Submission...to what, and "everything"? (Eph. 5:24)

[webdog]

Interesting...when reading her commentary on Eph. 5:24, she says the wife is to submit to her husband in all things unless he tells her to sin. She has now qualified "everything" to not mean absolutely everything by adding that disclaimer. I think for those like freeatlast who hold to the absolute literal understanding of that passage, "everything" should be all encompassing including sin, else it ceases to be "everything".

 

[Luke2427]

My wife is reading the book The Excellent Wife by Martha Peace. When the topic of submission came up, she had a question in regards to a quote which states "In considering the scope of submission, "in everything (5:24) means in all areas of life such as finances, decorating the house, the length of her hair, what to have for supper, and discipline of the children. For example, consider the case of an unsubmissive wife who was furious at her husband because he did not like the antique sofa she had purchased and he told her to take it back. Since he was not asking her to sin, she should have graciously submitted. The point is, a wife must obey her husband unless he asks her to sin."

The above bolded caught my attention. What does "in everything" truly mean, and submitting to what exactly? The author made it sound like if I click my fingers my wife is to obey my every command (not that I wouldn't like that )

Everything I have read has been VERY vague on what submission is in the context of the passage, and when applying hermeneutics in regards to the audience Paul had considering he also said a woman should cover her head and remain silent in the church, it becomes even more vague.

The issue is that the Bible teaches that a wife should submit to her husband in ANY cultural context. There was no culture at all when this began. Just two people- Adam and Eve.

Paul said that the man occupies the position of authority first of all because "Adam was formed first, then Eve" I Timothy 2. This was even before the fall. Then his authority was intensified after the fall. God said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee." This was still before there WAS a culture. So there is no reason to think that Paul's command for women to submit to their husbands was simply a cultural issue as many purport.

The author your wife is reading seems to have a grasp on the Scriptural teaching on the matter.

Even when culturally reprehensible, let's cling to the veracity of Scripture on every matter. This is part of trusting God. Let's just say, "No matter how much culture looks down upon this, I believe it and will practice it." Culture changes with the wind. Let the unchanging Truth of God guide us and our houses will stand because they are built upon a rock.

 

[RAdam]

About the culture, the fact is that Paul commanding husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, in essence to honor them, was totally against that day's culture. That's what many miss. The NT instructions on marriage actually pulled up a woman's place in that society.

Now, a good marriage is one where each side puts Christ first and the spouse before him/herself. For instance, I should seek in all things to submit to and please Christ first and foremost. After that I should seek to love, honor, respect, and treat my wife well. That happens to also please Christ. My wife should seek to please Christ by submitting to the way He ordered things. As in all things, Christ gives a balanced commandment here.

Peter says that a husband should view his wife as heirs together of the grace of life. Really, I should view my wife first and foremost as a sister in Christ, as belonging to Him. Now, I get a great view as to how to treat her. She belongs to Him, He purchased her with His own blood, and He considers what is done to one of His as being done to Himself personally. If I mistreat one that is His, I'm committing a grevious act and need to repent and seek forgiveness. I'd better treat my wife with honor, love, and respect.

 

[menageriekeeper]

God said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee."

I think you should remember that this was part of a curse, not a commandment.

The fact that we have to have discussions on this subject only prove that the curse is still in effect.

 

[webdog]

The issue is that the Bible teaches that a wife should submit to her husband in ANY cultural context. There was no culture at all when this began. Just two people- Adam and Eve.

Paul said that the man occupies the position of authority first of all because "Adam was formed first, then Eve" I Timothy 2. This was even before the fall. Then his authority was intensified after the fall. God said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee." This was still before there WAS a culture. So there is no reason to think that Paul's command for women to submit to their husbands was simply a cultural issue as many purport.

The author your wife is reading seems to have a grasp on the Scriptural teaching on the matter.

Even when culturally reprehensible, let's cling to the veracity of Scripture on every matter. This is part of trusting God. Let's just say, "No matter how much culture looks down upon this, I believe it and will practice it." Culture changes with the wind. Let the unchanging Truth of God guide us and our houses will stand because they are built upon a rock.

I think culture does play a major role in it. Does your church allow women to speak at all, or are they "to remain silent"? Do they only learn from their husbands? Are head coverings required? These were also commands Paul gave the early church.

I think the fact the location (Ephesus) had the temple of Artemis for the goddess Diana also plays a role in it. Many Greeks held to syncretism, a submission of sorts to many religions, similar to modern ecumenism amongst evangelicals. It's possible the local women may have had an inflated image of themselves and their authority.

 

[jaigner]

.................

 

[Luke2427]

I think you should remember that this was part of a curse, not a commandment.

The fact that we have to have discussions on this subject only prove that the curse is still in effect.

Yes. But it was both. It was the natural order even before the fall according I Timothy 2.

 

[webdog]

Yes. But it was both. It was the natural order even before the fall according I Timothy 2.

If it was a result of the fall it would be impossible for it to be part of the natural order pre-fall. That completely contradicts itself.

 

[Luke2427]

I think culture does play a major role in it. Does your church allow women to speak at all, or are they "to remain silent"? Do they only learn from their husbands? Are head coverings required? These were also commands Paul gave the early church.

I think the fact the location (Ephesus) had the temple of Artemis for the goddess Diana also plays a role in it. Many Greeks held to syncretism, a submission of sorts to many religions, similar to modern ecumenism amongst evangelicals. It's possible the local women may have had an inflated image of themselves and their authority.

I really don't mean to sound like a jerk here but I don't know of any other way to put this- It does not matter what you think.

The fact is that before the fall Adam held a position of authority over Eve. Paul said, "I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurd authority over the man but to be in silence For Adam was first formed then Eve..."

In other words God always intended for the man to be the source of authority in, at least, the home.

Culture has nothing to do with this. There was no culture when God established the natural order.

Then, still before there was a cultural context for there were only two people, God said after the fall to Eve- thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall RULE over thee.

There was no temple to Dianna in Eden. Ephesians 5 is doing little more than reiterating the timeless truth on the matter.

 

[Luke2427]

If it was a result of the fall it would be impossible for it to be part of the natural order pre-fall. That completely contradicts itself.

You're not paying attention. It was the natural order before the fall and intensified afterward. What don't you understand about that?

 

[webdog]

I really don't mean to sound like a jerk here but I don't know of any other way to put this- It does not matter what you think.

The fact is that before the fall Adam held a position of authority over Eve. Paul said, "I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurd authority over the man but to be in silence For Adam was first formed then Eve..."

In other words God always intended for the man to be the source of authority in, at least, the home.

Culture has nothing to do with this. There was no culture when God established the natural order.

Then, still before there was a cultural context for there were only two people, God said after the fall to Eve- thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall RULE over thee.

There was no temple to Dianna in Eden. Ephesians 5 is doing little more than reiterating the timeless truth on the matter.

So your church practices what I asked?

I don't disagree that God intended for the husband to be the authority in the home. That is not the point of this thread I started. It's the vague definition of submission and how it relates to "everything".

I addressed your flawed understanding of God's declaration POST fall that the woman would desire to rule her husband. That is NOT part of the PRE fall order you state...it's an oxymoron and an impossibility as something resulting from an action cannot be the norm prior to the action.

 

[webdog]

You're not paying attention. It was the natural order before the fall and intensified afterward. What don't you understand about that?

I understand it...I'm afraid you are failing to understand.

As a result of the fall God states emphatically the desire of the woman would be to rule over her husband. That is the clear meaning of what He says. The natural order pre-fall was not for the woman to desire this, as this is sin. I'm not understanding how you can miss this very trivial fact.

 

[Luke2427]

So your church practices what I asked?

I don't disagree that God intended for the husband to be the authority in the home. That is not the point of this thread I started. It's the vague definition of submission and how it relates to "everything".

I addressed your flawed understanding of God's declaration POST fall that the woman would desire to rule her husband. That is NOT part of the PRE fall order you state...it's an oxymoron and an impossibility as something resulting from an action cannot be the norm prior to the action.

No, Webdog. It's what the Bible says as I have clearly shown twice. You are not arguing with me- you are arguing with God's Word.

Why should women not usurp authority over the man, Paul? Paul- "First of all because Adam was formed first then Eve. Secondly, because Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

This is the clear teaching of Scripture. If you find it unpalatable then argue against the authority and accuracy of Scripture as many do. But don't accept the parts you like and twist or ignore those that don't rub you the right way.

 

[Luke2427]

I understand it...I'm afraid you are failing to understand.

As a result of the fall God states emphatically the desire of the woman would be to rule over her husband. That is the clear meaning of what He says. The natural order pre-fall was not for the woman to desire this, as this is sin. I'm not understanding how you can miss this very trivial fact.

That has nothing to do with the point I made about I tim 2. The point is that God said that He shall rule over thee. Certainly, the woman developed a spirit to rule over the man in the fall. But this is not God's order. Adam was first formed then Eve Paul said. for this reason she should not usurp authority over the man.

Your hang up on the curse has nothing to do with Paul affirming the natural order both pre and post fall.

 

[webdog]

No, Webdog. It's what the Bible says as I have clearly shown twice. You are not arguing with me- you are arguing with God's Word.

This is quite honestly the oldest, lamest and most blasphemous phrase I keep reading on these boards. You and the Word of God are not one in the same. I'm arguing, ...actually debating...you. Please understand YOUR interpretation of God's Word and God's Word are not one in the same.

That has nothing to do with the point I made about I tim 2. The point is that God said that He shall rule over thee.

Wrong. The point is you have completely ripped that quote from it's context to prove your point. In context...God was simply stating the woman's desire as a result of the fall would be to control her husband. You need a proper course on hermeneutics (and a cross reference besides the KJV)

 

[Eagle]

You're not paying attention. It was the natural order before the fall and intensified afterward. What don't you understand about that?

Hello webdog,

Luke2427 is absolutely right about the dual intensifier, or dual truth here. From 1 Tim. 2, as he cited, we see both aspects. One does not cancel the other out - but it does 'intensify,' or hammer home the point. This is not unusual biblical wording, or word usage.

Some excellent points have been made on this thread about 'what' we are to do and 'how' we are to honor God in marriage and submission. I think these are two aspects of the same question that we sometimes get confused. Let me elaborate.

I think it is agreed by all that 'what' women are to do is submit to their husbands - in every thing.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

It should also be agreed by all, that 'what' men are to do - is love their wives as Christ did the Church.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

The degree to which women are commanded, lovingly, to submit to, or obey, their husbands is given in 1 Peter 3:5,6. I think Scarlett O. is wrong in her interpretation on this. Verse 7, is for the men.

1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
1Pe 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Sara, was instructed by her husband Abraham to "tell" kings of foreign lands that they were travelling thru, that she was his sister - so that they would not kill him and take her. Sara's response was not one of lambasting her good-for-nothing coward of a husband, etc., but it was one of obedience. She essentially said, "Yes Lord," and did it. This is the example, this is what is meant by "in every thing."

Christ's love of me, patience with me, desire for my good, etc., is something I can barely conceive of sometimes - let alone fathom 'how' to do it for my wife.

Which gets to my point. The fact that I must love my wife in this way is unquestioning - the 'how' of doing it is really the rub and point of the OP - I believe.

The 'what' is now answered. So 'how' do we 'do' it? I believe the answer is the same as for any other aspect of "working out" our salvation. How do you implement the commands for the raising of your children? Is it different than 'how' I do it? How do you show respect or submission to your fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord? Is that different from me? Is it different from brother to brother, in your own church? How do you 'witness' at work or in your 'sphere" of influence?

I hope it is obvious that my point is that it will be, at least slightly, different, in everyone's house/situation, for every aspect of our life in Christ.

The obligation is upon me to love and respect my wife - regardless how she implements her submission. It is my wife's obligation to submit to me - no matter how absurd I may be at times. Having said this, I believe it is possible to have something so egregious, or evil, etc.,on the part of either parties that we may have to say, "All bets are off. I cannot be party to this." If it becomes that bad - divorce may be in order - not ongoing disobedience or dysfunction.

One last thing. In these discussions, it always amazes me to hear this statement made, which I consider to be condescending to wives, "If that mean 'ol, rough 'ol husband would just be thoughtful, and respectful, and sweet and kind, to his wife, why, she wouln' have no reason to not just looove him!"

First of all - as a son of Adam - I ain't perfect and either is any of you. No matter how good my wife is to me - I sometimes don't so right by her. Secondly, women are daughters of Eve - and their sin still comes out - no matter what. I am not saying that there aren't Biblical and successful ways of working out our relationships - but there is no formula resulting in perfect responses.

 

[Luke2427]

This is quite honestly the oldest, lamest and most blasphemous phrase I keep reading on these boards. You and the Word of God are not one in the same. I'm arguing, ...actually debating...you. Please understand YOUR interpretation of God's Word and God's Word are not one in the same.
Wrong. The point is you have completely ripped that quote from it's context to prove your point. In context...God was simply stating the woman's desire as a result of the fall would be to control her husband. You need a proper course on hermeneutics (and a cross reference besides the KJV)

You still haven't addressed the I Tim 2 passage. I understand hermeneutics well. Ignoring the Bible for a more modern and "relevant" philosophy is not a good hermeneutic.

 

[webdog]

You still haven't addressed the I Tim 2 passage. I understand hermeneutics well. Ignoring the Bible for a more modern and "relevant" philosophy is not a good hermeneutic.

What is there to address, I already agreed on that fact, that God has always decreed the husband to be the authority in the home.

Are you ever going to address any of my questions I have posed to you on this thread? You have not to date.

Sticking to KJVO is not a proper hermeneutic as well. I cross reference many translations, btw, and the KJV rendering is not the most accurate meaning.

 

[webdog]

Hello webdog,

Luke2427 is absolutely right about the dual intensifier, or dual truth here. From 1 Tim. 2, as he cited, we see both aspects. One does not cancel the other out - but it does 'intensify,' or hammer home the point. This is not unusual biblical wording, or word usage.

I disagree. Something that happens as a result of the fall (women desiring to rule their husband) cannot be the natural order pre-fall as it is a result of sin. I Timothy 2 does not support that notion, it is simply stating the natural order of God's creation has always included the man to be the one in authority in the home. God declaring to Eve her desire to rule or be that of her husband is apples to oranges. You cannot use 1 Timothy to put Genesis in context.

 

[Darrenss1]

No, Webdog. It's what the Bible says as I have clearly shown twice. You are not arguing with me- you are arguing with God's Word.

This is the clear teaching of Scripture. If you find it unpalatable then argue against the authority and accuracy of Scripture as many do. But don't accept the parts you like and twist or ignore those that don't rub you the right way.

Luke2427, it really doesn't look good for you to use this style on argumentation on these boards. The obvious thing is it looks like you are trying to assert your own interpretation as the clear word of God and those that disagree with your interpretation are denying the word of God.

Such a put off. :tonofbricks:

Darren