Wife submitting to husband...

[M30USA]

Knowing your claim makes no sense, you invoke the get-out-of-jail-free card of "god, therefore magic!", at which point I get off the merry-go-round with my sanity and will to live intact.

 

I cannot discuss anything with somebody who just wants to preserve their preconceived conclusions without acknowledging that there is no rational way to arrive there from what we can observe and know.

 

Look, dude, if you want to discuss anything pertaining to history, non-metaphysical science, health, physiology, biology, etc, I'm game. I've graduated college and I obviously know how to discuss subject matters like this. But the subject at hand (the Holy Spirit), by nature, evades "proof" and must be judged primarily by wisdom: seeing the result of people who possess it, seeing the result of the Scripture it has produced, etc. As Jesus said, the Holy Spirit is like the wind, because you see its effect, yet you do not know from where it has come, nor where it is going.

[M30USA]

So you never answered whether or not you like the Wizard of Oz.

[xxoo]

Eh, the major parts of Scripture aren't interpretable to a degree where its meaning changes.

 

The question is: is this part of scripture able to be interpreted differently to a degree where its meaning changes? (the part about submission to the husband)

[M30USA]

The question is: is this part of scripture able to be interpreted differently to a degree where its meaning changes? (the part about submission to the husband)

 

You have several verses in Scripture OTHER than the oft-quoted "wives submit to your husband" one. There is Genesis 3 which is even more extreme: "...and he [Adam] shall rule over you [Eve]."

 

Is the Bible sexist? Yes. You can choose to not follow/obey it, but let's not pretend the Bible says something it doesn't just so it's more aligned with our society.

[xxoo]

You have several verses in Scripture OTHER than the oft-quoted "wives submit to your husband" one. There is Genesis 3 which is even more extreme: "...and he [Adam] shall rule over you [Eve]."

 

Is the Bible sexist? Yes. You can choose to not follow/obey it, but let's not pretend the Bible says something it doesn't just so it's more aligned with our society.

 

One interpretation of the Bible is that the New Testament replaces the old law of the Old Testament.

 

You can't insist that you have the authority on the word of god until you've taken it up with the other scholars.

[M30USA]

One interpretation of the Bible is that the New Testament replaces the old law of the Old Testament.

 

You can't insist that you have the authority on the word of god until you've taken it up with the other scholars.

 

Old Testament:

"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

 

New Testament:

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." (Eph 5:22-23).

 

***

 

One thing that baffles me is how any time you see that last verse quoted in modern churches or American culture, you always get something like the following comments:

 

1) "Now we already know what the Bible says about the wife's role to the husband...[quickly and uncomfortable changes subject]...but now I want to talk about how the husband must have mutual submission to his wife and love his wife."

 

Then if someone dares asked what he means by "what the Bible says about a wife's role to the husband", you invariably get...

 

2) "The word submit doesn't REALLY mean submit in the sense we usually hear the word...um...and when Genesis 3 says a husband 'rules' over his wife, it really doesn't REALLY mean rule in the sense we usually hear the word...um..."

 

I hear this same stuff all the time. I think the Bible is pretty clear. We just have Christians who are ashamed of what their Bible says.

Edited October 31, 2012 by M30USA

[xxoo]

New Testament:

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." (Eph 5:22-23).

 

***

 

One thing that baffles me is how any time you see that last verse quoted in modern churches or American culture, you always get something like the following comments:

 

1) "Now we already know what the Bible says about the wife's role to the husband...[quickly and uncomfortable changes subject]...but now I want to talk about how the husband must have mutual submission to his wife and love his wife.".

 

The verse immediately preceding what you've quoted, Eph 5:21, tells spouses to submit to each other.

 

Not so clear, imo.

[pie2]

2) "The word submit doesn't REALLY mean submit in the sense we usually hear the word...um...and when Genesis 3 says a husband 'rules' over his wife, it really doesn't REALLY mean rule in the sense we usually hear the word...um..."

 

I hear this same stuff all the time. I think the Bible is pretty clear. We just have Christians who are ashamed of what their Bible says.

 

So what does 'rule over' mean to you?

[xxoo]

2) "The word submit doesn't REALLY mean submit in the sense we usually hear the word...um...and when Genesis 3 says a husband 'rules' over his wife, it really doesn't REALLY mean rule in the sense we usually hear the word...um..."

 

I hear this same stuff all the time. I think the Bible is pretty clear. We just have Christians who are ashamed of what their Bible says.

 

Also, it is worth noting that the Bible was, of course, not written in English. The words on the page are translations, and subject to the interpretation of the translator. Different translations have different meanings.

[M30USA]

Also, it is worth noting that the Bible was, of course, not written in English. The words on the page are translations, and subject to the interpretation of the translator. Different translations have different meanings.

 

Not really. Greek (New Testament) is one of the most technical languages ever. I have heard Greek experts say that, compared to other languages, it translates exceptionally well because it is so specific and anything but vague.

 

The "interpretation" debate is a smokescreen by people who merely want to believe what they want instead of what the Bible says.

[M30USA]

So what does 'rule over' mean to you?

 

What does Christ being the head of the church mean to you? Because that's what Paul says a husband is to his wife. Does the church submit to Christ? Or does it engage in "mutual submission" and "mutual respect"?

[M30USA]

The verse immediately preceding what you've quoted, Eph 5:21, tells spouses to submit to each other.

 

Not so clear, imo.

 

That is before he addresses husbands and wives. That quote is in reference to households, in general. You will also notice that the Bible NEVER says women should submit to men. It says WIVES should submit to HUSBANDS. There is a key difference.

[pie2]

What does Christ being the head of the church mean to you? Because that's what Paul says a husband is to his wife. Does the church submit to Christ? Or does it engage in "mutual submission" and "mutual respect"?

 

I think Christ submitted to the church much more than the church submits to him. It's a broken world, unfortunately.

 

When God came down, and was a small little baby, who couldn't walk or talk, and had poopy diapers, he submitted. When he was a pimply teenager, he submitted. And of course, when Christ died for our sins on the cross, God submitted his omniscient power for our sins. Thank you Lord!

 

So, I agree, it's not mutual...Christ submits much more than we do.

[M30USA]

Christ died for us and served us, he didn't submit to us. However, Christ DID submit to the Father (in the trinity).

[pie2]

Christ died for us and served us, he didn't submit to us. However, Christ DID submit to the Father (in the trinity).

 

I think you're right...Jesus was following God's instruction, even though we (the people) were insisting on his crucifixion.

 

But you didn't answer my question ! And how could you not think that 'rule over' could mean different things to different people? I mean, even if I say 'Barbeque' to someone who lives in the South, that word could conjure up something totally different to someone who's from another part of the country.

[M30USA]

I think you're right...Jesus was following God's instruction, even though we (the people) were insisting on his crucifixion.

 

But you didn't answer my question ! And how could you not think that 'rule over' could mean different things to different people? I mean, even if I say 'Barbeque' to someone who lives in the South, that word could conjure up something totally different to someone who's from another part of the country.

 

It all comes back to the Christ-Church analogy. Any time there is any confusion, always go back to that. Wives are to submit to their husbands. Paul even said that husbands are their wives salvation. Think about that. I sometimes believe--and this is pretty sexist--that God doesn't hold women accountable for many things. You will notice he didn't even pronounce judgement on mankind until the MAN sinned, even thought Eve had already sinned. However, the one thing which redeems a woman--according to Paul--is her submission to her husband. I think it's a little bit suspicious that the modern day feminist movement tells women NOT to do the ONE THING which will--according to Paul--aid in their salvation. Pretty heavy stuff. But trust me, Satan is brilliant.

[pie2]

Think about that. I sometimes believe--and this is pretty sexist--that God doesn't hold women accountable for many things.

 

Geesh, M30. Husbands have a great responsibilities in relation to their wives (reference: M30, about 5 posts back).

[Mme. Chaucer]

My goal is to educate people about Gods Word and make sure it doesn't get misrepresented or compromised. Whatever a person does with the info is their choice.

 

A problem with this, M30USA, is that you really are NOT the ultimate authority on "the word of God" or in the position to "make sure it doesn't get misrepresented or compromised."

 

Some of your posts express a view that's not exactly "mainstream" Christianity. I respect your right to believe what you wish to believe, but really. We are able to read the bible; our own ways of understanding it, or our choices to accept or reject it, or to consult with spiritual teachers who we choose to trust.

 

Some of us may be Catholics, or Mormons, or Jews - all of which I am pretty sure you sneer at as "not real Christians."

 

Despite your own beliefs, though, I don't think that you are in any closer touch with "the word of God" than any other regular Joe who thinks he or she is.

[mercy]

I am submissive to my h on a need to receive basis. When I see in his eyes that it's important to him that I respect his opinion, I do. Because I simply adore that man.

 

But if he were to come to me and say, this is how it's going to be because I said so. I'd tell him where to put his said so.

 

One thing I find amazing is within those verses is something very important. Men were instructed to love their wives, what a novel idea back then when marriages were arranged and love had nothing to do with it. If a man loves you (there's nothing like it) he doesn't lord over you, he's honoring you.

[soccerrprp]

Mormons and Jews are NOT Christians... if people knew anything about some of these religions, you'd see the obvious foundations from which they were created to be against Christ's teachings and common sense...sorry, obviously speaking of Mormons, not Jews....

 

The problem isn't with the scriptures (usually), it's the way they are interpreted. Traditional Christian interpretation has made the OP scriptures a rallying cry for the denigration and inferiority of the status of women. If there are good men who truly walk in the way of Christ, this won't be a problem, but many have not.

[LadyGrey]

I don't know why but your posts rile me up. Maybe because your anger and resentment toward women is so palpable.

 

I'm not a scholar of the Bible but I grew up with a background of a christian family for the most part.

 

So when I read these verses from the bible about submission, etc, I struggle with their true intent and I'll be the first to tell you I don't understand, but I can tell you that due to the background of my childhood and carried on into adulthood, I do not ever see myself submitting to a man. In fact just thinking of it, makes me angry as I saw my mother choosing this path and she was treated horribly by my father.

 

I don't see myself ever having enough trust for that to happen. I'd like to meet a man who proved to me that he was trustworthy enough for me to even consider it but I don't see that happening at this stage either. I tend to think that there are few men out there who would not take advantage of a woman's submission.

 

Call it what you will, ignorance or ?

 

 

Old Testament:

"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

 

New Testament:

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." (Eph 5:22-23).

 

***

 

One thing that baffles me is how any time you see that last verse quoted in modern churches or American culture, you always get something like the following comments:

 

1) "Now we already know what the Bible says about the wife's role to the husband...[quickly and uncomfortable changes subject]...but now I want to talk about how the husband must have mutual submission to his wife and love his wife."

 

Then if someone dares asked what he means by "what the Bible says about a wife's role to the husband", you invariably get...

 

2) "The word submit doesn't REALLY mean submit in the sense we usually hear the word...um...and when Genesis 3 says a husband 'rules' over his wife, it really doesn't REALLY mean rule in the sense we usually hear the word...um..."

 

I hear this same stuff all the time. I think the Bible is pretty clear. We just have Christians who are ashamed of what their Bible says.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Mormons and Jews are NOT Christians... if people knew anything about some of these religions, you'd see the obvious foundations from which they were created to be against Christ's teachings and common sense...sorry, obviously speaking of Mormons, not Jews....

 

 

I realize that Jews are not Christians and don't self-identify as Christians. I mis-typed what I meant to say there.

 

Mormons consider themselves to be Christian and I do not think that it's up to you, this M30 character or anyone else to denigrate their beliefs, nor to righteously claim that your impression of "Christ's teachings" are more valid than someone else's.

 

Personally, I think that UFO believing fundies, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., etc., etc., are all embracing a plethora of "magical" concepts based upon their faith, and none of them have a corner of the market on doing so over the rest.

 

I have a great deal of respect for peoples' right to believe what they choose, and to celebrate religion as they wish. My respect comes to a quick halt, though, when the attitude that one system of belief trumps all the others is revealed.

[pie2]

[M30USA], is there anything at all for which you'd put your beliefs on the line? Any piece of evidence, any reason that, if shown to be false, would invalidate Christianity in your eyes?

 

I think we both know the answer to that.

 

I think we all know the answer to that...and it relates to extraterrestrials.

[mercy]

I realize that Jews are not Christians and don't self-identify as Christians. I mis-typed what I meant to say there.

 

Mormons consider themselves to be Christian and I do not think that it's up to you, this M30 character or anyone else to denigrate their beliefs, nor to righteously claim that your impression of "Christ's teachings" are more valid than someone else's.

 

Personally, I think that UFO believing fundies, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., etc., etc., are all embracing a plethora of "magical" concepts based upon their faith, and none of them have a corner of the market on doing so over the rest.

 

I have a great deal of respect for peoples' right to believe what they choose, and to celebrate religion as they wish. My respect comes to a quick halt, though, when the attitude that one system of belief trumps all the others is revealed.

 

Oh, I just love this post!

[mercy]

Then you're not really being submissive at all, and rightly so. Look, there is simply no room for two people to be equal so long as one is called to submit to the other. It's a dreadfully unenlightened statement and it belongs quite firmly in the century in which it was put to paper, but not ours.

 

Deep down you know that you agree with me, but instead you feel compelled to somehow reinterpret and soften it into what you really know is right, rather than just take the simple step of rejecting it as the product of a bronze-age patriarchal society in which it was common to treat women as property.

 

No, I spoke from my heart and spoke of how I am with h. I really just let it be known how it is in my marriage. Submissiveness is a choice and sometimes when it matters to h, I submit. It's just that simple.

 

But know, within my marriage there is much love and respect.

 

h has always been, with me, a very passive kind and gentle man. Completely different from who he is to the outside world. Because of his chosen career he needed/needs a soft place to land and that's what I am to him. He doesn't/didn't need a submissive wife.