Bible: Wives, be subject to your own husbands...in everything

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, assuming that Christianity SHOULD have the doctrine of Jesus as its foundation, there is much in the OT and NT that should "hold no weight". This would include Ephesians 5:22-24. Jesus did not teach this.

i watched a program on national geographic that raised a funny issue.

it is possible that not all of the letters attributed to paul were actually written by him. indeed, the first few were quite revolutionary and some were concerned that his views won't sit well with the patriarchal roman society. so they added the "cool" letters in which he says that women should be subservient.

this of course is not solid evidence, but something to consider. it is possible that not even paul would teach that misoginistic garbage.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, assuming that Christianity SHOULD have the doctrine of Jesus as its foundation, there is much in the OT and NT that should "hold no weight". This would include Ephesians 5:22-24. Jesus did not teach this.

That, essentially, has been my whole point. Christianity, as it exists, is not as it should be. It certainly holds little resemblance to what Jesus likely had in mind. And apparently is not exactly what Paul had in mind either, if Crossan and Borg are to be believed. There are many Christians out there who recognize this, even though they appear to be a small minority.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i watched a program on national geographic that raised a funny issue.

it is possible that not all of the letters attributed to paul were actually written by him. indeed, the first few were quite revolutionary and some were concerned that his views won't sit well with the patriarchal roman society. so they added the "cool" letters in which he says that ...[text shortened]... mething to consider. it is possible that not even paul would teach that misoginistic garbage.

Interesting. Your post says almost exactly the same thing I was saying earlier. Although I got it from a different source.

Originally posted by rwingett
Interesting. Your post says almost exactly the same thing I was saying earlier. Although I got it from a different source.

sorry, i arrived later at the party.

Originally posted by rwingett
That, essentially, has been my whole point. Christianity, as it exists, is not as it should be. It certainly holds little resemblance to what Jesus likely had in mind. And apparently is not exactly what Paul had in mind either, if Crossan and Borg are to be believed. There are many Christians out there who recognize this, even though they appear to be a small minority.

I'd go even further: What Paul had in mind (even if one only uses Crossan and Borg recognized writings) holds little resemblance to what Jesus had in mind.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sorry, i arrived later at the party.

I wonder if the program was based on the Crossan and Borg book. Seems likely.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'd go even further: What Paul had in mind (even if one only uses Crossan and Borg recognized writings) holds little resemblance to what Jesus had in mind.

I would agree with you on that point.

Originally posted by rwingett
That, essentially, has been my whole point. Christianity, as it exists, is not as it should be. It certainly holds little resemblance to what Jesus likely had in mind. And apparently is not exactly what Paul had in mind either, if Crossan and Borg are to be believed. There are many Christians out there who recognize this, even though they appear to be a small minority.

Every single Christian know that they have fallen short of the expectations of Christ and know for a fact that all they have is a hope .. they just HOPE, that the mercy of God will allow them to reap the benefits of their work and faith nothwithstanding their failings.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Every single Christian know that they have fallen short of the expectations of Christ and know for a fact that all they have is a hope .. they just HOPE, that the mercy of God will allow them to reap the benefits of their work and faith nothwithstanding their failings.

That's not quite the point.

Salvation, if it exists, will be self-actuating.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What you and your wife agrees upon is a matter of you two.

If you say that becase women are women they should stay at home with the children, amd because men are men they should get a good career to provide for them, then I disagree.

I've seen enough women that cannot handle children and enough men who certainly can, to know that handling children h ...[text shortened]... regarded with prejudices according to his/her belonging in a group.

Do you agree in this?

Yes - I have to say I agree with you on this. I am...well...how to say...not mechanically inclined and my wife knows more about that sort of stuff. We still do things together though. My wife is an incredibly intelligent and wise woman 🙂 I value her opinions on every matter and trust her 100%. Finances are another one of my weak areas. My wife handles all of our finances and I trust her 110% with our money.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'd go even further: What Paul had in mind (even if one only uses Crossan and Borg recognized writings) holds little resemblance to what Jesus had in mind.

================================
I'd go even further: What Paul had in mind (even if one only uses Crossan and Borg recognized writings) holds little resemblance to what Jesus had in mind.
===================================

I disagree.

Paul says "Being subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (Eph. 5:21)

This thought could be traced to Jesus - " But Jesus called them to Him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you shall be your slave." (Matthew 20:27)

This is teaching mutual humility and submission in service among all of the disciples.

Further, in John 13 Jesus washed the disciples' feet to show He humility and service to those who regarded Him as their Master. He did this as an example for all of them to follow towards one another.

The entire theme of husbands loving the wives as Christ loved the church is exemplified in Christ's giving up of Himself on the cross for His disciples. "Jesus, knowing that His hour had come for Him to depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the uttermost." (John 13:1)

What follows is Jesus washing the feet of His disciples in utter humility not to mention His approaching crucifixion on their behalf. This teaching and action of Jesus furnished ground for Paul to write:

"Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." (Eph. 5:25)

What about Paul's exhortation to the wives "Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord; For a husband is head of the wife as also Christ is Head of the church He Himself being the Savior of the Body."

There should be little difficulty in seeing that Christ was the Head of the church. He is the "Lord". There also should be little problem in seeing that Jesus taught He was the Savior of the church.

But in saying He is the Head and Savior of the "Body", meaning the church, can also be seen directly and indirectly.

First directly, we can see Paul obtained the concept from his encounter with the resurrected Christ in his own conversion in Acts 9.

"And as he went, he drew near to Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul why are you persecuting Me?

And he said, Who are You, Lord? And He said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute." (Acts 9:3-5)

Saul was persecuting the Christian church. Jesus, in exaltation, spoke and said that Paul was persecuting Him - meaning Jesus Himself. This proves that Jesus taught Paul that His church was an extension of Himself. He was her HEAD yet she was His BODY. All of the Christians on the earth were parts and members of a collective entity that was organically one with Christ their Lord and Head.

Jesus could have said "Why do you persecute my church" He did not. Jesus could have said "Why do you persecute My people". He did not. He said "Saul, Saul, Why do you persecute ME?"

The body of disciples on earth were part of CHRIST Himself Who was exalted and in heaven. He was the Head of the Body of Christ. Paul never forgot this revelation. And it surely furnished the backround from which He taught in Ephesians, Colossians, and First Corinthians that the church of Christ was His BODY and aggegate and corporate entity which was one with Jesus her Lord and Head.

So Paul writes to the intent that when the men and women who are MARRIED contemplate thier marriage relationship they see sactrificial service and humility from both parties. Husbands should be willing to give up their lives for their wives. And wives should be in submission to their husbands.

The reminder is built into nature itself is latter argued by Paul.

I would note that the apostolic couple "Priscilla and Aquilla", mentioned by Paul and Luke sometimes recorded the wife's name first and sometimes the husbands name first:

Wife mentioned first - "Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life ..." (Rom. 16:3)

Husband mentioned first - " ... a certain Jew Aquila, a native of Pontus, recemtly come from Italy, and Priscilla his wife ..." (Acts 18:2)

Wife mentioned first - "And Paul, ... took leave of the brothers ... and with him Priscilla and Aquila ..." (Acts 18:18)

Wife mentioned first - "And when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him [Apollos] to [themselves] and expounded the way of God to him more accurately." (Acts 18:26)

I can discern no other reason for the Holy Spirit inspiring the NT writers to put the wife's name occasionally first other then that in spiritual matters she may have taken a leadership role of some kind. Being subject to her husband therefore could not have cramped her spiritual gifts whatever they were:

" ... Prisca and Aquila ... to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles." (Rom. 16:4)

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
I'd go even further: What Paul had in mind (even if one only uses Crossan and Borg recognized writings) holds little resemblance to what Jesus had in mind.
===================================

I disagree.

Paul says "Being subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (Eph. 5:21)

This thought ...[text shortened]... also all the churches of the Gentiles." (Rom. 16:4) [/b][/b]

why must a woman be submissive to her husband? i know paul said so but tell me your opinion. can you think of another reason other than paul said so?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why must a woman be submissive to her husband? i know paul said so but tell me your opinion. can you think of another reason other than paul said so?

==========================================
why must a woman be submissive to her husband? i know paul said so but tell me your opinion. can you think of another reason other than paul said so?
========================================

Please do not miss certain other facts about Paul's teaching. For example, he says all should be subject to one another (Eph. 5:21).

Please do not miss that he teaches that no one should think more highly of himself then he ought to think:

"For I say; through the grace given to me, to EVERY ONE WHO IS AMONG YOU, not to think more highly [of himself] than he ought to think, but to think so as to be sober minded ..." (Rom. 12:3, my emphasis)

Please do not overlook that Paul at one point balances out the "gender" scale to show that in Christ there is no social strate of "male and female":

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor freeman, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26-29)

Here Paul is not saying there SHOULD not be these social strata. He is not speaking in a liberal or magnanimus way. Paul is saying that in Christ there CANNOT BE these cultural social levels - "There CANNOT BE -
Jew nor Greek,
slave nor free man,
there CANNOT be male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."

In the realm of Christ, in the sphere of this living Person, social oppression can be nullified. There can be submission without oppression. There can be leadership with humility. There can be coordination with mutual respect. There can be acknowledgement of physiological differences without exploitation. There must be.

He does not say "You should not act this way, like - Jew is better than Greek, free man is higher than slave, male is on top of female." Paul says for the proper expression of God's kingdom there "CANNOT BE" the exploitation of traditional social strata.

There cannot be arrogance in the Christian church. His instructions are to the Christian church. Paul is not laying down guidelines for the world. He is teaching guildelines for the EKKLESSIA, the called out assembly of believers to Christ, from the world.

Exploitation based on social strata is through in the Christian church. If social exploitation exists among Christians, if they act in contrary to what Paul says "CANNOT BE" in the realm of living Christ, then that is degradation. That is deformity. That is a breakdown of the healthy testimony of the churching people. There "CANNOT BE" males oppressing females. There "CANNOT BE" slave masters oppressing their slaves. Christ must permeate and saturate men and women's attitude towards one another in the Christian church life.

Priscilla can be subject to her husband Aquila. Yet at the same time Aquila the husband can recognize the comparitive spiritual maturity of his wife and even follow her lead. This is not rivalry. This is harmony for the accomplishment of God's purpose.


I and my wife have been married for 33 years. She is submissive to me. God showed her the first house we were to live in when we moved from one city to another. I followed her sense.

Often the finances are handled by her. She can take the lead in handling our finances while also being submissive to her husband in the Lord. We have a purpose to live for, the building up of the Christian church. The purpose is not freeing women for the sake of freeing women. Nor is the purpose freeing slaves for the sake of freeing slaves. The purpose is the healthy expression of people living Christ for the building up of the kingdom of God - His eternal purpose.

Our attitudes are atuned to the ultimate purpose of God's kingdom and Christ's church.

I don't think these passags in Ephesians should be taken in a legalistic way as if these are the 11th, 12th, and 13th commandments of Moses. I don't think any of these matters can be accomplished apart from being "filled in spirit" (v.18) as with sweet new wine.

I cannot love my wife as Christ loved the church apart from being filled up in my spirit with the Spirit of Jesus. My wife cannot be submissive without being filled in spirit. A Jewish Christian brother and a Greek Christian brother need to be filled in spirit to not play social "one-upmanship" toward one another. No slave master can show equity and humility towards his slaves apart from being "filled in spirit".

By being filled with the Holy Spirit in our human spirit we can be empowered by grace. We can be "partakers of the divine nature". This is for the building up of the normal and prevailing church as God's kingdom on the earth.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==========================================
why must a woman be submissive to her husband? i know paul said so but tell me your opinion. can you think of another reason other than paul said so?
========================================

Please do not miss certain other facts about Paul's teaching. For example, he says all should be ...[text shortened]... ormal and prevailing church as God's kingdom on the earth.[/b]

paul this and paul that.

can you tell me why the wife must be submissive to the husband?

many things in the bible have a good reason behind them. don't work on the seventh day because god said so AND you need some rest yourself. don't steal because god said so AND the one you stole from will miss it AND society will shun you AND you didn't earn that object AND you set up a precedent in which all members of society will start stealing AND ...

now is your turn to play. The wife should be submissive to her husband because god said so AND ...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Ephesians 5
22[b]Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Do any Christians here ...[text shortened]... e above, yet believe that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God", how do you reconcile this?[/b]

I don't know about all that, I go by Joshua 24: "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord"

God's in charge of my house...not me.