Rebellious Women

[LinkH]

All4Christ,

In answer to your question, i definitely would not want my wife calling me 'lord', partly because of Christ's teaching in Matthew 23. That would be really weird to me.

in the past, on one of the CF forums, the idea that men shouldn't tell women to submit to their husbands came up, so my comments were colored by that interaction on one of the other subforums.

Paul says if wives have questions to ask their own husbands at home. Men are to be like Jesus who washes the bride with the water of the word. I don't see any area of the Christian life as off limits when a man exhorts his wife. I also do not see any restriction on brothers in the faith exhorting sisters to submit to their own husbands.

Jesus' words in Revelation 2-3 could be interpreted as an example of Jesus encouraging His churches to submit to Him in a number of ways.

Practically, in my marriage the topic of submission doesn't come up all that much. For me personally, the approach of making decisions together and my wife submitting if we reach an impasse (after prayer, etc.) makes more sense. If I were to encourage her to submit in such a situation, i could say something like, "Honey, the Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands. Why don't you go along with me on this." I'd rather just discuss it several times and reach an agreement, pray about it, and wait. If it isn't a pressing decision, it can wait. On rare occasion, I seem to recall my wife saying to do what I thought best and bring up submitting to her husband as a reason. or she'd mention that as her motivation after we made a decision.

In other marriages, decision-making may be more on the man, and I'm not against that. If a 30-year-old hedge fund manager makes financial decisions for the family without consulting his 20-year-old wife, that ma not be such a bad thing. The decision-making process might be different if he's a plumber and she's a 30-year-old CPA.

 

[LinkH]

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:

That was the time where she obeyed in this particular passage. Three measures of meal was a lot, enough to feed 50 people or so.

Btw, how can you say that the three visitors, all three of them, were God?

>>>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

Is the idea that a wife is supposed to submit to her husband somehow contrary to the idea that a wife can suggest something and the husband can follow it? Abraham could have said 'no.' Do you think he did the right thing by going along with it. (No offense to any Ishmaelites who may be reading is intended.)

What is an appropriate thing for a husband to do in this situation? His wife says, "I haven't been able to have a baby. Why don't you have sex with this woman, and I'll adopt the baby and we can raise the child together?"

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

Notice that Sarai went to Abraham to find out what she was allowed to do first. So this is an example of submission, recognizing Abraham's decision-making authority in this situation.

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

Again, Sarah went to Abraham as the leader to get his decision on this matter. She didn't just kick Hagar out with Ishmael on her own. She submitted the matter to Abraham, who submitted the matter to God.

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.

That's an interesting point. If 'strangers' refers to the Jewish diaspora (as opposed to a spiritual designation for believers who are strangers and pilgrims on the earth), then yes. But there were Gentile believers in Asia Minor, too, who surely would have wanted to hear the epistle read. Paul also mentions Biblical figures like Abraham and Hagar in his letter to Galatians, which may have been a majority Gentile audience. But God-fearers would have been familiar with these stories before their conversion and those from pagan backgrounds before conversion would afterward have learned about these things as they studied the scriptures, too.

 

[LinkH]

All4Christ,

Did any of the saints in antiquity oppose the idea of the husband being the head of the house? I hear Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't really have the liberal influence in it that Roman Catholicism has. Do any priests disagree with the idea of the husband as the head of the home?

I liked most of what I read from John Chrysostom. He has a rather lengthy sermon on marriage that I spent a little time on many years ago. He makes a lot of good points, and many of them are repeated today, whether those who repeat them realize John Chrysostom said them or not.

He was celibate wasn't he? It's interesting how the topic of sexuality is addressed by celibate teachers of the Bible. Paul was celibate, but Peter was married. The early church had different perspectives. One thing John Chrysostom said there about the motivation to marry was his negative comments about those who married for sexual fulfillment.

But in I Corinthians 7, doesn't Paul teach that a man should choose to remain celibate if he cannot contain, because it is better to marry than to burn? This is in the context of avoiding fornication. Since Paul teaches this, isn't it more accurate to look at the decision like this-- a man decides to marry because he realizes celibacy isn't for him. He is burning, afraid he might fall into temptation, etc. So he decides to marry. But he decides he will marry a woman who loves God who will walk out the journey of faith with him. If he could live celibate, why marry in the first place?

'Burning' certain seems to have something to do with avoiding fornication. I like to think it could include something a bit bigger than just the desire to fulfill sexual desires, but also the desire for romantic love, the type of companionship that comes through marriage, and even having children. Paul doesn't say that, but all those things could tempt someone to commit fornication, even the desire for children, as odd as that may seem.

The part about husband and wife obeying each other, stretching the language a bit there, might not have done much damage in his day and age, but nowadays, preaching like that could cause problems because there are plenty of women looking for any reason to redefine the idea of wives submitting to their husbands.

 

[All4Christ]

All4Christ,

Did any of the saints in antiquity oppose the idea of the husband being the head of the house? I hear Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't really have the liberal influence in it that Roman Catholicism has. Do any priests disagree with the idea of the husband as the head of the home?

We do consider the husband to be the head of the house. I also consider my husband to be the spiritual head of our household.

I liked most of what I read from John Chrysostom. He has a rather lengthy sermon on marriage that I spent a little time on many years ago. He makes a lot of good points, and many of them are repeated today, whether those who repeat them realize John Chrysostom said them or not.

Yes, I am familiar with that sermon on Marriage and Family Life. It has some good points in it. My reason for posting that homily earlier is to remind us all that marriage is truly a partnership even when you do consider the man to be the head. We also teach that in a mature healthy marriage, we end up submitting to each other. That's not to say that the husband is not the head, but rather that we put each other before ourselves. We truly do become one flesh, and in doing so, should be in unity of purpose and love. We both take care of each other, both respect each other and both love each other. We both put the other before ourselves.

We don't teach that a woman is less than a man. A man should never be manipulative towards the wife. We also believe that ultimate submission is to Christ Himself. He is our ultimate authority.

He was celibate wasn't he? It's interesting how the topic of sexuality is addressed by celibate teachers of the Bible. Paul was celibate, but Peter was married. The early church had different perspectives. One thing John Chrysostom said there about the motivation to marry was his negative comments about those who married for sexual fulfillment.

But in I Corinthians 7, doesn't Paul teach that a man should choose to remain celibate if he cannot contain, because it is better to marry than to burn? This is in the context of avoiding fornication. Since Paul teaches this, isn't it more accurate to look at the decision like this-- a man decides to marry because he realizes celibacy isn't for him. He is burning, afraid he might fall into temptation, etc. So he decides to marry. But he decides he will marry a woman who loves God who will walk out the journey of faith with him. If he could live celibate, why marry in the first place?

'Burning' certain seems to have something to do with avoiding fornication. I like to think it could include something a bit bigger than just the desire to fulfill sexual desires, but also the desire for romantic love, the type of companionship that comes through marriage, and even having children. Paul doesn't say that, but all those things could tempt someone to commit fornication, even the desire for children, as odd as that may seem.

I think he is saying that a marriage is much healthier if it is not solely due to desire of sexual fulfillment. I see your point though.

In our Church, we are taught that marriage is more than just an outlet to fulfill our sexual desire. It is a way to help us grow spiritually and is to help us become united with Christ. It is for our salvation. Just as celibacy can be a vocation to follow Christ, so can marriage be a vocation to help us grow closer to Him.

The part about husband and wife obeying each other, stretching the language a bit there, might not have done much damage in his day and age, but nowadays, preaching like that could cause problems because there are plenty of women looking for any reason to redefine the idea of wives submitting to their husbands.

Honestly, it only causes problems if someone lets it cause problems. Anastasia mentioned this before. This is an important counterpart to considering the husband to be the head. We mutually serve each other and "obey" in the sense of helping take care of eachother's needs and loving each other above ourselves.
If we forget about that part, the marriage can become unbalanced.

We need to work together, decide things together, encourage each other, depend on each other's strengths and try to work together to improve our weak areas. Yes, if it came down to it, I would voluntarily submit to my husband's decision. (It hasn't happened yet). However, if his will violated God's laws, or if it was spiritually damaging, I will follow Christ instead. I maintain that Christ is our ultimate authority.

In the Christian life, men and women are equal in God's eyes. A model of headship isn't stating that we are worth less than our husbands. It shouldn't be an authoritarian type of relationship (i.e. just giving orders and a wife obeying them). A husband and wife should be partners and should work together. They should make decisions through love and prayer. It shouldn't be a case where every decision is made by the wife expressing her opinion and then saying "now that I've had my say, what do you decide?" The decision making process should happen naturally.

Often, on Christian Forums, the description of headship and submission ends up sounding like something completely foreign from my experience.

I truly don't think that a husband should try to make his wife submit by force or manipulate the situation to make her obey his will. We lead by example. Just as a wife can win over her husband through her actions, so can a husband.


ETA: One thing that bothers me is when people focus on the one side of those passages (women submitting) and completely ignore the other half. Many times these discussions focus on the one side and not the other.

 

[LinkH]

All4Christ,

I agree that submission has to be to God first the foremost. A wife submitting to her husband does not mean she she should rob a bank or worship idols to please or obey her husband. Jesus told the apostles that the scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses' seat, and to do what they taught, but not to imitate their works. But when the Sanhedrin told them not to speak in the name of Jesus, Peter and John concluded that it was better to obey God rather than men.

I agree that discussions of what submission should look like on cf go to extremes. A wife submitting to her husband gets described in terms of violence, spousal abuse, stripping away a woman's identity and sense of self, treating a woman like a child, etc. I suspect there are some wives who submit to their husbands in the world who endure all kinds of things like that. But this is not the type of marriage Ephesians is teaching Christians to have. The wife is to submit to her husband, but the husband is also supposed to love her as Christ loved the church.

 

[All4Christ]

A clarification about another area promoted by many on CF (such as the OP) - I don't believe women are limited to being in the home. I don't believe that men always have one set of strengths and women have another set of strengths. Both father and mother should love and care for children. Both mother and father should be examples and teachers for spirituality in their family. Marriage should be about unity of Purpose and unity in growing together in God. I definitely am against the Patriarchal marriage model. Men and women are of equal value. We aren't all the same - but that applies to women and men. We don't all fall into the personality stereotype. If anyone uses those verse to promote that, they are corrupting and twisting the words to mean something they don't. This view is foreign to us (Orthodox) which makes me defend the equality of women and men, despite the model of headship. Even if we submit to our husband, we are equal.

Another clarification, it is perfectly fine for a husband to concede to what his wife believes. That doesn't mean that a wife doesn't submit to her husband or consider him to be the spiritual head of the house. Decisions can be made jointly and determined through discussion, even if a marriage follows that model. We are all supposed to love one another and reverence each other. It may be a different focus, but it is a mutual partnership as well. As I said, if it came to an impasse, I would submit to my husband should it not be against God. However, that doesn't mean that we can't both at times go with the opinion of the other person.

 

[All4Christ]

All4Christ,

I agree that submission has to be to God first the foremost. A wife submitting to her husband does not mean she she should rob a bank or worship idols to please or obey her husband. Jesus told the apostles that the scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses' seat, and to do what they taught, but not to imitate their works. But when the Sanhedrin told them not to speak in the name of Jesus, Peter and John concluded that it was better to obey God rather than men.

Good - I strongly disagree with those who promote that...which is promoted by some here on CF.

I agree that discussions of what submission should look like on cf go to extremes. A wife submitting to her husband gets described in terms of violence, spousal abuse, stripping away a woman's identity and sense of self, treating a woman like a child, etc. I suspect there are some wives who submit to their husbands in the world who endure all kinds of things like that. But this is not the type of marriage Ephesians is teaching Christians to have. The wife is to submit to her husband, but the husband is also supposed to love her as Christ loved the church.

I agree that this is key. That's why it often ends up having both people "obey" each other in that we put each other first (in the same context that St John Chrysostom promoted).

The one reason I have reservations about the book Love and Respect is that it seems to strip the importance of both loving each other and both respecting each other. I do respect my husband, and my husband loves me. I probably fit into the model of wanting love and him needing respect. Despite that focus, however, we both need love and respect. It's not a mutually exclusive behavior. I also don't agree with respecting an abuser or someone who is manipulative and damaging to women or their children. The book implies otherwise. (If I remember correctly, there are a few sentences about this, but it is not spoken about often and many workshops skip over t altogether). They can be dangerous beliefs if not tempered by God being our ultimate authority. A church should never promote that a woman accept abuse or respect what an abuser is doing. I'd even say that she shouldn't respect the abuser as her husband. This is an extreme case, but hopefully it makes a bit of sense. I've experienced manipulative abusive relationships and thought I should respect him and follow him anyways. Thank God some people helped me realize that God doesn't want that for us. Thank God I didn't end up marrying him and having a family.

One of my best friends is married to an alcoholic, drug addict, emotional and verbal abuser, and financially draining man (he uses it for drugs and alcohol). Her church is teaching her with that program to respect him and obey him, in order for him to be a better husband. This is where submission no longer is the right case imho. It is sad to me when a church promotes acceptance of that behavior and when they start to move the blame to the woman. It makes me so upset to see this...and to see the effect on the family.

 

[LinkH]

All4Christ,

Wives should respect and submit to their husbands even if they don't obey the word, but they should still submit to God. I haven't encountered anyone on CF, that I recall, who advocated disobeying God to submit to one's husband.

I don't recall the Eggerich book saying anything about respecting abuse.

If you believe the husband is the head of the home, how is that not a patriarchal model?

 

[All4Christ]

All4Christ,

Wives should respect and submit to their husbands even if they don't obey the word, but they should still submit to God. I haven't encountered anyone on CF, that I recall, who advocated disobeying God to submit to one's husband.

Perhaps you have not come across the same posts I have seen. I'm not saying that they shouldn't submit to their husbands, but I do believe some things such as abuse, manipulation, tearing the family down, and other serious negative behaviors are against God as well.

I don't recall the Eggerich book saying anything about respecting abuse.

If you believe the husband is the head of the home, how is that not a patriarchal model?

Some of the workshops do. I've seen the results with my friend as well, which obviously causes concern as someone who cares about her. It has been awhile since I've read the book, but I could pull it out to point out the sections I'm referencing if you'd like.

Regarding the Patriarchal model:

The patriarchal model says that men are more important than women and that women are lesser beings. It often promotes women being limited to staying at home and taking care of children.

Complementarian is closer to what I promote, though I do believe women can be outside the home, have jobs, etc. This model still promotes the husband as the head of the house. We (Orthodox) believe that God values women equally. Men are not more important than women in God's eyes.

ETA: A husband can recognize that his wife may be more knowledgeable in a certain area or that it is a decision that isn't a problem if they go with his wife's desire or beliefs. Just because he is considered to be the head doesn't mean that he shouldn't put her needs first and acknowledge that her opinion may be right. It still is a partnership where discussion together is very important. Ideally we come to a compromise or agreement. Would you disagree with that?

A leader recognizes that he / she is not always the best person to decide something. He or she can acknowledge that and trust the decision of someone who is stronger in that area. It shouldn't be a domineering relationship. Would you disagree?

 

[All4Christ]

This is a tenet from Patriarchal marriages:

13. Since the woman was created as a helper to her husband, as the bearer of children, and as a “keeper at home,” the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home, although her domestic calling, as a representative of and helper to her husband, may well involve activity in the marketplace and larger community. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Prov. 31:10-31; Tit. 2:4-5)

14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)

Perhaps part of my opinion is due to my background in Social Work. The men who abuse their wives and treat them like they are worthless typically use these passages as the reason their behavior is acceptable. Some even say it is God-ordained. When a husband takes away all credit cards and bank accounts and gives a pittance of an allowance to his wife, when he doesn't let her leave the home except for grocery shopping and taking kids to school, when he states that she can't do anything except take care of kids, when he says she is not smart, intelligent or able to think logically...these are problems. The outcome often causes serious problems for families, children as well as wives. I've seen this in personal experience and sadly have seen this in churches, where leadership and teachers places the blame on the wife instead of the man. They don't say it is right, but say it wouldn't happen if she respected him more. The "fix" is for her to respect him more. There is a process in the church for dealing with sin. It is clearly defined in Scripture. It shouldn't be excused, no matter what the wife does. (Thankfully I haven't seen this in the Orthodox Church).

ETA: I'm not saying this happens all the time. However, it does happen.

 

[LinkH]

I use 'patriarchy' in a more generic sense. There are plenty of patriarchal cultures. That is generally the norm. They don't all have a 1950's America division of labor. Hebrew culture in the Bible is patriarchal. The New Testament has some patriarchal teachings.

Patriarchy means 'rule of the Father.'

There may be certain people in a 'Christian patriarchy' movement that emphasizes women not working outside of the home and other specific things regarding male and female roles, but this is not the only version of patriarchy.

 

[mkgal1]

Patriarchy means 'rule of the Father.'

It does....but what's being pointed out is that when it's up to solely ONE person (instead of a team) there's great opportunity for abuse of that position (especially when the family is in a church that advocates for "father rule"). The man then has backing and support and can believe he's being a "godly leader" even when he's restricting his wife's movement and agency.

Even the word "rule"---does that even sound loving to you?

 

[mkgal1]

A leader recognizes that he / she is not always the best person to decide something. He or she can acknowledge that and trust the decision of someone who is stronger in that area. It shouldn't be a domineering relationship. Would you disagree?

Link?

 

[mkgal1]

Btw, how can you say that the three visitors, all three of them, were God?

Hmmm....that wasn't actually what I was focused on when reading, but looking at it now, it does seem as if it could have been a Theophany of the trinity. Genesis 19:13 gives a bit more information when it's written, "For we are about to destroy this city completely". Later in Gen 19 the text says, "God destroyed the cities" (but I do believe regardless--it was only in God's power the cities were destroyed).

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that one of the 3 was Jesus as Jesus came right out and said He was the one who talked to Abraham. I believe that is what Jesus meant when He said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56)

 

[All4Christ]

Hmmm....that wasn't actually what I was focused on when reading, but looking at it now, it does seem as if it could have been a Theophany of the trinity. Genesis 19:13 gives a bit more information when it's written, "For we are about to destroy this city completely". Later in Gen 19 the text says, "God destroyed the cities" (but I do believe regardless--it was only in God's power the cities were destroyed).

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that one of the 3 was Jesus as Jesus came right out and said He was the one who talked to Abraham. I believe that is what Jesus meant when He said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56)

It is Traditionally viewed as essentially a Theophany of the Trinity. It is the one icon we (Orthodox) have of the Trinity.

 

[mkgal1]

It is Traditionally viewed as essentially a Theophany of the Trinity. It is the one icon we (Orthodox) have of the Trinity.

Good to know! I'd never learned about that. Is this the icon (I just did a search) ?

In this icon, the three angels represent the three persons of the Trinity presiding at the feast around Abraham's table (Genesis 18). This is also the altar table, and they are blessing the Eucharistic chalice. From left to right are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son wears the same garments as Christ. The Spirit wears green to signify his life-creating energy. Above them are Abraham's house, the Oak of Mamre, and the mountain. The house represents the Father's house (John 14:2) and the tree is next to the Son, representing His life-giving death on the Cross, the tree of life.~Icons and Echoes: The Holy Trinity, or The Hospitality of Abraham

 

[All4Christ]

Good to know! I'd never learned about that. Is this the icon (I just did a search)

Yep

 

[LinkH]

Hmmm....that wasn't actually what I was focused on when reading, but looking at it now, it does seem as if it could have been a Theophany of the trinity. Genesis 19:13 gives a bit more information when it's written, "For we are about to destroy this city completely". Later in Gen 19 the text says, "God destroyed the cities" (but I do believe regardless--it was only in God's power the cities were destroyed).

I was just thinking if it were me, I would be careful about calling entities god if it isn't clear.

In this case, we read,
Genesis 18
16 Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to send them on the way. 17 And the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing, (NKJV)

Genesis 19:1a
1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening,

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that one of the 3 was Jesus as Jesus came right out and said He was the one who talked to Abraham. I believe that is what Jesus meant when He said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56)

I've also heard the interpretation that Abraham saw Jesus' day prophetically, in a type through Isaac.

God can do things through agents. But Genesis 19 says
24 Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.
(NKJV)

Some people take the 'strange flesh' comment in Jude to be about angels.

 

[LinkH]

It does....but what's being pointed out is that when it's up to solely ONE person (instead of a team) there's great opportunity for abuse of that position (especially when the family is in a church that advocates for "father rule"). The man then has backing and support and can believe he's being a "godly leader" even when he's restricting his wife's movement and agency.

Even the word "rule"---does that even sound loving to you?

I wouldn't condemn all men for restricting their wife's 'movement and agency' and I realize people from different cultures can operate within their norms that are different from ours without sinning.

A good balanced teaching on marriage will teach wives to submit to their husbands. I think the type of teaching you get from those who are scared of it who have accepted some of the modern forms of feminist thought are more dangerous, since they actually teach against the word of God.

But some men can be domineering and unChristlike as well.

 

[LinkH]

Regarding the Patriarchal model:

The patriarchal model says that men are more important than women and that women are lesser beings. It often promotes women being limited to staying at home and taking care of children.

I don't think you would find any leaders even in a movement that calls itself a 'patriarchy movement' that teaches that men are more important than women.

A leader recognizes that he / she is not always the best person to decide something. He or she can acknowledge that and trust the decision of someone who is stronger in that area. It shouldn't be a domineering relationship. Would you disagree?

That seems to me to be a wise approach to leadership, marriage included.

Actually, I've heard the same idea in my management studies for determining at what level decisions should be made in an organization, also. I teach the same general idea when I get to organizational charts and structure in one of my classes.