Wives should submit to their husbands????

It dies not. It calles for being "in obedience", and does so in one translation. Other translations say "in subjection". The word in Greek does not call for obedience, but for a "yielding to" while "working with".

I did no such skirting. I addressed each verse concisely and directly. In fact, my wife and I are studying this very thing in a marriage fellowship class as we speak.

But you resolved it by compromising, not by obeying (you compromised by giving it some time and seeing how it went). The church you attend works for the both of you. If it didn't, I suspect that the two of you would likely be looking for a church that works for both of you.

And perhaps GOd is still working onthis issue with you, so I ask that you give my posts consideration. I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but I'm somewhat well education on source language contexts here.

Regardless of this specific issue, you must understand that if you're injecting something into scripture based on the English over the source texts, then it's ading to scripture. Look at misunderstandings of scriptural references to "pride". Without understanding that scrpture is talking about self-centeredness, one could wrongly assume that simply taking pride in one self is a sin. Heck, there's another thread going on about whether God withholds love from sinners (aka, God hates sinners). Without understanding that the Hebrew word for "hate" doesn't connotate a withholding of love, one can get the idea that God doen't love all. Even our own understanding that scripture is God-breathed is based on our understanding that the Greek word for "inspired" translated to "breathed into".

 

Or it could be the husband is being an obstinate fool.

Since things are not ideal I think most couples will run into a situation where they cannot reach an agreement and sometimes not even a compromise, in which case one partner needs to graciously concede. I don't think it always must be the wife, though--bad idea. There could be a situation where the outcome may be much more significant to the wife than the husband, so the best thing for him to do is let her have her way. And then there are times when it is opposite. I don't think it's wise to lay down a concrete rule giving the husband his way every time there is not agreement.

 

Im sorry John

YOU are the one adding, not me. I am taking it at plain word. You choose to think that the scripture is not saying what it says. Read my scriptures again. You said that they are out of context. Read them in context again. I dont agree with you.

This seems to be an issue of wills between you and I. We simply disagree, but I refuse to be told that I am adding to scripture, as such is a very serious charge indeed. I have already shown you the scriptures. If I must, I will post them again.

 

(1cor 11:8-9)
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman;but the woman for the man "

(I take this to mean that I was created literally to be a helper for my husband.)

(Titus 2:3-5)

The aged women..may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands , that the word of God be not blasphemed"


Here is where I misquoted that scripture about wives obeying their husbands in everything.. It does still say that, but it is written differently.


Ephesians 5:22-24

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing "


1 Cor 11:3

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."


Genesis 3:16

"Unto the woman He said...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee


This one is interesting, because this scripture pretty much assumes that the husband is NOT saved.. therefore, if submission is only for spiritual matters, then this scripture is a lie.

1 Peter 3:1-2

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear"

 

I pray that further study over time reveals the full meaning of scripture to you.

I don't know what to say. I've demonstrated how you did so. I don't make the statement "adding to scripture" lightly.

 

That verse is written in the same context of the verse "man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man". It referrs not to the wife being a helper as you say, but it again referrs to spiritual headship of the husband. Note that Paul says elsewhere "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.". A husband who commands and expects obedience is not being benevolent. Likewise, a women who blindly complies without condieration is not being benevolent, nor is she responsibly submitting.

Note gain the whole context:
The chapter instructs older men in worthy ways, and older women in worthy ways, in order to teach the younger women in how they conduct their lives. The verse is not instructing wives to obey their husbands. Rather, it's instructing people how to teach in ways that do not malign the Word. Read the whole chapter, not just a specific verse.

Also, note that the Greek word here translated "subject to" or "obedience" is hupotasso, the same word used in the marital relationship of loving in submission. It is a passive word that implies a voluntary yielding in love, not a "do what you are told" context.

Again, the word is "subject", not "obey". The Greek word referrs to cooperation with, while yielding to the other. Submission is called for. But that submission is not "do what you are told" obedience.

Again, look at the whole chapter and its context. The topic here is Christians in the public assembly, and again touches upon spiritual headship. In fact, further down in the chapter, it talks about the woman having power (veil) bestowed of the angels, and that they should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. The Matthew Henry commentary points out this chapter going on to talk about the man and the woman being made for one another, being mutual comforts and blessings (not one a slave, and the other a tyrant). God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit.

This is a reference to the result of sin. It is not a mandate for married couples.

You forget that it's a continuation of the previous chapter that talks about all Christians submitting themselves for the Lord's sake and show proper respect to everyone. The aforementioned verse is not about nonbelieving husbands, but about husbands who disobey. It's in effect telling wives not to abandon their spiritual responsibilities, just because their husband has abandoned his.

Again, Emily, no one questions the call to submisison. However, scriptural submission is not complying with whatever one is told to do by the husband.

 

bunyon


exactly


john

The chapter instructs older men in worthy ways, and older women in worthy ways, in order to teach the younger women in how they conduct their lives. The verse is not instructing wives to obey their husbands. Rather, it's instructing people how to teach in ways that do not malign the Word. Read the whole chapter, not just a specific verse.

Also, note that the Greek word here translated "subject to" or "obedience" is hupotasso, the same word used in the marital relationship of loving in submission. It is a passive word that implies a voluntary yielding in love, not a "do what you are told" context.


yes

but the women, even in this context are being told to teach the younger ones to obey.

We are stuck here, and have been since this started.

I dont agree with you. You dont agree with me.

From here on, all that we can do is point fingers that one of us is not obeying scripture correctly.

Lets not go there. Lets simply and respectfully agree to disagree, ok?

 

No man is Christ. You cannot compare any human being with Christ in all aspects. I'm sure you'll agree. I'm somewhat baffled as to why you find the "spiritual head" concept so limiting. I thought all we did was supposed to be of faith, no?

I know it's strong. I don't make that statement lightly. I don't think it's an intentional adding. I think it's unintended and based on the most innocent and righteous of motives.

I don't think so either. Her situation works for her abd her hubby, and that's to be commended.

As it should.

 

No, they are being instructed to teach the younger women to be subject to (submit to) their husbands.

Only the KJV translated the word "obedient". But the Greek word is not "obedience", it's "submission". No one here denies that submission is called for of wives. But you're superceding the English over the Greek, and that is wrong to do so. There's no way around that. The Greek source texts disagrees with you.

 

Im not superceeding anything..

and what exactly is the difference between obeyING And submitting. It is still letting go of
my own will, is it not?

 

The husband is called to be the spiritual head. Spiritual headship involves leading by example. No where in scripture can I find any instructions given to husbands demand obedience as part of this spiritual headship. Your dissertation on varying methods of leadership is immaterial. Leadership is not the issue here. Spiritual headship is.

If the husband commands, and the wife is not obliged to comply, then if she does not comply, is she in violation of her call to submit? Many will say "yes", thus disproving your point. Sorry, but "command" implies requiring someone to follow your orders. I fail to see how you can excuse this as appropriate husbandly behavior.</font>[/QUOTE]

Does Christ have a right to "command" the church and expect us to obey?

Parse it any way you want but leadership always implies the right and responsibility to make decisions that others must comply with and conform to.

Christ's leadership has two express purposes: the glory of God and the welfare of His church. The husband's leadership should parallel those two goals: the glory of God and the welfare of his wife.

Should the wife be "obliged to comply"?

The answer comes in the answer to two questions:

Is the command sinful?

Is the husband's act of making the command a sin?

To use your example of making a woman jump on one foot. If he asks her so that he can mock and demean her then she should "submissively" refuse. If there is some legitimate reason then she should comply.

No where does the NT direct husbands to rule. It only instructs wives to submit, and there they are only to submit as to the Lord. This instruction is to wives only. There is no instruction in the NT for husbands to require submit to them.</font>[/QUOTE] The husband is required to lead. That involves making decisions and setting direction... with the expectation that those commissioned to follow you will.

Does Christ require Christians to submit? Does he just let them go if they decide not to submit or does he love them enough to go after them... even to discipline them?

I am not suggesting any physical form of punishment. I am not even recommending punishment at all. I am suggesting that a husband has a responsibility to influence the behavior of his wife... just as Christ influences the behavior of Christians. Sometimes that involves gentle nudging but sometimes direct confrontation.

It is the husband's job to ensure that he does it for God's glory and his wife's good rather than his own good.

I was making a lighthearted comment. I did not mean to impune your ability to spell. Sorry if it came out wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]"Impune" as used in this sentence should be spelled i-m-p-u-g-n .

 

John

What's up? It is as if you walked into a bunch of cactus and can't get out ... and I do not know that the 'Greek source texts agree with you'.

What am I missing? Is there a reason why obey and submit cross wires so badly in your computer processor?

You cannot submit to authority (Greek is more like "place yourself UNDER the authority of") without obeying.

What's up bro'?

 

Submitting in the biblical context is the yielding to someone else (in this case, the hubby). It does not absolve the wife from making decisions or from input, nor does it empower the hubby to make decisions for the wife that she does not agree to. Submitting to the hubby means he is empowered by your submission to speak for both of you (which is not the same as making decisions for the both of you).

Obeying is to do what is told of you. It requires no input, and does not involve you in input. It requires only compliance.

 

Except for the part about her being the keeper of her home.

Really? The wife has the ability to make a choice that directly impacts the material and spiritual condition of the home but the husband's God appointed leadership has no say in the matter? Can you please cite scripture that says the wife doesn't have to submit to her husband's headship if she feels like the Lord is leading her to work outside the home?

That is a ridiculously false statement.

Only a fool believes that a wife/mom leaving the home to work has no impact on the family that God told the man he must lead.

What kind of picture does it show the world if a wife goes to work over the adament objections of her husband?

If a wife is not willing to give up "her own person, dreams, goals" then she is neither submitted to her husband nor does she love him biblically. Likewise, a husband must sacrifice himself, dreams and goals to demonstrate Christlike leadership and love.

The "person, dreams, and goals" in a marriage become one rather than two. The husband should never dream something or set a goal that doesn't include his wife and account for her opinion/feelings/welfare. The wife should never dream something or set a goal that doesn't submit to the opinion/feelings/leadership of her husband.

As are all of the Bible's commands. But to rebel is likewise sin.

Those are true statements.

This would be a case of the wife obeying scripture and attaining for herself the promise of reward while the husband is in sin for not properly caring for his wife... thus incurring God's punishment.

For the most part, only women with a chip on their shoulder characterize it this way.

This stands in direct and complete contradiction with your diatribe about the husband having no say in whether the "Lord" has "called" the wife to work outside the home.

BTW, a man who would accept the notion that his leadership role is so impotent that he cannot make the final decision over whether his wife goes to work regardless of the spiritual, emotional, or material impact it might have on the home... is not progressing toward a man who exhibits Christlike leadership.

 

I'm sure you'll agree that no human is given Christ's authority. Not even the husband.

And if there is no legitimate reason? Should the wife comply?

Another example: Wife's car dies. Wife wants to buy a blue car (it's her favorite color) and the hubby wants her to buy a red car (it's his favorite color). The wife is buying it with her own funds from her own job, and the hubby never drives her car. Is the wife sinning if she buys a blue car? No. It does not fall under his headship authority. OTOH, one could make the arguement that the hubby would be guilty of the sin of pride by insisting on a red car, so you may have a point here.

Another example: The wife is overqeight, and the hubby wants the wife to get breast reduction surgery, or her stomach stapled. Must she comply? Of course not. The hubby wants her to dyer her hair blonde. Must she comply? No. The hubby forbids her to shave her armpits. The hubby forbids her from eating red apples. The hubby forbids her from using feminine napkins.

[ November 03, 2005, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

True.

False. It is non-sensical to say that we must submit except when we decide not to. Your assertion takes all meaning out of the word. "Submit" explicitly includes the notion that another has a right to make an authoritative decision or devise a standard.

No John. That isn't what it means anymore than submitting to civil authorities means that the government speaks for us alone and has no authority to make decisions that we must comply with.

Like the civil authority and Christian, the wife has a right and obligation to determine if when submission to the husband is in conflict with submission to God. She then must choose God.

That isn't true either. I don't consider my children "obedient" when they only comply with the letter of what I tell them. I also don't consider them obedient if they do it with a bad spirit.

 

I'm sure you'll agree that no human is given Christ's authority. Not even the husband.</font>[/QUOTE] The direct link and comparison is made by God's Word. I didn't make it up.

I wife who is not properly submitted to her husband is not properly submitted to Christ. The husband's authority biblically speaking is an extension of the authority of Christ.

And if there is no legitimate reason? Should the wife comply?</font>[/QUOTE] I thought I made the answer to that pretty clear.

No. A wife has a right to ask her husband why. She has a obligation before God to know why. It is not incumbent upon her to participate in his sin. So if he is telling her to jump on one foot just to satisfy his vanity while tormenting her then she should simply say that she won't participate in that sin.

Yes. As does the husband for not properly loving his wife. Love seeks not its own. Biblical love is self sacrificing.

If both don't want the other to have their own satisfaction with regard to something as silly as the color of a car then they have no concept of the love that is supposed to characterize a Christian marriage.

The man's headship is established biblically in the same context with an affirmation of Christ's headship over the church. Do the decisions regarding a car purchase fall under the headship of Christ?

Both are in sin. She didn't submit. He didn't love.

His sin is greater since hers would not exist without his. IOW's, if he loved her properly, he would have let her choose the color in the first place.

However, if the disagreement had been on whether the family resources allowed a 15 mpg SUV or a 25 mpg minivan then he has an obligation to make the final decision with deference to the welfare of the family rather than the feelings of his wife.

[ November 03, 2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Disagree. Submission must be all the time. Compliance is not required all the time.

No, submission means one has the responsibility to in good faith represent the interests of the submitter.

I don't think it's appropriate to compare children with a spouse. Children should do what they're told by their parents. Wives are not under that same requirement of the hubby.