Rebellious Women

[Paidiske]

I think Paul told the husbands to love their wives in order to try to undo some of the harm of the 1st-century reality of hierarchical marriage. He couldn't make it go away but he could try to get the husbands not to take advantage of what the laws/customs of the time gave them in terms of power.

I would say that to the extent that wives have been treated as less than their husband's full equals, those marriages have been unloving, yes. You can't treat your wife as less than your equal and then say you love her. That's simply not love.

 

[LinkH]

I think Paul told the husbands to love their wives in order to try to undo some of the harm of the 1st-century reality of hierarchical marriage. He couldn't make it go away but he could try to get the husbands not to take advantage of what the laws/customs of the time gave them in terms of power.

So you are the one with the wisdom and knowledge to know what the secret message is that the apostles didn't have the courage to come out and say? You have the ability to read the text and know the things tha it really means that it doesn't really say?

What reason is there to assume that Paul was trying to move toward your belief system, instead of actually teaching the truth?

I could say that Jesus and the apostles had people drinking the fruit of the vine for communion because they were trying to move the people slowly toward drinking coca-cola, but it hadn't been invented yet, but of course that would be a silly anachronistic argument. How is it different from your interpretation?

I would say that to the extent that wives have been treated as less than their husband's full equals, those marriages have been unloving, yes. You can't treat your wife as less than your equal and then say you love her. That's simply not love.

I think you are obsessing over issues not taught in the word of God. 'Equal' is pretty meaningless unless it is defined. Equal in what sense? In regard to 'whose in charge' men and women are not supposed to be equal in a marriage. That is why wives are told to submit to their husbands. They may be equal in other aspects and inequal in other aspects.

 

[Paidiske]

So you are the one with the wisdom and knowledge to know what the secret message is that the apostles didn't have the courage to come out and say? You have the ability to read the text and know the things tha it really means that it doesn't really say?

I think it says it quite openly. "Love your wives." Can you love your wife while doing something which treats her as less than you? Her views as less important? Her needs as less real?

How is that in any way love?

 

[LinkH]

I think it says it quite openly. "Love your wives." Can you love your wife while doing something which treats her as less than you? Her views as less important? Her needs as less real?

How is that in any way love?

Why do you think submission means the husband treats his wife as less than he is? Let's take the employment analogy. If my boss makes decisions about the budget that I cannot make, does that mean he is treating me as less than he is?

If a husband has decision-making authority and responsibility before God for the decisions, does that mean he will always make decisions for his own enjoyment at the expense of his wife? Do you think he will orders cable television and say, "Since you must submit to me, I'll order all ESPN channels and no Lifetime or TLC. Bwahahahaha"?

 

[Paidiske]

Why do you think submission means the husband treats his wife as less than he is? Let's take the employment analogy. If my boss makes decisions about the budget that I cannot make, does that mean he is treating me as less than he is?

If a husband has decision-making authority and responsibility before God for the decisions, does that mean he will always make decisions for his own enjoyment at the expense of his wife? Do you think he will orders cable television and say, "Since you must submit to me, I'll order all ESPN channels and no Lifetime or TLC. Bwahahahaha"?

The boss is making decisions about the workplace budget, not your personal budget. That's his role within the workplace. It's a completely different scenario.

And you're not getting it. Even if the husband made the decision to get a bunch of cable channels his wife liked, if she didn't get a say in what they were, and if she cared about it, that's a problem! It's the dismissing of her need to be involved in decisions which affect her life which I object to as a particular indignity. It treats her like a child or a pet, not someone with her own mind.

 

[LinkH]

The boss is making decisions about the workplace budget, not your personal budget. That's his role within the workplace. It's a completely different scenario.

And you're not getting it. Even if the husband made the decision to get a bunch of cable channels his wife liked, if she didn't get a say in what they were, and if she cared about it, that's a problem! It's the dismissing of her need to be involved in decisions which affect her life which I object to as a particular indignity. It treats her like a child or a pet, not someone with her own mind.

A wife submitting to her husband and the husband being the leader is not the same thing as a husband making decisions without considering her needs. If a wife submits to her husband that doesn't mean he has to be the one to choose cable channels.

 

[Paidiske]

But it doesn't matter how considerate he is, if she's shut out of the decision making process. Whether it's cable channels or where they live or how many children they have, whatever it is, if at any point he makes a decision that she wants to be involved in, without involving her, that in and of itself is the problem.

It doesn't matter how good the outcome is, or how "loving" he is, or anything else; cutting her out of the decision is disempowering. And love never disempowers another.

 

[Armoured]

A wife submitting to her husband and the husband being the leader is not the same thing as a husband making decisions without considering her needs. If a wife submits to her husband that doesn't mean he has to be the one to choose cable channels.

Then what does "submit" mean to you? Specifically?

 

[mkgal1]

mkgal1,

I am not sure I know what you mean by not being 'literal.' How is this conversation not about 'literal' things?



You seemed to be disagreeing with me when I objected to redefining 'hupotasso' (in a 'literal' sense.)

I agree that hupotasso is translated to "submit". The question is: "what does submit in marriage look like?". I was suggesting that the BDAG allows for the definition of "submit" to mean "to join together" as does most of the Bible. There are many references to "the two become one flesh". That much we know for sure.

IMO....when there's a question about one word--we ought to look at what's being said on the larger scale. I'll repeat it again---I don't necessarily mean word for word translation--but more in concept....in action....the behavior should appear the same, because I can't be "one flesh" and --at the same time---have "fear" of my husband.

To me....the overall picture of the Gospel is:

"For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ, and through him God reconciled everything to himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ's blood on the cross."~Colossians 1:19-20

The focus isn't on "who is in charge"---it's on God's power of LOVE. Cleaving [ דָּ֥בְקָה ] together. Have you done a study on THAT word? That's also mentioned in just about any reference to marriage in the Bible (and outside of marriage as well--as in Ruth 1:14, for instance):

There's a "joining together" of creation to creation and creation to God. That "joining together" is described further in the analogies of the Body of Christ--which is also in the same passage of Ephesians:

"[...] husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’~ Eph 5:28-31

...and even earlier in EPH 2--an analogy of one structure being formed:

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord..."

....so the main theme I see is unification---joining together for His purpose....His glory. He restored our dignity (and marriage shouldn't strip it away).

 

[mkgal1]

I'm of the opinion that power/authority are what's in opposition to God's genuine love (and what Jesus taught to the apostles). If we wish to cling to that dynamic with both hands---we can't accept God's wisdom. IMO....that's a large part of what's meant by "dying to our self".

The True Wisdom of God

6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the human heart conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him’—

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 13 And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am reminded that Christ, as God, had all power and authority. They expected Him to enter as King, take over, and presumably start giving orders.

What did He do instead? Set up future means of sharing Himself with believers, washed the feet of His disciples, then gave Himself up to be crucified.

That is the relationship Christ demonstrated.

No, I don't WANT my husband washing my feet, as we can tell the disciples weren't all that keen to have Christ doing for them.

But I sometimes wonder what people are thinking about a husband who is to be "reverenced/feared". When did Christ demand that of His followers?

 

[LinkH]

Then what does "submit" mean to you? Specifically?

When I hear 'what does it mean to you?' I think of answers like rainbows and butterflies, or never having to say you are sorry. If it didn't mean the same thing to me as what it means, what it means to me wouldn't mean much. So I prefer to look up how the word was used in context and more concrete stuff like that.

But my understanding of what submission entails is that in the New Testament it is related to obedience, because Peter tells wives to be subject to their own husbands even as Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord.

I would explain 'submitting' as yielding one's will to the will of another. Allowing another person to lead is part of submission. The Greek word has to do with coming into order under someone.

 

[LinkH]

I agree that hupotasso is translated to "submit". The question is: "what does submit in marriage look like?". I was suggesting that the BDAG allows for the definition of "submit" to mean "to join together" as does most of the Bible. There are many references to "the two become one flesh". That much we know for sure.

There were three words in one 'definition'--definition 3. Attach, subjoin-- which has to do with adding to documents, and another word that had to do with adding something to documents. You can look it up.

Where was 'join together' in the definition? Do you have a higher resolution picture of it that I could read? I believe I went with your quote from the definition you could read.

Why would the definition have words that refer to adding text to documents if the type of 'attaching' weren't about attaching or adding to a document? Words can be used in different contexts in different languages? It didn't sound to me like you are using the dictionary right. Look for the common meaning among the words in a single dictionary entry, for example, the aspect of the word 'attach' that is related to the word 'subjoin.' That would mean take it as about adding to a document, not about married couples being joined. Do you speak any foreign languages?

The word for 'depends' in my wife's language is also used for 'hang.' My wife wrote something in her prayer journal the day we had our first conversation (we found out later we'd been introduced briefly about a year earlier), a prayer asking for us to be together. When we were dating, my wife mentioned the journal entry. I asked to see it. She said, "It hangs up on our relationship."

I was wondering what the hang up in our relationship was. Anyway, I looked it up in the dictionary and understood what she meant. It's funny now.

'Hang' in English corresponds with 'tergantung' when it comes to hanging clothes or criminals. But it doesn't correspond when it comes to one thing depending on another. I ssuspect this is what you are doing with hupotasso, taking a definition entry about adding text, taking a word out of the definition, and applying it where it does not.

IMO....when there's a question about one word--we ought to look at what's being said on the larger scale. I'll repeat it again---I don't necessarily mean word for word translation--but more in concept....in action....the behavior should appear the same, because I can't be "one flesh" and --at the same time---have "fear" of my husband.

According to Ephesians 5, you are expected to fear your husband (in the sense used in the passage), and husband and wife are to be one flesh. Your conclusion contradicts the passage we are discussing. Maybe you mean something different by 'fear' though than what I mean, or what the text means. But in the sense used in Ephesians 5, you are supposed to 'fear' your husband.

To me....the overall picture of the Gospel is:

"For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ, and through him God reconciled everything to himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ's blood on the cross."~Colossians 1:19-20

The focus isn't on "who is in charge"---it's on God's power of LOVE. Cleaving [ דָּ֥בְקָה ] together. Have you done a study on THAT word? That's also mentioned in just about any reference to marriage in the Bible (and outside of marriage as well--as in Ruth 1:14, for instance):

There's a "joining together" of creation to creation and creation to God. That "joining together" is described further in the analogies of the Body of Christ--which is also in the same passage of Ephesians:

"[...] husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’~ Eph 5:28-31

...and even earlier in EPH 2--an analogy of one structure being formed:

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord..."

....so the main theme I see is unification---joining together for His purpose....His glory. He restored our dignity (and marriage shouldn't strip it away).

I'll comment on that last paragraph. A wife submitting to her husband and having the respect/fear/reverence is in now way contrary to the purposes of God for marriage. It is part of God's purposes. it's related to the mystery of Christ and the church, not contrary to it. The whole passage there in Ephesians 5 is good. The whole mystery is good, not just parts of it. Why create contradictions where none exist? Why consider part of the teaching in Ephesians 5 to be bad? Why redefine the words?

 

[LinkH]

I am reminded that Christ, as God, had all power and authority. They expected Him to enter as King, take over, and presumably start giving orders.

What did He do instead? Set up future means of sharing Himself with believers, washed the feet of His disciples, then gave Himself up to be crucified.

That is the relationship Christ demonstrated.

No, I don't WANT my husband washing my feet, as we can tell the disciples weren't all that keen to have Christ doing for them.

But I sometimes wonder what people are thinking about a husband who is to be "reverenced/feared". When did Christ demand that of His followers?

Christ washed His disciples feet. He also said to them, "Ye call me Master and Lord and ye do well for so am I." Jesus sent two disciples off to get a donkey. They didn't send him on errands to go get donkeys for them, not as far as we can see in the gospels. Peter tried to correct Jesus once. Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan." Jesus washed their feet. He loved them, cared for them, and was kind to them, but He was and is their Lord.

We can take a look at Revelation 2-3 for the Lord Jesus' words to some churches that weren't loving and submitting to Him properly.

 

[Armoured]

When I hear 'what does it mean to you?' I think of answers like rainbows and butterflies, or never having to say you are sorry. If it didn't mean the same thing to me as what it means, what it means to me wouldn't mean much. So I prefer to look up how the word was used in context and more concrete stuff like that.

But my understanding of what submission entails is that in the New Testament it is related to obedience, because Peter tells wives to be subject to their own husbands even as Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord.

I would explain 'submitting' as yielding one's will to the will of another. Allowing another person to lead is part of submission. The Greek word has to do with coming into order under someone.

Which pretty much contradicts what you just said about wifely submission

 

[All4Christ]

Link, I think an important thing to remember is that submission, whether it is submitting to each other or submitting to one's spouse, is a voluntary act. No one should force the other to do so; otherwise, it isn't truly submission.

Second, you mentioned the Scripture about Sarah calling Abraham lord. Since you specifically pointed out that verse, my question is - do you want your wife to consider you to be her "lord"? Do you believe that is what God wants her to call you? Also, do you feel like you, as a Christian husband, should make your wife yield to your decision?

Some compare the submission in marriage to emulate the submission of Jesus to the Father. Besides the obvious difference of the father/ son relationship, it is important to note that all of Jesus' submission was voluntary.

A man should not force - or even coerce or pressure- a woman to submit. A man shouldn't campaign for all women to submit. Rather, campaign that we all follow God and Scripture. If both man and woman seek after God, put Him first, and seek to follow His will, all should fall into place. There is a reason Scripture says for the older women to teach the younger women. Paul didn't tell the men to make their wives submit to them. He spoke to wives directly and to husbands directly.

Certainly we need accountability from others. Our mentors, pastors, priests, leaders of the church and close friends can help teach us how to put this into practice.

Some others asked what submit meant you. You gave a definition. What does your wife submitting to you look like in real life? What are you envisioning as the proper way to fill that Scripture?

 

[LinkH]

All4Christ,

If I have a friend who is a brother in Christ, and I see something in his life where he isn't following Christ, it would be a good thing for me to exhort him and encourage him to change his ways. The Bible says to exhort one another daily while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. One of the advantages to being married, for two believers, is that they have someone close to exhort them and to exhort every day.

And if we should exhort fellow believers.. in general... how much more those in our own household. IF my wife is doing something wrong, not walking right as a Christian, and I see it, I should address it. She would do the same also. One area where a wife can err is in not submitting to her husband, so it makes sense that a husband would address this.

The Bible does tell older women to encourage younger women to submit to their husbands, among other things. I've seen that used as justification on this forum, for men not telling women to submit to their husbnads. But the one who told those older women to teach the younger women to submit to their husbands was a man. And he also told women in his other epistles to submit to their husbands. We have examples of two men writing letters that told wives to submit to their husbands in the Bible. The Bible does not put a restriction on men that they should not tell wives to submit to their husbands.

 

[All4Christ]

All4Christ,

If I have a friend who is a brother in Christ, and I see something in his life where he isn't following Christ, it would be a good thing for me to exhort him and encourage him to change his ways. The Bible says to exhort one another daily while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. One of the advantages to being married, for two believers, is that they have someone close to exhort them and to exhort every day.

And if we should exhort fellow believers.. in general... how much more those in our own household. IF my wife is doing something wrong, not walking right as a Christian, and I see it, I should address it. She would do the same also. One area where a wife can err is in not submitting to her husband, so it makes sense that a husband would address this.

The Bible does tell older women to encourage younger women to submit to their husbands, among other things. I've seen that used as justification on this forum, for men not telling women to submit to their husbnads. But the one who told those older women to teach the younger women to submit to their husbands was a man. And he also told women in his other epistles to submit to their husbands. We have examples of two men writing letters that told wives to submit to their husbands in the Bible. The Bible does not put a restriction on men that they should not tell wives to submit to their husbands.

Does the Bible have a restriction on a wife telling the husband that the Bible says he should be a leader and that he should follow the commandments to husbands found in Scripture?

Remember, Paul was a teacher of the church. So was Peter. They didn't tell women to submit to themselves as their husband. There is a big difference. My concern is a "husband" telling a "wife" that she should submit to him - essentially to bend to his will. I didn't even say a "man" telling a woman. (If you can't see the difference, then so be it.)

It is much better to work together on learning how to improve what we ourselves are commanded to do. If we work together to improve the marriage - focusing on both people together - it will be much more effective.

There is a big temptation for a power trip if you continually tell someone to submit to you. I hope for your wife's sake that you don't fall into that temptation.

I'm curious as to how you encourage your wife to submit in practice, or how you would suggest others to do that.

Perhaps: "Honey, you really need to listen and do what I say, since you are commanded to do so in Scripture" or "You aren't following the Biblical mandates to submit your will to my direction"? How would you say that to your wife?

Frankly, especially with these discussions, I am very thankful for the way my husband interacts with me.

Also, I didn't get an answer about your wife calling you lord. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

I maintain my previous comment about submission being a voluntary act. Paul didn't tell men to make their wives submit to them. If you can provide a verse for that, please do.

 

[All4Christ]

St John Chrysostom adhered to the model of marriage where the husband is the spiritual head of the house. I believe the implementation he suggests is one of the more balanced approaches on that side of the spectrum.

I love this writing on marriage. In light of this discussion, perhaps some would be interested in this reflection:

Some say that marriage was ordained by God as a blessing to the human race. Others say that marriage is a necessary evil for those who cannot restrain their sexual appetites. In truth it is impossible to speak in such ways about marriage in general; we can only make judgments about particular marriages. There are some marriages which bring great blessings to the husband and the wife, to their children, and to all their neighbors. But there are other marriages which seem to bring few blessings to anyone.

The differences between these two types of marriage lies in the spirit with which the bond was forged and is maintained. If a man and a woman marry to satisfy their sexual appetites, or to further the material aims of themselves or their families, then the union is unlikely to bring blessings. But if a man and a woman marry in order to be companions on the journey through earth to heaven, then their union will bring great joy to themselves and to others. Some people need a close companion, and for these people God has ordained marriage. Some do not need a close companion, and for these people God has ordained celibacy.

When we speak of the wife obeying the husband, we normally think of obedience in military or political terms: the husband giving orders and the wife obeying them. But while this type of obedience may be appropriate in the army, it is ridiculous in the intimate relationship of marriage. The obedient wife does not wait for orders. Rather, she tries to discern her husband’s needs and feelings, and responds in love. When she sees her husband is weary, she soothes him; when he is ill, she nurses and comforts him; when he is happy and elated, she shares his joy.

Yet such obedience should not be confined to the wife. The husband should be obedient in the same way. When she is weary, he should relieve her of her work; when she is sad, he should cherish her, holding her gently in his arms; when she is filled with good cheer, he should also share her good cheer. Thus a good marriage is not a matter of one partner obeying the other, but of both partners obeying each other.

A good marriage is like a castle. When husband and wife truly love and respect each other, no one can overcome them. If a man is unmarried and is attacked with lies and slander, his confidence and self-esteem may crumble. But if he had a loving wife, she would reassure him with the truth, and so uphold his spirit. If a woman is single and is the subject of vicious gossip, she may feel that her reputation is being cut to shreds. But if she had a loving husband, his faith in her goodness and honesty would both comfort her and also impress those who doubted her.

Similarly, a good marriage is like a buttress when a person’s religious faith is shaken. Single people who are beset by religious doubts may feel that the house of God is collapsing around them, and that they are helpless to prevent it. But married people can turn to their spouse to express those doubts; and it is almost certain that the spouse’s faith is sufficiently solid to allay those doubts. In the providence of God, when a husband is spiritually weak, his wife is spiritually strong; when a wife is weak, the husband is strong.

The above excerpts by St. John Chrysostom have been taken from On Living Simply: The Golden Voice of John Chrysostom (1996), compiled by Robert Van de Weyer.

 

[mkgal1]

Something I found interesting: I had a bit of time to go through are really read and contemplate 1 Peter 3:6. I've always thought that was pointing to something a lot more meaningful than what's just on the surface.

Since the verse makes specific reference to *when* Sarah called Abraham "lord" (which, from what I just read, doesn't mean much more than a term of honor בַּ֫עַל or "married" as it's used in Gen 20:3)...the only time I see that lines up--Sarai calling Abram "lord"-- is with Gen 18:12:

>>>So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?”~ESV

>>>So she laughed silently to herself and said, "How could a worn-out woman like me enjoy such pleasure, especially when my master--my husband--is also so old?"~NLT

How did Sarah "obey" in this instance? In v 6 Abraham has asked her to bake some bread for those three "men" that delivered to her God's promise of having a son (v 18:1 revealed the three men were actually God--so you could say Abraham was asking Sarah to literally join with him in serving God):

>>>So Abraham ran back to the tent and said to Sarah, "Hurry! Get three large measures of your best flour, knead it into dough, and bake some bread."


...but there were other times when Abraham "obeyed" (listened to) Sarah:

>>>So Sarai said to Abram, "Since the LORD has prevented me from having children, have sexual relations with my servant. Perhaps I can have a family by her." Abram did what Sarai told him. ~Genesis 16:2

Abram allowed Sarai to make her own decisions at times:

>>>But Abram said to Sarai, “Behold, your servant is in your power; do to her as you please.” Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her.~Gen 16:6


Abram did what Sarai told him to even at God's insistence:

>>>But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named.~Gen 21:12

Just as Peter wrote...husbands are to also honor their wives in the same way (v. 7).

Also....wasn't Peter writing to Jews in this passage (the opening of the letter in 1st Peter 1 says, “the dispersion of Pontus,”. Wouldn't that be Jews? So...ISTM...the promise fulfilled to Abraham and Sarah was more the point than anything else (especially after being dispersed due to persecution). I would imagine that Peter bringing up the passage in Genesis would be very familiar to them and remind them of God's promises.