Husbands Authority

[mkgal1]

Thank you. Though I cannot say as I have always posted without ascribing motives

You're welcome ....the specific comments I'm referring to were the ones I've quoted below (and they are just about exactly like what poisoned this forum years ago). I know for sure you've never resorted to comments like these:

You should care what the truth is, and it is a telling thing that the feminist view has to try and erase one verse about the wife's submission and then doesn't bother erasing the next verse about the husband's love. It shows that they do not have intellectual integrity and are not understanding correctly. However, I tend to think they do not really mean to understand anyway, but simply wish to write their worldview into the Bible, where it does not exist. A normal person knows how to read a text, and the Bible teaches submission of wife to husband, just as it teaches submission to God, government, etc. One has to do some really odd stuff to try and avoid that. Odd and dishonest.

 

[mkgal1]

As far as an understanding of Eph 5:21-33, I've always appreciated Pope John Paul II's explanation (since I've read it) and this:

With our Holy Father, we consider it a privilege to undertake "the mission of proclaiming with joy and conviction the good news about the family" (On the Family, no. 86).

Yes, there is good news to tell. You may occasionally catch a glimpse of it in the news media and in conversation with neighbors or fellow workers. But the full story is to be found in God's word. The First Letter of John puts it succinctly:

In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world that we might have life through him. In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us. . . . Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another (1 Jn 4:9-11).

Thus, the basic vocation of every person, whether married or living a celibate life, is the same: follow the way of love, even as Christ loved you (cf. Eph 5:2). The Lord issues this call to your family and to every family regardless of its condition or circumstances.
[/I]

Love brought you to life as a family. Love sustains you through good and bad times. When our Church teaches that the family is an "intimate community of life and love," it identifies something perhaps you already know and offers you a vision toward which to grow.

At the basis of all relationships in a family is our fundamental equality as persons created in God's image. The creation narratives in the Book of Genesis teach this fundamental truth: "both man and woman are human beings to an equal degree, both are created in God's image" (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women, no. 6).

And St. Paul describes the "new creation" made possible in Christ:

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:27-28).Marriage is the partnership of a man and woman equal in dignity and value. This does not imply sameness in roles or expectations. There are important physical and psychological traits which result in differing skills and perspectives. Nor does the equality of persons mean that two spouses will have identical gifts or character or roles.

Rather, a couple who accepts their equality as sons and daughters in the Lord will honor and cherish one another. They will respect and value each other's gifts and uniqueness. They will "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21).

Our competitive culture tends to promote aggressiveness and struggles for power. These are a common part of life, especially in the workplace. It is all too easy for couples to bring an unhealthy competitive spirit to their relationship. The Gospel demands that all of us critically examine such attitudes. Marriage must never become a struggle for control.

For, unlike other relationships, marriage is a vowed covenant with unique dimensions. In. this partnership, mutual submission—not dominance by either partner—is the key to genuine joy. Our attitude should be the same as Jesus "[w]ho, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself . . ." (Phil 2:6-7).

True equality, understood as mutuality, is not measuring out tasks (who prepares the meals, who supervises homework, and so forth) or maintaining an orderly schedule. It thrives at a much deeper level where the power of the Spirit resides. Here, the grace of the vowed life not only makes the shedding of willfulness possible, but also leads to a joyful willingness.

Mutuality is really about sharing power and exercising responsibility for a purpose larger than ourselves. How household duties are distributed should follow from understanding what it takes to build a life together, as well as the individual skills and interests you bring to your common life.

Our experience as pastors shows us that genuine marital intimacy and true friendship are unlikely without mutuality. One spouse alone is not the keeper of love's flame. Both of you are co-creators of your relationship. Nowhere is this more vividly portrayed than in your decisions about having children. The Church promotes natural family planning for many reasons, among which are that "it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love, and deepens their sense of responsibility" (On Human Life, no. 21).
~Follow the Way oF Love

....and Lucky....bringing this back to your OP, if your husband's church is in full communion with the Catholic church....then that's hopeful for you (since this is the stance of the Catholic leadership).

 

[mkgal1]

Maybe we can talk about this (civilly)?

TS wrote: the feminist view has to try and erase one verse about the wife's submission and then doesn't bother erasing the next verse about the husband's love

.....and the trouble I see with that is that "submission" is being separated from love when, in fact, submission is an aspect of love (not to be separated). IOW......it'd be like saying:

"the selfish view has to try and erase one verse about the person's patience and then doesn't bother erasing the next verse about their friend's kindness"

...it ALL goes to together. Love isn't love with chunks taken out of it. We are ALL called to "love one another" (especially in marriage!).

 

[tall73]

As far as an understanding of Eph 5:21-33, I've always appreciated Pope John Paul II's explanation (since I've read it) and this:



....and Lucky....bringing this back to your OP, if your husband's church is in full communion with the Catholic church....then that's hopeful for you (since this is the stance of the Catholic leadership).

I think, as the title you posted indicates, that it is actually from the US Bishops.

For an exhortation of John Paul II's regarding the family, see here:
Familiaris Consortio (November 22, 1981) | John Paul II

 

[tall73]

As far as an understanding of Eph 5:21-33,

The document takes the view that it is speaking of mutual submission among all Christians. I think that is a possible meaning. However, even if you take it to mean that, you still have to account for what follows as well.

Either way you take it authority is not just to get your way, and must be expressed in loving action.

If it is speaking of all submitting to one another, as I have thought at times, but then also thought not at times, then it is regarding the notion of not thinking oneself superior, etc. and acting in love. However the material following also spells out specific instances of expected submission, beyond the general call here.

So whether you think this is an introductory statement that is then spelled out in three instances, or whether you think all Christians submit to one another in all instances, there is still emphasis put on the three situations for a reason. They involved inherent power dynamics.

Most people don't question this in regards to children for instance.

What do you think the repeated calls for wives to submit to husbands were for?

 

[tall73]

Also, John Paul's explanation of the text at length can be found in his Theology of the Body. Particularly it is addressed in this section:

Reverence for Christ the Basis of Relationship Between Spouses

 

[mkgal1]

I think, as the title you posted indicates, that it is actually from the US Bishops.

True....that's why I posted "and this"

 

[tall73]

True....that's why I posted "and this"

Ah, poor reading on my part!

In any case folks can read John Paul II's view in the link provided above.

 

[mkgal1]

Either way you take it authority is not just to get your way, and must be expressed in loving action

Agreed.

If it is speaking of all submitting to one another, as I have thought at times, but then also thought not at times, then it is regarding the notion of not thinking oneself superior, etc. and acting in love.

Also agreed, and I think that's a succinct explanation.

Most people don't question this in regards to children for instance.

Well....no, they don't! But I'd hope people can recognize the difference between mature adults and children that are dependent on others for their basic needs to be met.

What do you think the repeated calls for wives to submit to husbands were for?

I can't say for sure.....but often I think it was in order to allow for gradual changes within a certain cultural structure (where wives were not much more than property and a means to produce children). BTW......I don't see "submit" to mean "do what the other person wants" (maybe we ought to begin there.....defining submission). You touched on it a bit earlier when you stated, "not thinking oneself superior" but I think there's more to it than that.

 

[tall73]

Maybe we can talk about this (civilly)?

TS wrote: the feminist view has to try and erase one verse about the wife's submission and then doesn't bother erasing the next verse about the husband's love

.....and the trouble I see with that is that "submission" is being separated from love when, in fact, submission is an aspect of love (not to be separated). IOW......it'd be like saying:

"the selfish view has to try and erase one verse about the person's patience and then doesn't bother erasing the next verse about their friend's kindness"

...it ALL goes to together. Love isn't love with chunks taken out of it. We are ALL called to "love one another" (especially in marriage!).

I think there are several things we could probably agree on, and then move on to clarify from there. I could perhaps list them and then see what Tom Sawyer thinks:

1. Submission involves love.

In the context of Christian relationships, this I would agree completely. In the generic biblical usage, it does not always denote such as just a base word. The context especially in Eph. 5 rules out anything but it relating to love.

Examples of biblical usage where it did not involve love would be the waves submitting to Jesus, and the demons submitting to Jesus. Clearly neither of these are models for marriage. And even in the instance of slaves and masters they were still to love each other in Christ, and submission was based on reverence for Christ.

2. Male and Female have equal value.

I would agree with this as well, based on the following texts:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Both male and female are created in God's image.

I Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Husband and wife are join-heirs of salvation, and the husband mistreating his wife would hinder his prayers. Here weaker would seem to mean physically, but this is not a reason to harshly impose his will. Instead he is to honor.

Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

In regards to Christ and the gospel we are all one. In fact, though it mentions no male or female, both are referred to as sons of God, in the sense of full inheritance.

 

[tall73]

Well....no, they don't! But I'd hope people can recognize the difference between mature adults and children that are dependent on others for their basic needs to be met.

Note, I am not equating the two. I am indicating that most people see there being an obvious power disparity in that case, similar to slaves and masters.

In the case of slaves and masters one would be submitting to their master willingly, but now no longer just because of societal obligations, but because of Christ and the gospel.

Now as to cultural change, that is always the question that needs to be figured out. In the case of slavery there are two statements in particular in the Scriptures that indicate that slavery is not in fact a good thing.

I Cor. 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

Paul does not believe that men should be slaves of other men, but rather, serve God. So we can see his repeated advice to masters as a guideline within the realities as they existed.

In the letter to Philemon we see this actually played out in Paul's request:

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

With that in mind there is a framework, in the passage at hand, to see an example of Paul adapting to the culture, but not promulgating a lasting guideline endorsing the practice of slavery.

On the other hand, we would still think that children should obey parents. And here he actually quotes the ten commandments to reinforce that, but recasts the blessing to long life, rather than a long stay in the promised land.

So the question is whether there are indications of lasting principle, or adapting to the culture.

 

[tall73]

I can't say for sure.....but often I think it was in order to allow for gradual changes within a certain cultural structure (where wives were not much more than property and a means to produce children). BTW......I don't see "submit" to mean "do what the other person wants" (maybe we ought to begin there.....defining submission). You touched on it a bit earlier when you stated, "not thinking oneself superior" but I think there's more to it than that.

I have started to get into this in my last few replies. Certainly in some cases it means do what someone desires, as the case of Jesus commanding demons and them submitting. Again, note, I am not using this as a model for marriage! I am just noting the range of the word.

One thing we might need to look at in the Ephesians passage for instance is why he says submit in all things, or everything.

24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


I don't want to get too far ahead of you and Tom, if he chooses to continue the conversation, so for now I will just leave it here on that point for a response.

Regarding culture, I looked at the question in the case of slaves and masters as an example of cultural accommodation, and I think that is a helpful direction to take the issue of marriage next. We would need to examine all the texts to see if there are indications of continuing principle or adaptation to existing realities.

Again, I will let you all respond before pressing on much more. But for my part at least I think these two aspects are helpful to focus on going forward.

 

[mkgal1]

Here weaker would seem to mean physically, but this is not a reason to harshly impose his will. Instead he is to honor.

I tend to think this means "weaker in power" since it's only been recent that women (in most countries) are only recently getting equal power in our culture (and some women can certainly be stronger than their husbands).

 

[mkgal1]

Note, I am not equating the two. I am indicating that most people see there being an obvious power disparity in that case, similar to slaves and masters.

Oh...okay, I have seen posters here that DO equate the two (along with the slaves/master comparison as well).

In the case of slaves and masters one would be submitting to their master willingly, but now no longer just because of societal obligations, but because of Christ and the gospel.

.....but Paul also flipped that on its head. Slaves weren't the only ones with obligations.....masters ALSO needed to treat their slaves with fairness (because of the Gospel). That's the same thing--I believe--Paul was doing in Ephesians as related to marriage (flipping the societal power on its head....allowing for the power dynamic to be equalized according to the Gospel).

Paul does not believe that men should be slaves of other men, but rather, serve God. So we can see his repeated advice to masters as a guideline within the realities as they existed.

Right. I agree.

So the question is whether there are indications of lasting principle, or adapting to the culture.

To my mind....the principle is lasting (men are to be just as much cleaving to their wives as wives are to their own husbands).

 

[mkgal1]

Certainly in some cases it means do what someone desires, as the case of Jesus commanding demons and them submitting. Again, note, I am not using this as a model for marriage! I am just noting the range of the word.

You're right.....in those cases it does mean that (but I don't believe it does related to marriage). Maybe that's where the English language falls short.

One thing we might need to look at in the Ephesians passage for instance is why he says submit in all things, or everything.

24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


I don't want to get too far ahead of you and Tom, if he chooses to continue the conversation, so for now I will just leave it here on that point for a response.

Oh....that's the one that's probably caused the most pain (but maybe we should try to park on that specific one for a bit?).

Regarding culture, I looked at the question in the case of slaves and masters as an example of cultural accommodation, and I think that is a helpful direction to take the issue of marriage next. We would need to examine all the texts to see if there are indications of continuing principle or adaptation to existing realities.

Again, I will let you all respond before pressing on much more. But for my part at least I think these two aspects are helpful to focus on going forward.

Thanks for outlining this so well (and for keeping the focus directed). I'll wait to see in Tom joins in and adds his thoughts.

 

[tall73]

.....but Paul also flipped that on its head. Slaves weren't the only ones with obligations.....masters ALSO needed to treat their slaves with fairness (because of the Gospel).

Agreed, and I have noted across all three examples that he warns against improper use of authority. He warns husbands to love their wives and give their lives for them, warns fathers not to exasperate children (another thing to look at is why in that text he singles out fathers), and and masters not to threaten slaves, etc.

However, within those warnings there is still recognition that a slave was still a slave, a child was still a child. There was not parity in regards to power in the relationship.

That's the same thing--I believe--Paul was doing in Ephesians as related to marriage (flipping the societal power on its head....allowing for the power dynamic to be equalized according to the Gospel).

But warning against harsh treatment, etc. does not mean that the child or slave relationship was now equal from a societal perspective (he would still see both as equal from a salvation and worth perspective).

To my mind....the principle is lasting (men are to be just as much cleaving to their wives as wives are to their own husbands).

This reference to Genesis is one passage, and we can look at it. The larger question I was asking, of which that could be one part, is whether his advice regarding wives submitting to husbands was primarily a concession to culture, or a God ordained pattern. And the additional examples of children obeying parents, and slaves submitting to masters suggests that there was an element of doing what was asked, however softened in the relationship of marriage, which is different than those two.

 

[tall73]

I tend to think this means "weaker in power" since it's only been recent that women (in most countries) are only recently getting equal power in our culture (and some women can certainly be stronger than their husbands).

It could also mean weaker in power in society, yes, which was also, as you note, true at the time. Either way he is emphasizing that in regards to salvation they were on equal footing, even if they were not in power dynamics in society, or even biology.

 

[tall73]

You're right.....in those cases it does mean that (but I don't believe it does related to marriage). Maybe that's where the English language falls short.

Well it is not particularly a problem with English. The same Greek word is used in both, so it is just a weakness of language in general. Words can have a range of meaning. In this case we both agree that Christian wives should not submit to their husbands in the same way demons submit to Christ. The relational dynamic is different, which the rest of the passage spells out.

The reason I brought up the broader usage is that sometimes people base their point on the "meaning" of submission. But the word used in Greek has a range of meanings, and some of them they would not want applied to marriage at all (nor would the apostle by the rest of Ephesians 5).

So you cannot base it just on a linguistic argument is my point. It must be about the entire context.

 

[mkgal1]

There was not parity in regards to power in the relationship.

But this is the part that I believe is cultural (and changing).

But warning against harsh treatment, etc. does not mean that the child or slave relationship was now equal from a societal perspective (he would still see both as equal from a salvation and worth perspective).

I'm unsure as to this distinction you're making. Are you suggesting that this equality will ONLY be realized in heaven?

 

[tall73]

You're right.....in those cases it does mean that (but I don't believe it does related to marriage). Maybe that's where the English language falls short.

Oh....that's the one that's probably caused the most pain (but maybe we should try to park on that specific one for a bit?).


Thanks for outlining this so well (and for keeping the focus directed). I'll wait to see in Tom joins in and adds his thoughts.

Sounds good.