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

Originally posted by josephw
God doesn't see any difference between man and woman. Why should I?

But men and women are not the same. We were created with different characteristics.

The Bible is clear. Woman was made for the man as a help meet, and when a man and a woman fulfill their prospective roles in marriage, as they were designed to do, all is at peace.

All this crap about man being superior to women is a distraction from the truth of God's word.

I think it is good to ask someone with some experience.

In principle the wife should submit to the husband. In practice if the husband LOVES the wife, it may seem that more often the case is that he is submitting to her.

Same with children. In principle the children should obey their parents. However, in real life, if the parents love the children, it may seem that quite frequent are the times when the parents are obeying the children.

I have been married for 33 years. We are both Christians, thank God. In principle the book says "Wives submit to your own husbands." But because I love my wife, more often the case seems to be that I submit to her.

You need to add some realism of experience to these concepts. And though as a Christian, I say "Amen" to them, real life experience proves that you cannot regard them as "Thou Shalt .... 11th commandments to be carried out in the natural man.

Though I have written it many times before, and no one seems to get it, FIRST, Paul charges the believers to be "filled in spirit".

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You wouldn't be scared if she was kicking the crap out of ya. You'd be scared if she tried to sit on your face and tried to smother you out of death😉

Especially that!

Please God, not that! 😉

Originally posted by jaywill
I think it is good to ask someone with some experience.

In principle the wife should submit to the husband. In practice if the husband LOVES the wife, it may seem that more often the case is that he is submitting to her.

Same with children. In principle the children should obey their parents. However, in real life, if the parents love the children, i ...[text shortened]... o one seems to get it, FIRST, Paul charges the believers to be [b]"filled in spirit".[/b]

I agree with you wholeheartedly jaywill.

I've said as much before.

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]

Jesus did not teach that wives ought to submit to their husbands in everything.

Read the verses again:

Ephesians 5
22Wives, 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.

Wives are to be subject to their husbands. Not just subject, but as subject to their husbands are they are to be subject to God. Not just subject, but subject in everything. The husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is head of the church.

You can try to pretend that these verses don't exist, but the fact is that they do.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
Yes -- friends and partners. I would want to be an equal partner with my spouse. No one person should be in charge of making the decisions, such as "we're moving to another state because that's what I want to do and I'm in charge." I was not put on this Earth to be someone's subordinate assistant (help-meet) and no one was put on this Earth to be mine.

This is as it should be. However, a much different picture is painted in Ephesians 5:22-24. Do you believe the author just plain has it wrong? I do.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus did not teach that wives ought to submit to their husbands in everything.

Read the verses again:
[quote]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 C ...[text shortened]... church.

You can try to pretend that these verses don't exist, but the fact is that they do.

=========================
Jesus did not teach that wives ought to submit to their husbands in everything.

Read the verses again:

Ephesians 5
22Wives, 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.

Wives are to be subject to their husbands. Not just subject, but as subject to their husbands are they are to be subject to God. Not just subject, but subject in everything. The husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is head of the church.

You can try to pretend that these verses don't exist, but the fact is that they do.
===================================== [/b]

I am not at all pretending the verse is not there.

I do know that you are not at all a reliabe interpreting teacher of the New Testament.

There is another verse saying that the woman will be saved through child bearing. I am sure that you can go through and select passages in an isolated way, divorced from any larger context, and spin your slanders.

The church is to be subject to Christ in everything. And since the Christian husband and wife relationship is a mirror of Christ saving love for His Wife and the Chruch's submission to Christ in everything so Paul say for the wives to be subject to their husbands in everything.

There is no need to pretend the passage is not there. I have no inclination to erase it. And it certainly is not any source of embarressment to me.

There are always passages in the Bible which someone somewhere may not like. If I were a woman I would probably have to look to God to get through this passage. I am not a sister, and that may make it easier on one level.

But that does NOT mean that there are other passages which are not a test to me.
Other passages cause me to shift in my seat, if not this one.

I don't even think an angel likes every verse in the Bible without one exception.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================
Jesus did not teach that wives ought to submit to their husbands in everything.

Read the verses again:

Ephesians 5
22Wives, 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 ch

I don't even think an angel likes [b]every verse in the Bible without one exception.[/b]

[/b] I am not at all pretending the verse is not there.

Seems like you lost the context of the discussion.

I said the following:

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.

You replied:

I disagree...Paul says "Being subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (Eph. 5:21)...This is teaching mutual humility and submission in service among all of the disciples.

The fact is that Ephesians 5:22-24 is an exception to "mutual humility and submission" in that wives are to submit to their husbands. If indeed the intent was a "mutual submission" between wives and husbands, Ephesians 5:22-24 would have been omitted or the idea of a "mutual submission" reiterated. Clearly this is not the case.

You cannot logically believe BOTH that there is to be "mutual submission" between wives and husbands AND that wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.

It's not about "not liking" verses. It's that your position is incoherent.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I am not at all pretending the verse is not there.

Seems like you lost the context of the discussion.

I said the following:

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.

You replied:
[quote]I disagree...Paul ng.

It's not about "not liking" verses. It's that your position is incoherent.[/b]

========================================
You cannot logically believe BOTH that there is to be "mutual submission" between wives and husbands AND that wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.
=========================================

According to the logic of living in and by Christ it is quite logical.

And that is why the husband has authority over the body of the wife and at the same time the wife has authority over the body of the husband, too:

"The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise the husband also does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Cor. 7:4)

According to your natural godless way of reasoning it is impossible. But in the realm of God living in man and man in God it is possible.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
You cannot logically believe BOTH that there is to be "mutual submission" between wives and husbands AND that wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.
=========================================

According to the logic of living in and by Christ it is quite logical.

And that is why th ...[text shortened]... oning it is impossible. But in the realm of God living in man and man in God it is possible.[/b]

Try reading my post again. You seem to have not understood what I was saying. Do you not understand that in the example you cite it is a "mutual" authority? Can you not comprehend that in Ephesians 5:22-24 it is decidedly not "mutual"? There the wife is to submit to the husband in everything. It is not a "mutual" submission. You keep trying to pretend that it isn't the case, but there it is.

Originally posted by rwingett
Jesus was all about breaking down the notions of hierarchy prevalent in the Roman world. All were to be equal before god. Men, women, masters, slaves, all were to be on equal footing in the coming kingdom. It was a revolutionary, egalitarian program of social justice.

Paul may very well have been in line with that program, with the Deutero Pauline epistles being added at a later date by church fathers seeking to water down that message.

I totally agree that Christ preached equality for all in the Kingdom. But whether or not He and Paul implied that we should try to acheive that in this life and this world is doubtful. To me his message was always to forget about the cares and worries of this life and look towards a heavenly life and reward, through love, charity and tolerance.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
Yes -- friends and partners. I would want to be an equal partner with my spouse. No one person should be in charge of making the decisions, such as "we're moving to another state because that's what I want to do and I'm in charge." I was not put on this Earth to be someone's subordinate assistant (help-meet) and no one was put on this Earth to be mine.

I agree but you are referring to an ideal situation. There is no such thing in this world. So my question stands.

Can you think of one social arrangement in which there is no pecking order?

I cant think of one. In your example of "friends and partners", you would like there to be equality but I am pretty sure that no such thing exists.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus did not teach that wives ought to submit to their husbands in everything.

Read the verses again:
[quote]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 C ...[text shortened]... church.

You can try to pretend that these verses don't exist, but the fact is that they do.

The words are not from Jesus, so ascribing them to him isn't kosher. The bottom line remains that they are Paul's teachings -- Paul, who never met Jesus.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
The words are not from Jesus, so ascribing them to him isn't kosher. The bottom line remains that they are Paul's teachings -- Paul, who never met Jesus.

For the life of me I can't figure out why you responded to my post with this comment. Did you respond to the wrong one?

Originally posted by Rajk999
I agree but you are referring to an ideal situation. There is no such thing in this world. So my question stands.

Can you think of one social arrangement in which there is no pecking order?

I cant think of one. In your example of "friends and partners", you would like there to be equality but I am pretty sure that no such thing exists.

Generally, the ability to be equal partners and collaborate is a feminine trait. Males tend to like to have roles and ranks assigned. It starts very young with the king of the hill, pushing each other off of progressively bigger toys and hills. Women, on the other hand, can work together and independently without a leadership position required. For example, women who are roommates, women who are cohabitating lovers, and women in a convent can divide labor according to interests and abilities, discuss problems, and together reach a consensus before a decision is made. If there are more than two, than a vote can be taken if necessary; one person doesn't decide.

In your world, do your friends dominate you? Do they decide what films you'll see together, where you'll go out to eat, etc.? Or do you discuss it and come to an agreement? Do you just unilaterally decide to paint a room a different color, or is there some conversation first? If you're married, does one of you decide where and how holidays will happen, or is there a discussion and mutual agreement? Even if your world is only dominating/dominated, understand that there are other experiences that are outside of your world.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
Generally, the ability to be equal partners and collaborate is a feminine trait. Males tend to like to have roles and ranks assigned. It starts very young with the king of the hill, pushing each other off of progressively bigger toys and hills. Women, on the other hand, can work together and independently without a leadership position required. For e ...[text shortened]... ating/dominated, understand that there are other experiences that are outside of your world.

I think I said that I understand that Paul was simply establishing a guideline that might be more applicable then. In these times I wont place any emphasis on that. What many religious people have failed to do is to sensibly apply the rules of the Bible to these times which are 2000 years hence.