Sometimes it’s a bit amusing, I feel as if I’ve been living under a rock, and I really have, thank God, The Rock that is higher than I. So, I had no idea that the Apostle Paul caused so much controversy. In some circles He is considered very politically incorrect. Non believers try to claim he suffered from temporal lobe problems, if he existed at all. Some feminists try to claim his contributions to the bible were forged at a later date. I was a bit baffled by all the fuss, until I stumbled on some rather false teachings about Paul a few years ago and began to catch on. Good grief, there’s some real ugliness falsely attributed to Paul, mostly about the alleged vast superiority of men and the need for women to remain subordinate at all times. If I thought that was the essence of who and what Paul was, I’d shy away too.
Actually that really breaks my heart. I love the Apostle Paul and have been so blessed by his teachings. Ironically it’s his great love for women, and for people in general that charmed me, that has kept me studying him and things he has taught.
In the process of one of these discussions on the internet, a kind soul suggested I read, “Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time” by Sarah Ruden
I haven’t finished it yet so I cannot give a proper report, but I like her tone ( and her humor) and especially the way Paul is put in the context of the times he is living in. There is so much misunderstanding of the bible because words are taken out of context, out of history, and perceived thorough modern, Western eyes. Slavery for example, the bible does not condone slavery, it outlines some rules about more humane behavior during a time when we actually crucified people and slaves were not even regarded as human. Homosexuality too, today some perceive it more as a choice between consenting adults, and completely forgotten is the historical context of forced sodomy with young boys, and the culture of sexual excess practiced in both Roman and Greek culture.
One needn’t read this little book to understand that Paul actually liked women a great deal. That seems to come through loud and clear to me within the pages of the bible itself. Lydia of the purple cloth for example, one of his first converts. Women were all over the early church and Paul and his followers are often to be found meeting in their homes, writing letters to them, working together to build the early church.
One thing I have always enjoyed about Paul is his understanding of classism and power issues. In the context of the time he was living in, this speaks so clearly to me. Veils for women in church for example, actually created equality between prostitutes and married women. Women were under protection within the church, and veils rather than being oppressive, were a cultural marker of status. You wore a veil as a symbol of being redeemed, claimed, now equal to the women of higher status. Later we learn about not adorning yourself with jewels and fancy garb, not a puritan call for plainness and submission at all, but as a way of creating equality among the members of the church and avoiding hierarchies. The early church was filled with former prostitutes, women married to non believing husbands, wealthy merchants, former slaves. Wealth, poverty, status, racial, and cultural strife. Paul is an architect, he is building unity and creating a new way of doing things that is completely counter cultural and surpringly respectful of human dignity.
Paul is often quoted as nothing more than “wives submit” but so often forgotten are all his recommendations on, “husbands love your wives.” Love was a radical idea in a world of cultural excess, ruled by human hierarchies, and dominated by brutality.
It still is.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. -Galatians 3:28
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Intriguing IB. Many Biblical characters are defined by one or two quotes when in fact they were complex multifaceted humans, same as the rest of us. Paul is one such. He did more to spread the word of the church than any other character in the Bible – including Christ. Jesus focused on the word of God and personal redemption while Paul focused on the church. I love your closing quote for it truly described a lot of Paul’s work. He was ejected from more cities and countries than virtually any other character in history. I found it quite amazing that his teachings were so contrary to the power and control of the countries he visited and yet he wasn’t killed. His words were threatening to many in authority when he described a chain of command that excluded the current rulers.
I have paid closer attention to Paul’s work as he was my name sake. His was a thankless job, although critical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Something interesting to me, we all read and create this subjective perception of certain characters, and we may all have slightly different views. You see that when someone tries to make a movie out of a book and they cast the wrong actor in a role. In the bible however, we can take this to a whole new level and part of the problem is actually not reading the book. Almost like kids, we can read a few sentences and then Google a synopsis and go read someone else’s interpretation. The thing about the bible however, is that it will reveal itself to us, precept upon precept, a little here, a little there, if we let go and let it speak to us.
One of my favorite things is the literary aspect of it, different books are written in different styles, so Christ will speak in parables or these things here are being used as a metaphor or this is poetry and a song. It was designed to be read subjectively by a variety of people all through time….and miraculously, minus a few lunkheads, we all arrive on pretty much the same page. I can speak to someone on the other side of the world, different culture, some different values, and we will have arrived at the same place in faith. I just love that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know you are exactly right IB. That said, it is my experience that when one speaks the Truth in God, that this can happen to our words as well. I’ve noticed this but it is hard to explain and it sounds somewhat self-promoting so I’ve never mentioned it to anyone before. I have upon occasion spoken words about a situation when I knew and expressed the truth with no personal gain to be had and those words seemed to take on a life of their own. Sometimes,even years later, I suddenly see a deeper and extended meaning in the same words that I spoke with a different intent earlier. I’ve had acquaintances come to me years later and say how much those words meant to them and what a difference they made at that time and place. This always surprises me. The only explanation that I can imagine is that when God created the Word he imbued it with power that we too could use. It is quite surprising and sometimes hair-raising.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, Paul. There is real power in our words, in His words spoken through us, especially. I’ve felt that happen before and it can be a bit hair raising.:)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good stuff, IB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks 🙂
LikeLike
So you say Paul liked women a great deal ms bytes? Ha, and women liked Paul a great deal too. It seems to me there is great harmony between the ring finger and the little toe on the left foot…………something about being members one of another in the body…….
And yeah, the gripes about the life and times of Paul? Instantly dismissed by common sense and the smallest amount of insight into spirituality. And can I shamelessly borrow a quote from one of my posts, to level the charges made against a good man?
(If Paul had brain damage, I want what he had)
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If Paul had brain damage, I want what he had.”
LOL! Amen. Paul is amazing, he’ll have you singing in prison and learning how to be content in all circumstances. Rather than being a grim character, he is all about the “rejoice and again I say rejoice!” I suspect Paul knew how to have some fun, even when people were out to get him. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hadn’t heard before about veils being an equalizer for all women along with toning does the jewelry. Very wise and sensitive. Huh? God is such a sweet and kind redeemer!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Veils have an amazing history, I should write about that one of these days! Our modern wedding tradition of wearing a veil is actually really lovely, it designates women as being sacred and holy, under God’s protection. So when you lift a veil for a kiss during marriage, you are taking responsibility for and promising to protect someone perceived as sacred.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you should write about that. Very interesting to say the least!
LikeLike
Pingback: Things I have read on the internet – 38 | clydeherrin
Ephesians 5:22-33 is one the most abused passages in the Bible, and the abuse is positively silly. Most of the passage is directed at men.
What is the supposed problem? Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. Then Paul tells husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies, to love their wives as Christ loved the church.
Wives, in other words, should love their husbands because their husbands love them so much that they would die for them. In a society where marriage is voluntary, why should women consider this a problem? In a society where marriage was often arranged and women were considered property, why wouldn’t women have considered this a great blessing?
LikeLike
I really don’t know what the problem is Tom, except we humans have an uncanny way of fouling up even the most beautiful ideas.
Paul is actually preaching some really revolutionary ideas at the time, concepts that could actually be said to be related to human dignity and human rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adam and Eve did not want to submit to God. They wanted to be like God, and it seems we are little different. So we try to find fault with the Bible and pick and choose the parts we want to obey, if we choose to obey it at all.
The class approach is that of the red-letter Christian. If Jesus did not say it, it is not really important. The Bible says God inspired the whole thing, and Jesus endorses the whole thing, but somehow the red letter Christians still feel justified. Sin is not rational. It is just our childish pride.
So it is that when red letter Christians read the Old Testament or anything except the Four Gospels, they find fault to excuse their delusions. In the Old Testament, God is mean and wrathful. Paul is a woman hater and so forth. It is really quite pathetic what idiots we can make of ourselves.
I suppose that is why we need to dwell in the Bible. Given time and study, the Bible itself can make our pretensions seem so small and foolish. In the Old Testament, if we read with even the slightest care, we can see just how much sins anguished our Creator. In the New, we begin to witness how Paul and each of the other apostles strive to become a conduits, allowing Jesus to stand, speak, and act in their place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom,
“What is the supposed problem? Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. Then Paul tells husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies, to love their wives as Christ loved the church.
Wives, in other words, should love their husbands because their husbands love them so much that they would die for them. “
First, the passage says nothing about wives loving their husbands. It only refers to husbands loving their wives. Yes, it is Biblical that women should love their husbands (all Christians are to love one another), and you would expect that wives would love their husbands if their husbands are loving them so much that they would die for them. But your last sentence above is not a correct restatement of the concepts in the passage. For that matter, there are no requirements or preconditions (that is, there is no “because”) for wives submitting or husbands loving. Each spouse is given their own action to take regardless of the other’s action or inaction.
As to the “supposed problem”, consider the concept that husbands are to love their wives. Search the internet and you will find almost no one who complains about this concept. If you find otherwise, please let me know. I’d be very interested to see it.
On the other hand, search the internet regarding wives submitting to husbands, and you will quickly find extreme furore at this concept. This is the real, not “supposed” problem.
Why the difference in response to these two behaviors? The problem is that many, perhaps most, women (and many men) consider wives submitting to their husbands to be unacceptable. At least one reason for rejecting submission is the feminist concept that women are completely equal to men. There are probably others. Whatever the reason(s), wives failing to submit to their husbands is contrary to Paul’s admonition (and, yes, husbands failing to love their wives is also contrary to Paul’s admonition. I feel obliged to emphasize this statement to counter the common objection “But what about the husbands?”).
LikeLike
Here’s the deal, OKRickety. I suspect that most woman married to a man who loves them is submitting, whether they recognize it or not.
You might also observe that Tom and I are both married and neither one of us have objected to the Apostle Paul’s words. I in fact, often write about submission. It carries no baggage for me.
There are however men, who have rather pornographically obsessed over the idea of wives submit, as if to submit means to demean oneself, as if to submit is an indication of female inferiority. Given those conditions, it is no wonder that so many women (and men) now reject the idea completely.
Consider me, married for 30 years, in faith, having four kids and two grand kids, quite pleased with God, marriage,and submission and yet you yourself have labeled me a radical feminist who hates men. Other than actually dying for my family is there some level of submission I have not yet reached?
Yes, in a pornographic sense, I have not demeaned and degraded myself in a manner sufficiently pleasing to the wounded and broken men who seem to believe that the cure for what ails them lies in the complete destruction of the object of their affection.
LikeLiked by 2 people
IB,
Thank you for a considerate response. I presume you will agree that husbands loving wives is not controversial, but wives submitting to husbands is very much so. It is true that there are men whose understanding of submission is not that of the Apostle Paul, and their actions are very damaging to their marriages, families, and churches. Perhaps that is the primary reason that wives’ submission is rejected. I have my doubts, and suspect that the primary reason is rooted in some more basic desire, perhaps, for example, a desire to control.
I believe you have a misunderstanding about how I would describe you. First, I do not believe you are a “radical feminist”. Although you deny being a feminist, I do believe you still have feminist principles deeply ingrained in you, but you don’t realize it.
To paraphrase, you can take the girl out of feminism, but you can’t take the feminism out of the girl.
Second, I do not think you hate men. In fact, I recently wrote that you think you love men, and I believe that you really do. But it’s extremely difficult to see that in the way you respond to many issues.
Here is what I see happen: Anytime something can be presumed to mean women have agency for their own behavior, you scream bloody murder, point out men’s failures, and maintain this is all the result of men failing to lead as God intends. Yes, you do sometimes write about wives’ submission, but when push comes to shove, you almost always launch into a tirade with items such as “what about the husbands loving their wives?”, “what about the husbands who abuse their wives?”, “wives would submit if their husbands would just lead”, “red pillians are causing women to refuse to submit”, etc. In other words, your behavior shows your feminist roots in that you blame men and effectively ignore, or at least excuse, the failure of women to act as they should. Men, generally as you might suppose, are not open to women telling them what to do, when they recognize that the women are blaming them entirely and ignoring or excusing their own failures.
I would be interested to see what the response would be to your pleas to men to be godly, loving leaders of marriage, family, church, and society if you were to admit that women are imperfect and their own selfish desires and behaviors contribute to the generally poor state of marriages, families, churches, and society. Note: Men are not excused from following God’s direction because of the behavior of others, nor are women excused from following God’s direction because of the behavior of men.
LikeLike
How am I supposed to respond to someone who accuses me of screaming bloody murder and going on tirades? That’s almost funny. I can’t recall a time I did either and yet your perceptions of me won’t allow you to see anything else. My words will just fall on your deaf ears because your mind is already made up.
“I believe you have a misunderstanding about how I would describe you.”
Oh please. Kindly don’t pee on my leg and try to tell me it’s raining. I’ve read your comments about me, they are dripping with contempt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you could respond with love and grace. But you didn’t, did you?
LikeLike
I could, but your demands for love and grace from me seem to be rather one sided.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t demand love and grace from you. I didn’t even ask for it. I only stated that you didn’t respond with it.
I have little doubt that you will disagree, but your post “Pastor Wilson has gone and ticked me off..” is a recent example of you screaming bloody murder and going on a tirade. In fact, I think your response is exactly what Wilson meant when he said “Any counselor who actually tries to address feminine shortcomings in a dysfunctional relationship is a brave counselor.”.
LikeLike
Hmm, well perhaps we do have different definitions of “screaming bloody murder.” But I really see no reason to shriek and scream about it, it just is what it is, Pastor Wilson has an agenda when it comes to women.
The problem being, much like you perceive me as shrieking, unrepentant, unsubmissive, a closet feminist, Pastor Wilson would perceive me or just about any woman in the same way. So I am already guilty as charged, meaning the chances of my ever being treated fairly are now gone. In fact, I am now nothing more than a two dimensional projection of his own issues.
My problem with this from a faith based perspective is that it teaches men to lay their shame down at the foot of women rather than at the foot of the cross. It is only Christ’s love and redemption that can really heal people, so this is teaching I really dislike seeing.
LikeLike
OKRickety
Check out Ephesians 5:21. Paul instructs Christians to be subject to each other in fear of Christ.
The Amplified Bible (AMP) includes this note on Ephesians 5:22.
When either or both a husband or a wife refuse to uphold the roles and responsibilities of their respective positions, that husband or wife ceases to be husband or a wife. When a man beats or constantly demeans his wife, for example, he loses any right to call himself her husband. He has cheated her just as if he had committed adultery.
What roles and responsibilities does a marriage involve? The man looks outward and struggles with the world. He protects his family. He provides food, clothing, and shelter; and supports his wife in caring for and disciplining their children. The woman looks inward. She protects her children, teaches her children, cares for the home, supports her man,and assists in providing for the family. Both the husband and the wife give of themselves for each others sake and the sake of their children. Each strives to think of themselves as one.
In our post Christian society, we have family roles confused. Yet those Christian families who still strive to conform Biblical teachings struggle less than most.
If all that sounds old fashion, I suggest you consider how most military units function. There is the commander. Out of respect for his position, his subordinates submit to his orders (orders much more specific than most husbands would dare to give). Each unit also usually has some sort of deputy commander. While the commander looks outward, the deputy looks inward. The commander’s job is to understand his unit’s mission, plan ahead against the threat, coordinate with other units, set policy, deal with personnel issues, and so forth. He assigns his deputy the task of looking inward. The deputy makes certain that what his commander wants done gets done, and he keeps his commander abreast of the unit’s problems and needs.
The deputy’s job is no less important, but when there are two someone has to break the tie. In combat (and in life in general), indecision risks mounting problems, defeat, and death.
What about the remaining members of the unit. What about children within a disciplined family unit? Each has assigned tasks. Knowing that the survival of their unit (or family) depends upon their care and obedience, they complete their assigned tasks with care and obedience for the sake of their comrades.
Does comparing a family with a military unit seem a stretch. Then consider. Whereas military units exist only to overcome other military units, families exist to overcome the world.
So I say that when a military unit refers to itself as a family, in a very practical sense, that analogy is quite accurate. That is probably why most Conservative Christians find themselves quite comfortable in the military.
Anyway, the relationship of a lady to her husband is also only analogous to the relationship of the church to Jesus Christ. It is foolishness to carry any analogy too far. We can all give our total trust to Jesus Christ, but no woman should put more faith in a man than she puts in God, and no loving husband should require any such thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom,
“In our post Christian society, we have family roles confused. Yet those Christian families who still strive to conform Biblical teachings struggle less than most.”
Most families do not follow the roles as shown in the Bible. This is demonstrated in the problem of husbands not loving their wives as Christ loved the church, and in the problem of wives not submitting to their husband as unto the Lord. Not surprisingly, these marriages and families have more problems than those where God’s plan is followed.
There is little obvious resistance to the idea that husbands are to love their wives, but resistance is quickly found to the idea that wives are to submit to their husbands. That is a problem. If you care to propose an explanation or solution, I’d be interested in reading them.
LikeLike
OKRickety
We often confuse what we say with what we do, but the Bible shows us as we are.
So there is not much resistance to husbands loving their wives as much as they love themselves, but how many husbands actually do that?
How do men chance women? When a man wants a woman, he designs to show her how much he loves her.
If the Bible is to be believed, then there is in fact no way for a man to earn the love of woman than for him to love her. If woman can be persuaded that a man loves her, she will want to respond with all her heart. It is her curse, particularly if she lets her heart choose without exercising any Godly wisdom. Hence we have courtship rituals designed to protect the ladies from their weaknesses of their own hearts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bedtime for Bonzo!
“Chance” should be “chase”.
“Way” should have “better” in front of it.
LikeLike
Tom,
“If woman can be persuaded that a man loves her, she will want to respond with all her heart.”
I don’t know how many husbands love their wives as they should, nor do I know how many women submit to their husbands as they should. However, I do know that neither command is conditional on the other’s behavior.
Although I do not know what “courtship rituals” means to you, it would seem they are followed by few, or they are not as effective as you believe.
LikeLike
IB,
“The problem being, much like you perceive me as shrieking, unrepentant, unsubmissive, a closet feminist, Pastor Wilson would perceive me or just about any woman in the same way. So I am already guilty as charged, meaning the chances of my ever being treated fairly are now gone. In fact, I am now nothing more than a two dimensional projection of his own issues.
My problem with this from a faith based perspective is that it teaches men to lay their shame down at the foot of women rather than at the foot of the cross. It is only Christ’s love and redemption that can really heal people, so this is teaching I really dislike seeing.”
Again, I will disagree with your assessment. You do often shriek but not always. I know you have been defiantly unrepentant in one instance. As far as I can tell, you are submissive to your husband. I do not know if you are submissive to your church leaders. I think your feminist responses are unintentionally so, but are unlikely to be controlled or removed until you acknowledge their existence.
I really do not understand what you mean by “it teaches men to lay their shame down at the foot of women rather than at the foot of the cross.” I am supposing you think that it means that giving any responsibility to the woman allows the abusing man to blame her rather than acknowledging all of his own responsibility to God. Is that what you mean? I do not think this is what Wilson has in mind, but that both parties are to acknowledge their own failure to God.
LikeLike
“I really do not understand what you mean by “it teaches men to lay their shame down at the foot of women rather than at the foot of the cross.”
It means those men remain trapped in bitterness and unforgiveness, falsely believing that their own redemption and forgiveness is somehow tied to her. There is something to be said for the healing power of simply keeping your eyes on your own paper and focusing on yourself.
You spoke of justice, of how the falsely accused deserve justice. So do victims, so do people who get cancer, so do those who get hit by a bus. We all deserve justice, but grace doesn’t work that way, grace says I will give YOU a pardon, I will redeem YOU.
A thirst for justice against women is just like a thirst for justice against men, it is an unwillingness to accept forgiveness and grace for yourself so one tries to lay that shame down at the feet of women rather than at Christ’s feet. No matter what women do, they can never heal that for men.
LikeLike
IB,
It seems that you believe men will always take a zero-sum approach, so they will blame women if they are given the opportunity. (I hope that you would be willing to reverse the genders when appropriate.) I think part of Wilson’s post was intended to point out the invalidity of this approach, and teach a better approach that is Biblical.
As I understand Wilson’s explanation of responsibility, each person has complete and total responsibility (100%) for their own failures. This means, in the case of marriage problems, there are two “100%”s, one for each spouse. [Note: The “100%”s are unlikely to be equally valued in actual impact, but are still each 100%. To clarify, if two people give away all of their money, one giving $10 and the other $1000, the values are different, but are still both 100%.]
Each party needs to confess and repent of their own sin to God who will be gracious and forgive. This action is not related to any fault of their spouse. If either spouse thinks it is, then that person is mistaken (and good counseling should make certain they understand their false belief).
Each party should confess and repent of their own sin against their spouse without blaming them for their own sin. Biblically, the spouse is commanded to forgive the repentant sinner. In all cases, each person needs to own all of their own failure.
“Pastor Wilson has an agenda when it comes to women.”
I agree. I am not a long-time reader of his blog, so I did a little browsing of his blog and came upon these three quotes that seem to be relevant (all emphasis mine):
“Christian men have an obligation to protect the women in their lives. This is one of the permanent things. It is one of the foundation stones in the natural order of things. God created Adam to protect and provide. Those are the two central duties of men. It is what men are for.” (post: Courtship and Rape Culture)
“Now I do need to take a brief moment to condemn the double standard that stigmatizes the woman as a slut, and yet provides us with no adequate word to describe the men of the football team who have been with as many women as she has been with men. But God has a word for it, and there is a day of judgment coming.” (post: Slut-Shaming and the Gospel of Grace)
“I have taught young women — also for many years — that when you find a young man who has high views of the authority he thinks he gets to wield, and low to nonexistent views of the authority that might be above him, the time has come to run. I have as little use for men who think their personal desires and bigotries trump the Word of God as I do for the women who do the same thing. We are all under authority.” (post: Flatter My Heart, Three-Person’d God . . .)
LikeLike
“This means, in the case of marriage problems, there are two “100%”s, one for each spouse. ”
No. Wilson was not talking about two equally paired people, he specifically said an “abuser.” There is no equal accountability in abusive situations. And none of this nonsense about how her 100% weighs less than his.
“This action is not related to any fault of their spouse. If either spouse thinks it is, then that person is mistaken”
Again,Wilson was speaking specifically of an abuser. In that case, yes indeed, it is entirely the fault of the abuser.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety
You seem to be a bit obsessed with the fact that women are suppose to submit to their husbands unconditionally. It is silly to expect women to meet a higher standard than men could achieve.
Men always set conditions. Sometimes we do it wisely. Often we are selfish. Only Jesus was perfect.
We should love our enemies, but we can’t. At best we forgive our enemies, and we do that for our own sake.
Even when Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount, setting standards we will never achieve in this life, He was kind enough to give us an out.
If we want someone to give us that which is holy or to throw pearls to us, we probably should not act like a dog or a pig.
What is a courtship ritual? Well, if you google “christian courtship”, you we get over 40,000 hits. Take off the quotes and you will get over 10 times as many. So there are plenty of ideas. I think the most straightforward ideas are an engagement period and abstaining from sex before marriage. Admittedly, since the start of the sexual revolution in the 60’s not as many people practice such quaint notions. Yet some still do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom,
“You seem to be a bit obsessed with the fact that women are suppose to submit to their husbands unconditionally. It is silly to expect women to meet a higher standard than men could achieve.
Men always set conditions. Sometimes we do it wisely. Often we are selfish. Only Jesus was perfect.”
I also specifically stated that husbands are to love their wives unconditionally. Also, they are told to love them “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her”. Isn’t that a “higher standard” than women are given in loving their husbands? Is it also “silly”?
Is it easier to love than it is to submit? Is it possible that love is more difficult for men, especially if the wives do not submit, and submission is more difficult for women, especially if the husbands are not loving?
It seems that the Apostle Paul was also rather “obsessed” with wives submitting to their husbands unconditionally, even adding the clause “in everything”. Paul covers this three times in separate letters (Eph. 5:24, Titus 2:5, Col. 3:18). It was also covered by the Apostle Peter in 1 Pet. 3:1 where he says wives are to submit even if their husbands “are disobedient to the Word”.
There is, of course, Eph. 5:21 (“submit to one another”) that many believe applies to both husbands and wives (there is great debate on the meaning of this verse which I will not go into here). So, if you are keeping score, that is 5 verses on wives submitting, and 1 verse on husbands submitting to wives. (Note: If you were to count verses on loving your spouse, I believe that the score would be quite lopsided in the other direction.) Do you suppose that God knows our inherent sinful nature, and He made certain that both husbands and wives were each given teaching to specifically counteract their gender’s natural tendencies?
None of these passages give conditions for wives submitting, and there is no scripture that states specifically that husbands are to submit to their wives. Yes, I know Eph. 5:21 says to “submit to one another”. Note, however, it is followed IMMEDIATELY by “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”, BUT husbands are not given the direct specific equivalent in that passage.
As you have pointed out, the Bible gives a hierarchical structure for the family that includes the wife submitting to the husband. Women are not being expected to meet a higher standard than men. They are being expected to live according to the role God designed in marriage. And husbands are being expected to love their wives to the maximum, and that is their role in marriage.
Why my “obsession”? It is that many seem to want to ignore or, at least, excuse to some degree this issue of wives submitting to their husbands. In my opinion, you seem to be following that pattern with your references to the silliness of expecting women to meet a higher standard, and men always setting conditions but only Jesus was perfect.
Do you suppose that you understand God’s desires for our behavior better than the Apostles did?
If “men” set conditions that are not in the scripture, then they are in peril. Teach the scripture, not what tickles the ears. Recognize sin when it exists and take loving action to bring the sinner back into the life God desires us to have.
LikeLike
OKRickety
The only thing each of us can control is our attitude. We cannot control the attitude of another. Why do I say that? Complaining about the fact women (Christian women, apparently. Why worry about non-Christians obeying the Bible?) don’t submit appropriately to their husbands is futile. Complaints will not fix this problem. We lead our families by example.
What does it mean for a woman to submit to her husband? Does it mean that she surrenders her will to him? No. Submission is itself an act of will. A woman submits to husband because she loves and she trusts him. She submits by loving and trusting him.
The woman submits because she knows she is one with her man. She submits because they are so joined as to be one and the same.
If a man wants his wife to love and to trust him as a Godly woman should, then he must strive each day earn her love and her trust. He must love her. He must do what Jesus did for us, set an example. He must love and trust our Lord. He must submit to the will of God in all things.
How does a woman submit to her husband? She loves. She trusts. She teaches his children to love, trust, and follow the example of their father. She sets the example for his children by following the example of their father.
Husbands earn authority by being worthy of it. Husbands set a Godly example their ladies want to follow. There is no other way.
LikeLike
Tom,
“The only thing each of us can control is our attitude. We cannot control the attitude of another.”
I think we also control our actions. In fact, I think it is probably easier to do that than to control our attitude. For example, every day many people choose to go to work although they do not wish to do so.
“Why do I say that? Complaining about the fact women (Christian women, apparently. Why worry about non-Christians obeying the Bible?) don’t submit appropriately to their husbands is futile. Complaints will not fix this problem. We lead our families by example.”
Consider the problem of abuse. In this case, is complaining that people abuse others futile and will not fix the problem? If you believe that is true, then you are consistent. If you think it makes a difference, then why wouldn’t complaining about non-submission make a difference, too?
I agree that leading by example is important, but if it is the only way to fix problems, then it would seem that most teaching, preaching, and other actions related to a problem have little or no value.
[Note: Of course, non-Christians are not concerned about obeying the Bible. However, if Christian families were noticeably healthier, then that leading by example might result in the rest of society being interested in becoming Christian, too.]
“Submission is itself an act of will. A woman submits to husband because she loves and she trusts him. She submits by loving and trusting him.”
A Christian woman is told to submit to her husband. She should submit, an act of her will, because she submits to God, not because she loves and trusts her husband. (And a Christian husband is told to love his wife, an act of his will, and he should do this because he submits to God.)
“Husbands earn authority by being worthy of it. Husbands set a Godly example their ladies want to follow. There is no other way.”
You misunderstand authority. “While authority is the sanctioned right given to a person to get things done in an official capacity, power is the ownership of authority and control to influence the opinions, movements and behaviors of others.” (Source: http://theydiffer.com/difference-between-power-and-authority/)
Husbands have authority by virtue of their position. Husbands may earn power by living as God intends.
While I agree that husbands should be Christian, and Christian husbands should live godly lives, it is not a requirement for his wife’s submission. The Bible gives another way. Returning to 1 Peter 3:1,2 (“In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.”), it is clear that wives are to submit to their husbands “even if any of them are disobedient to the word”.
LikeLike
OKRickety, Tom wrote a post on this very subject over at his blog. Here’s the link if you’re interested:
https://citizentom.com/2016/06/25/how-and-why-does-a-wife-submit-to-her-husband/
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB,
“Wilson was not talking about two equally paired people, he specifically said an “abuser.” There is no equal accountability in abusive situations. And none of this nonsense about how her 100% weighs less than his.”
“All sin is equal, I really believe in that concept, which is a bit funny because nothing else in the world seems equal to me nor would I really want it to be. As far as I am concerned however, a sin is a sin is a sin.”
It would seem that you have changed your mind about all sin being equal. You are saying that the existence of abuse means that any sin the abused has committed in the relationship is to be ignored.
Does this special categorization of abuse include all of the current definitions of abuse? That is, physical, sexual, emotional, etc.
Do any other sins get this same treatment?
LikeLike
I have changed my mind about nothing.
However, one would have to be a complete idiot to not understand that the first line of business in an abusive situation is to stop the abuse.
LikeLike
“I have changed my mind about nothing.”
“Believe it or not, I have actually been greatly blessed by coming to understand that all sin is equal, that a sin is a sin is a sin,….” (emphasis mine)
I think that all sin is equal in a certain way but unequal in other ways. Nonetheless, I presume there is always hope that you will come to understand other truths, but I would be an idiot to suppose that I might be an agent to that process.
“However, one would have to be a complete idiot to not understand that the first line of business in an abusive situation is to stop the abuse.”
I agree, and am quite certain that Wilson would also agree.
LikeLike
“I agree, and am quite certain that Wilson would also agree.”
Yes, but you once stated that you agreed with Dalrock, therefore I see no reason why one should trust your judgment on anything.
LikeLike
I give up. At least for now. (Note to self: The challenge appears to be insurmountable. It would be best if you recognize this to be the truth and act wisely.)
LikeLike
Giving up would be the wisest course of action since I really have no use for your foolish games.
If you ever want to win an argument with a woman it’s pretty simple, create safety, build trust, instant respect. You fail at all 3.
LikeLike
OKRickety
I am curious. What do you think are the defining characteristics of a marriage? Just how important is the submission of a wife to her husband and what does it involve?
LikeLike
Tom,
“I am curious. What do you think are the defining characteristics of a marriage? Just how important is the submission of a wife to her husband and what does it involve?”
Note: The following answers are an aggregation of my thoughts combined with quotations I found that closely approximate my opinion.
Christian marriage is a life-long commitment to a monogamous relationship of a man and a woman. They are to leave their parents and be joined together as one flesh. Marriage is hierarchical in that the husband is the head, and the wife is to submit to him. The relationship depends on agape love to work correctly. Eros love is also involved, as frequent sex is important, and sexual fidelity is required. Sex is noteworthy because I think all other characteristics of marriage can be attained in relationships outside of marriage, but sex is only acceptable within marriage.
A wife’s submission to her husband is “the disposition to follow a husband’s authority and an inclination to yield to his leadership.”
Her submission cannot be forced, but is an act of her own free will. “At the heart of biblical submission is a person’s ability and willingness to trust another person.” “A wife’s submission is also not blind and absolute. Ultimately, Christ is the wife’s final authority.”
“Submission is also not about belittlement, inferiority, or worthlessness.” Demanding submission demonstrates the wrong attitude (unloving), just like demanding forgiveness is wrong.
It is extremely important to know that husbands are commanded to love their wives as their own bodies, and as Christ loved the church. This is a command without any conditions. Note that love cannot be forced, but is an act of his free will.
Similarly, it is extremely important to know that wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, as to Christ. This command also has no conditions. As with all human behavior, it cannot be forced as God allows us free will.
Practically, a wife’s submission involves respecting her husband, and being gentle and quiet in her behavior. It especially involves the willingness to accept the husband’s tie-breaking decision when they cannot mutually agree, and a decision must be made. A husband is to love his wife enough to listen to her and consider her opinion before decisions are made.
How important is the command to wives to submit? It is important enough that multiple passages and writers in the New Testament specifically state it. (In most, if not all, of those passages, husbands are given specific commands on loving their wives.) I think it is extremely significant that both parties to the most important human relationship are repeatedly given commands on how to act.
“When sin perverted the husband-and-wife relationship, the husbands became either domineering or passive and the wives either became manipulative or a doormat.”
Of course, mankind regularly fails to recognize God’s ideal for marriage and obey God’s commands for husbands and wives. The resulting sin leads to great problems in marriage. Does this mean that Christians are allowed to disobey God? Of course not!
Submission of wives to husbands is countercultural, but Christians are called to be a peculiar people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
okrickety
Interesting. In so far as it goes I don’t have any real heartburn with your comment. Unfortunately, some people have made such a hot potato out of this issue I suppose I cannot leave it at that. So I will make just make a few observations.
Marriage has a cultural context. The Bible is timeless, but each writer wrote to the people of his era. If we expect the women of our country to submit just as women did 2,000 years ago, then we have an realistic expectation.
2,000 years ago women had little choice. They submitted. Christians changed that. Why? The Bible makes it clear that both men and women are equally the children of God. In fact, Jesus said the different sexes do not exist in heaven. Hence there is now considerable confusion over the need for submission. Since most people don’t even read the Bible, most people don’t know what it is about.
Marriage is an equal partnership. The husband must understand the wife submits for the sake of the marriage and her children. What the wife’s submission involves is helping her husband perform his duties. For the sake of the marriage, she gives up and does things she would not otherwise give up and do. If the man is not giving to the marriage and their children equal fervor, the woman is going to feel cheated. If the husband just demands submission to get his way, she will know she is being cheated. In fact, when his lady needs his compliance so she can perform her duties as required, he needs to submit, that is, help her. Of course, if he loves her, he will.
Think of it this way. If the guy decides to go on a golfing trip when the baby is due, he deserves to be in big trouble.
In this day and age we may as well speak of submission as a two-way street. The point of submission is doing what is required to make the marriage work, not reducing our ladies to an inferior status.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom,
“Interesting. In so far as it goes I don’t have any real heartburn with your comment.”
I’m glad you see it that way. If that surprises you due to what you have seen IB say about me, perhaps it will give you reason to reconsider.
“Marriage has a cultural context. The Bible is timeless, but each writer wrote to the people of his era. If we expect the women of our country to submit just as women did 2,000 years ago, then we have an realistic expectation.” (I presume you meant “unrealistic expectation” here.)
It seems to me that you are claiming the Bible should be interpreted differently because culture today is different. That is a very dangerous approach. In fact, I believe that the Bible is the known standard for Christian behavior. It needs to be understood in the context of that culture, but it is ridiculous to suggest that our different culture should result in a different understanding.
I presume you believe the culture you experience is the correct culture. No doubt you are aware that there are a great many cultures on Earth today. Should the Bible be understood and interpreted according to Muslim culture? Buddhist culture? Hindu culture? One of the many tribal cultures? Atheist culture? No, let’s understand the Bible according to the culture of its time, and apply the principles to the culture we live in.
“In fact, Jesus said the different sexes do not exist in heaven.”
I presume you are referring to Jesus saying there would be no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven. That doesn’t say actually say there will not be different sexes. Perhaps there will not be, but I don’t think the Bible says so.
“Hence there is now considerable confusion over the need for submission. Since most people don’t even read the Bible, most people don’t know what it is about.”
If Christians don’t know the Bible, and teachers and preachers don’t teach what the Bible says, it is little wonder that there is confusion over the need for submission. In fact, that gives tremendous support for being “a bit obsessed” with submission. How will they know what the Bible says about submission in marriage unless they hear it?
“Marriage is an equal partnership.”
Marriage is a partnership of equals, because men and women are equal as children of God. However, based on context, I don’t think that is what you mean. What do you mean, and where is the support for your position in the Bible?
“In this day and age we may as well speak of submission as a two-way street.”
No doubt you and many others want to consider submission in marriage to be a two-way street. As old-fashioned as it may sound, it is not. (Believe it or not, I may be more old-fashioned than you.) Supposing you believe in the Trinity, are the Father and Son equal? Yes, they are. Did Jesus submit to the Father’s will? Yes, He did. Did the Father submit to the will of Christ? Not that I know of. The same equality and hierarchy is true in marriage.
“The point of submission is doing what is required to make the marriage work, not reducing our ladies to an inferior status.”
I agree. However, it is important to understand that, using your analogy of military units, lower rank is not equal to inferior status. Instead, it is the way the hierarchical structure of the organization is set up, and the way that it works best.
LikeLike
A great crowd of people is trying to rewrite the Bible according to their own hearts and minds. When they do not like something said by an apostle or a prophet, they just call him names and pull out their erasers. Then they redefine the most basic terms to change the message of Scripture into something that meets their approval. Thank you, IB, for standing up for the truth of God’s Word and for expressing it accurately and skillfully. J.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: HOW AND WHY DOES A WIFE SUBMIT TO HER HUSBAND? – Citizen Tom