In the sense referred to here, there is equality.

But we also see Christ submitting to the Father's will. God will have Christ reign UNTIL He puts all things, except Himself, under Christ's feet, but Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God that God may be all in all. We also see Christ saying, "My Father is greater than I." So we do see a Headship and submission relationship between Christ and the Father. So when we talk about hierarchy in the Trinity, let's not talk apples and oranges.

Jesus did say that, but as the Son of man, as Jesus the Son who learned obedience, who did only what he saw the Father doing. As the only true fully human being, what Adam was meant to become, the last Adam showed us what a human being, fully dependant on Father, would be like. As the eternal Son Jesus always remained co-equal (I and my Father are one (John 10:30), God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:19), if you have seen me you have seen the Father (John 14:9). These Scriptures cannot be fitted into any hierarchical model.

John
NZ

 

[mkgal1]

To me.....trying to see it as a heriarchical arrangement, the beauty of restoration of all things holy and pure through Christ is lost.

 

[LinkH]

Jesus did say that, but as the Son of man, as Jesus the Son who learned obedience, who did only what he saw the Father doing. As the only true fully human being, what Adam was meant to become, the last Adam showed us what a human being, fully dependant on Father, would be like. As the eternal Son Jesus always remained co-equal (I and my Father are one (John 10:30), God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:19), if you have seen me you have seen the Father (John 14:9). These Scriptures cannot be fitted into any hierarchical model.

John
NZ

Do you believe in one or two natures of Christ? I can think of two major schisms over the issue.

 

[Johnnz]

Mkgal1

Just another thought. Greek culture is more collectivist than a lot of other European cultures. Collectivists tend to think in terms of sacrificing their own desires for their in-group. I would imagine the low divorce rate is self-enforcing, as society doesn't look favorably on divorce and that influences people's thinking and options they will consider. Also, putting the family before the self may be another aspect.

Our individualism is far more destructive of marriage,and of church life too, than is often recognised. Look at the likely scenario in Ephesus.

There was no printing press. Paul's letter would be read aloud to everyone present in their small group(s). Most likely at least some of the groups met is the larger home of a better off person, who would host the gathering. The main host and one with total authority over everyone there, including slaves, other married family members, associated artisans and traders, and any children was the male host, the pater familias.

As Paul's letter was read they all would have noted 'submit to one another'. Wow! Even pater f was to do that. Wives were to relate (submit) to their own husbands rather than being under the control of pater f. That was going to take some working our for both parties.

Each husband was to care for his own wife, with a new devotion and care. Pater f was no longer to simply decide to sell any of his slaves so that families were broken up. Marriage was to be respected, (love your own wives) and sex with whomsoever pater f wanted for himself, his sons or his guests could no longer be part of normal life (let the marriage bed be undefiled, flee fornication).

Most people lived out their lives in very open relationship, without modern privacy. A less than Christlike husband could now expect rebuke from any one else present (admonish one another). Life was very corporate.

We read Paul's words in Ephesians from within our own culture. But Paul was radically undoing cultural norms within a very public social setting that required a great amount of rethinking. There just wasn't anything like the modern 'romantic ideal' behind Paul's writings, just very hard realilty.

John
NZ

 

[mkgal1]

Mkgal1 posted from an Orthodox site


Where is the part about not believing in hierarchy in marriage? This quote has to do with the mystery of unity in diversity, not hierarchy. Why don't you look up 'submission marriage Greek orthodox' or 'Russion Orthodox' to get a detailed view of this specific issue.

Do you have any other evidence that they don't believe in hierarchy in marriage.

Just another thought. Greek culture is more collectivist than a lot of other European cultures. Collectivists tend to think in terms of sacrificing their own desires for their in-group. I would imagine the low divorce rate is self-enforcing, as society doesn't look favorably on divorce and that influences people's thinking and options they will consider. Also, putting the family before the self may be another aspect.

I would imagine that Russian Orthodox may be a bit more serious about their faith than some other people in national type churches, since a few generations back it was really tough to be a Christian or go to church. That may influence their decisions about divorce.

I posted earlier what the beliefs were on marriage, maybe you missed that post.

I don't think the low divorce rate is reflective of a "society that doesn't look favorable on divorce." As I posted earlier...divorce is not looked down on--the sin that breaks down the marriage is, but the goal is to restore the couple individually back to Christ (if there is a divorce). I'm speaking of Orthodox churches in the US, as that's all I know....and it seems to be comparing apples to apples that way as well. In several large churches that I know of.....there is only ONE couple that is known to have sought divorce--and they still attend church together as a family (I have been told ).

 

[Chaplain David]

That seems to be a strange to me, unless you were RCC or EO, and then it would be strange to refer to the other group. Paul refers to 'the church' for something broader than a local congregation. Is it the capital C you object to?

No, I just forgot to capitalize it. I do pretty well with capitalizations though usually always capitalizing He, Him, His when referring to God or Savior when referring to Jesus, etc. Although technically all protestants are part of "The Church," we are so split up in terms of doctrine and practices it's quite sad.

 

[Johnnz]

Do you believe in one or two natures of Christ? I can think of two major schisms over the issue.

I hold to Christ being both totally God and totally man, a mystery. But this is the standard belief of those who subscribe to the Nicene Creed and the teaching undergirding it by the early church fathers. The Nicene creed arose out of such a debate about the nature of Jesus. Arianism taught that Jesus was not pre-existent and subordinate to God. There are shades of that in the hierarchical model. Athanasius led the charge against that view.

John
NZ

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus was both fully man & fully God, this is why He would grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) yet know all things (John 21:17). He is the Divine Word that became flesh (John 1:1,14).

 

[Romanseight2005]

I don't think that John was saying that falleness is a male or female thing though. He was saying that fallenness manifests itself in males in a certain way, which I entirely agree with. What I didn't agree with was his thought that the problem is that those typically male manifestations of fallenness are not understood.

The idea that fallenness manifests itself in males and females differently is, to me, and interesting one that I'm going to start another thread on in a little bit.

So what are you saying? Only men can sin with lust, and only women can be decieved? Or even, are you saying that women will be decieved more of the time than men, etc?

 

[chaz345]

So what are you saying? Only men can sin with lust, and only women can be decieved? Or even, are you saying that women will be decieved more of the time than men, etc?

Nope, there was no only anywhere. Nothing at all to suggest that there's any particular sin that is exclusive to one gender or the other. But the differences in how the two genders function mean that the tendency is there for one to sin more in some ways and the other to sin more in others. Johnnz mentioned that fallenness manifests itself in males and mentioned two or three things which yes I do believe that while not exclusive to males, are definitley more common in them.

 

[Johnnz]

Nope, there was no only anywhere. Nothing at all to suggest that there's any particular sin that is exclusive to one gender or the other. But the differences in how the two genders function mean that the tendency is there for one to sin more in some ways and the other to sin more in others. Johnnz mentioned that fallenness manifests itself in males and mentioned two or three things which yes I do believe that while not exclusive to males, are definitley more common in them.

I mentioned those issues as I saw them being relevant to the head=boss topic. They are areas where men, being in control, have exhibited their misuse.

Either gender can manifest any kind of fallen behaviours. How they do that may be limited of encouraged by social custom, but "all have sinned".

John
NZ

 

[LinkH]

As Paul's letter was read they all would have noted 'submit to one another'. Wow! Even pater f was to do that. Wives were to relate (submit) to their own husbands rather than being under the control of pater f. That was going to take some working our for both parties.

I've recently heard the interpretation of 'submit' as 'relating to' the husband rather than-- in the argument I heard-- the wife's former pater familias before getting married. It sounds rather far-fetched to take a very particular social issue at the time and assume Paul was referring to that. (Not that this is your line of thinking. I saw this in a YouTube video.)

But the 'soft' interpretation of 'submit' doesn't seem to hold up in context. If the pater familias was to be in mutual submission, and submission just refers to relating with, that isn't that shocking. I Peter gives 'as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord' as an example of submission, showing a connection between submission and obedience.

Prior to Christianity, wives may have been expected to submit to their husbands and both submit to whoever headed up the household.

We read Paul's words in Ephesians from within our own culture. But Paul was radically undoing cultural norms within a very public social setting that required a great amount of rethinking. There just wasn't anything like the modern 'romantic ideal' behind Paul's writings, just very hard reality.

One of the issues we face in discussions like this was when these teachings were given that radically addressed social practices of the day, were the teachings right? Did they go far enough? If Paul's teachings attacked patterns in society, was he holding out on revelation for them, not being egalitarian or feminist enough? I get the feeling that some of the other posters feel that way. I certainly don't think so. I think he was sharing truth that applies to us today.

 

[Johnnz]

I've recently heard the interpretation of 'submit' as 'relating to' the husband rather than-- in the argument I heard-- the wife's former pater familias before getting married. It sounds rather far-fetched to take a very particular social issue at the time and assume Paul was referring to that. (Not that this is your line of thinking. I saw this in a YouTube video.)

But the 'soft' interpretation of 'submit' doesn't seem to hold up in context. If the pater familias was to be in mutual submission, and submission just refers to relating with, that isn't that shocking. I Peter gives 'as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord' as an example of submission, showing a connection between submission and obedience.

Prior to Christianity, wives may have been expected to submit to their husbands and both submit to whoever headed up the household.

One of the issues we face in discussions like this was when these teachings were given that radically addressed social practices of the day, were the teachings right? Did they go far enough? If Paul's teachings attacked patterns in society, was he holding out on revelation for them, not being egalitarian or feminist enough? I get the feeling that some of the other posters feel that way. I certainly don't think so. I think he was sharing truth that applies to us today.

Were the teachings right? Frankly, I'm not sure what you mean by that question. Was what Paul wrote there in Ephesians not inspired then? Many here seem to be stating very clearly that Paul was indeed right, wives submit to your husband as God demands, end of story according to Holy Writ.

I give background material as I don't see Paul writing from within a cultural vacuum, and that our own culture just does not easily comprehend the relevance of what Paul did state. I have attempted to suggest what some of those factors could be, so as to better understand how his biblical principles are relevant to us within our own cultural setting.

Paul lived within a society that was intensely religious, without any distinctions between the the religious and the state, literacy and education were very restricted to a favoured few, there was no democracy, no personal privacy we we know it, relationships were intensely interrelated and dependant on favour, life expectancy was short, medicine and doctors were unavailable for most, many had hearing, eyesight and skin problems due to lack of hygiene. To engage in manual work was the lowest of activities, that women were less human than men, and slaves were not real people at all.

Of course the truth applies to us today. But the issues is just what is that 'truth'. If we give that a meaning that neither Paul nor his readers had, we will err.

John
NZ

 

[dallasapple]

Were the teachings right? Frankly, I'm not sure what you mean by that question. Was what Paul wrote there in Ephesians not inspired then? Many here seem to be stating very clearly that Paul was indeed right, wives submit to your husband as God demands, end of story according to Holy Writ.

I give background material as I don't see Paul writing from within a cultural vacuum, and that our own culture just does not easily comprehend the relevance of what Paul did state. I have attempted to suggest what some of those factors could be, so as to better understand how his biblical principles are relevant to us within our own cultural setting.

Paul lived within a society that was intensely religious, without any distinctions between the the religious and the state, literacy and education were very restricted to a favoured few, there was no democracy, no personal privacy we we know it, relationships were intensely interrelated and dependant on favour, life expectancy was short, medicine and doctors were unavailable for most, many had hearing, eyesight and skin problems due to lack of hygiene. To engage in manual work was the lowest of activities, that women were less human than men, and slaves were not real people at all.

Of course the truth applies to us today. But the issues is just what is that 'truth'. If we give that a meaning that neither Paul nor his readers had, we will err.

John
NZ

BRAVO!...To PRETEND that the culture of that day ...has /had NO BEARING on the meaning of Pauls instructions to THEM in that day?That dont APPLY to us in THIS day or are DIFFERENT somehow..Is IMHO just plain ingorance..

Dallas

 

[LinkH]

JohnNZ

I am all for taking the cultural context into account to understand what is being written. It just seems like some people, (not pointing at you here) will assume "Paul only wrote that because of X in their culture." When we talk about egalitarianism, Paul still told wives to submit to their husbands. He didn't do this because he was influenced by his culture. He was teaching what was right. It was right for the Grecco-Romans, and it is right for us.

We are coming from a different mindset from Grecco-Romans. We err in bringing a kind of feminist egalitarian mindset from this culture into marriage. The Romans had a lot of authoritarian ideas, and like you pointed out, the head of the household could be someone other than the woman's husband. What we need to do is do what the New Testament teaches, whether we are coming from the situation the Grecco-Romans were in or some other situation we were in.

Btw, the Romans did have the idea of romantic love, but it may not always have been closely associated with marriage. I recall from a Greek myth that Eros/Cupid fell in love with the human female before he married her. (In the story, she was so beautiful, he pricked his finger with his own arrow while trying to shoot her.)

I am also skeptical when, lo and behold, some scholar or nonscholar discovers some new secret meaning of the original Greek which contradicts 1900 years of scholarship and the writings of people who spoke a dialect of Greek fairly close in time to the authors of the New Testament.

 

[chaz345]

I mentioned those issues as I saw them being relevant to the head=boss topic. They are areas where men, being in control, have exhibited their misuse.

Either gender can manifest any kind of fallen behaviours. How they do that may be limited of encouraged by social custom, but "all have sinned".

John
NZ

Yes all have sinned, and all equally "seriously". But I absolutely believe that there are some tendencies toward certain types of sin behavior that are gender related.

 

[dallasapple]

Paul still told wives to submit to their husbands. He didn't do this because he was influenced by his culture.

I dont believe this for one second..neither do many...the thing is if YOU believe it you should live it and be happy...

Dallas

 

[Johnnz]

BRAVO!...To PRETEND that the culture of that day ...has /had NO BEARING on the meaning of Pauls instructions to THEM in that day?That dont APPLY to us in THIS day or are DIFFERENT somehow..Is IMHO just plain ingorance..Dallas

This quote and LinkH's last comments I am all for taking the cultural context into account to understand what is being written. It just seems like some people, (not pointing at you here) will assume "Paul only wrote that because of X in their culture." When we talk about egalitarianism, Paul still told wives to submit to their husbands. He didn't do this because he was influenced by his culture. He was teaching what was right. It was right for the Grecco-Romans, and it is right for us. have clarified for me an important issue.

In arguing that the NT culture must be considered before drawing our conclusions from the texts I am not suggesting that what Paul wrote was merely cultural. But, without a proper understanding of what Paul actually was understood to have written to the Ephesian church (exegesis) we won't have an adequate application for us today (hermeneutics).

When Paul wrote "wives submit ..." we can't now say "Just delete that word. It's no longer appropriate". That is against the place most of us here place on the Scriptures, a relativism that we will reject.

However, we must not assume 20 centuries later that Paul's words do in fact have their modern connotations - all wives must always submit to their husbands as their 'head' 'leader' or similar. My argument here has been against that interpretation of Paul's words and intent. That is why I have introduced what I consider to be very relevant background material. 'Egalitarian' has many modern connotations. But as I understand Jesus and Paul there is now a new community living on earth, the beginning of Eden has begun, and the only true and lasting Kingdom is God's kingdom. We are to live as true citizens of this kingdom. In that kingdom there is no inequality, only the differences of each unique being. And, if there will be no marriage as we know it now when all is completed, then gender roles are redundant. Men will need to delete "home leader and spiritual head' from their CV's!

John
NZ

 

[LinkH]

I dont believe this for one second..neither do many...the thing is if YOU believe it you should live it and be happy...

Dallas

And that is what a called a low view of scripture.

 

[Conservativation]

I mentioned those issues as I saw them being relevant to the head=boss topic. They are areas where men, being in control, have exhibited their misuse.

Either gender can manifest any kind of fallen behaviours. How they do that may be limited of encouraged by social custom, but "all have sinned".

John
NZ

can manifest any kind of fallen behavior"


May I inquire what this post is about.

1.has not been asserted that NOT "either gender
2. that NOT "all have sinned"

I cannot figure out the utility of stating things, in rebuttal, that are not rebuttal of anything the person you have responded to has asserted. I see this all the time here, and cant figure it out.

It seems....SEEMS....that the poster is comfortable discussing the male tendency he outlined....however, chaz has deigned to bring balance....NOT imbalance, condemnation or accusation, rather perfect balance, and the mere suggestion of any kind of generally female sin has this poster in defensive posture.

Why did you not qualify these male issues as "social custom"? Or are they true innate tendencies that manifest when men are in control, and you are uncomfortable with the idea that women are equally fallen? Can you see the anti-male and out of balance proposition you make here?

Frankly I do not believe its social custom, but in this case, its irrelevant where it originates. So lets set that aside.

Lets take it one issue at a time

regardless if its social custom, it can be said that sex seems to manifest in sin more for men ....are you comfortable so far? I suspect so

Now

regardless if its social custom, it can be said that __________ seems to manifest in sin more for women.....are you getting uncomfortable now, Im led to think yes, and this bias has grown ever evident.

There is an anti cultural and anti male bias coming through, in a sort of above the fray enlightened view, which as most enlightened views do, mildly denigrates status quo, and the (in this case gender) subset that conventional wisdom says is in the top spot while the others are oppressed by it.

Its age old, it shows in racial discourse as well as even when discussing nations in an international crowd of people, its safe to subtly bash one particular nation that in the past held a very commanding position, it was true of the UK prior to the US.

It is the same uge that manifests about the rich....or "management". Or the good looking or the perceived privileged.

And it will not relent at equality, it will not relent until the safe target is universally agreed to be smashed against the rocks of history. Usually the one doing the smashing is a member of the perceived privileged and is garnering favor from the group that is the most bothered by them. I just dont understand the mindset.

Why is bringing some balance to accountability to threatening to so many?

Why are rebuttals structured like this one, or the prior one where the word "all" is made up from thin air in order to rebut an absolute statement that was never made in the first place?

Why?