Wives Submit to your Husbands

o·be·di·ent
adj.
Dutifully complying with the commands, orders, or instructions of one in authority.

 

"The only sure way for a man to be the King of his castle is to make his wife the Queen." copied

 

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives,

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

 

I've always seen this verse as speaking of the misuse of male authority, for it is a part of the curse.

 

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

 

I have a serious problem with thinking that female subjection is a result of the fall. If Christ has come to eliminate the punishment for sin, would not upholding sin's result be endorsing sin in some form?

Also, if counter-acting this is sinful, would not alleviating the pain of childbirth also be sinful?

 

Christ did eliminate the punishment for sin for all those who trust Him. He did not, however, remove the curse or consequences of sin. All sin carries with it a consequence. Jesus saved the thief on the cross but He did not remove the consequences of his sin. He still had to bear them.

 

From Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994:

" h. The Curse Brought a Distortion of Previous Roles, Not the Introduction of New Roles: In the punishments God gave to Adam and Eve, he did not introduce new roles or functions, but simply introduced pain and distortion into the functions they previously had. Thus, Adam would still have primary responsibility for tilling the ground and raising crops, but the ground would bring forth 'thorns and thistles' and in the sweat of his face he would eat bread (Gen. 3:18, 19). Similarly, Eve would still have the responsibility of bearing children, but to do so would become painful: 'In pain you shall bring forth children' (Gen. 3:16). Then God also introduced conflict and pain into the previously harmonious relationship between Adam and Eve. [. . . ] Susan Foh has effectively argued that the word translated 'desire' (Heb. teshuqah) means 'desire to conquer,' and that it indicates Eve woudl have a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband. [. . .] it would indicate that God is introducing a conflict into the relationship between Adam and Eve and a desire on Eve's part to rebel against Adam's authority." (463-4)

"[. . .] the word 'rule' (Heb. mashal) is a stong term usually used of monarchical governments, not generally of authority within a familiy. The word [. . .] has nuances of dictatorial or absolute, uncaring use of authority, rather than considerate, thoughtful rule. It suggests harshness rather than kindness." (464)

"It is not that Adam had no authority before the fall; it is simply that he will misuse it after the fall " (464, emphasis mine)

"So in both cases, the curse brough a distortion of Adam's humble, considerate leadership and Eve's intelligent, willing submission to that leadership which existed before the fall." (464)

--------------
From John H. Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton argues that the term for desire refers to a dependence upon the man (in a sexual sense, which is corroborated by its similar use in the Song of Solomon) for bearing children, which places the man in a "position to dominate."
(228-9)

"As description this is not imposing gender roles but identifying what is inevitable." (237)

---------

I think these alternate explanations clearly show that the negative consequences of the fall do not include a prescribed pattern of male headship but a corrupted relationship.

 

Christ did eliminate the punishment for sin for all those who trust Him. He did not, however, remove the curse or consequences of sin. All sin carries with it a consequence. Jesus saved the thief on the cross but He did not remove the consequences of his sin. He still had to bear them. </font>[/QUOTE]Nevertheless, would not attempting to achieve the closest relationship possible to the "pre-fall" relationship be preferable to trying to uphold the consquences of the fall?

I do uphold male authority but not because I believe the fall initiated it. I see male authority as being present before the fall, which would lend more strength to the argument.

 

Immediately before Ephesians 5:22, Paul addresses husbands, wives and single folks by saying:

 

This defination of respect is saying submission.


===


But Paul used Greek! What the Greek words mean is the issue..IMO! </font>[/QUOTE]I do not read, write, or speak greek.
I do however read, write, and speak english.
The bible is in my language for a reason. What do you think that reason is, from God's viewpoint? Is a complete understanding of greek required to understand scripture? What of those who have no greek resourse available to them ever, is not the Holy Spirit involved in it at all?
You have to be very careful when throwing the requirement for understanding greek around. Careful not to think more highly of yourself becasue you think you know what you think others do not.

 

Artimaeus: I think Ephesians pictures the husband working to assure the godliness of the wife by all he does as Christ does the same for his church. This would include helping her in the submission area if she is lacking so that she can be submissive to God's word. Would agree in the area of not forcing her, that just wouldn't work even if you tried

Eph 5.25 Husbands , love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 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.

 

Then you have a problem with THIS scripture:

 

Then you have a problem with THIS scripture:

</font>[/QUOTE]No, I believe that that passage describes a corruption of the previous relationship.

I have no problem with the scripture; it is your interpretation that I cannot accept. Look at my previous posts, and you'll see where I stand.

 

This defination of respect is saying submission.


===


But Paul used Greek! What the Greek words mean is the issue..IMO! </font>[/QUOTE]I do not read, write, or speak greek.
I do however read, write, and speak english.
The bible is in my language for a reason. What do you think that reason is, from God's viewpoint? Is a complete understanding of greek required to understand scripture? What of those who have no greek resourse available to them ever, is not the Holy Spirit involved in it at all?
You have to be very careful when throwing the requirement for understanding greek around. Careful not to think more highly of yourself becasue you think you know what you think others do not. </font>[/QUOTE]-===

Now I think too highly of myself because I think Greek is important?

The Bible in English is only accurate, ie, is only God's Word, to the extent it conveys the meaning of the original. Would you agree with that or does the Word of God change? Are translators inspired too along with the apostles?

As you read English, if one English translation reads,

"The husband is supreme over his wife" (TEV, 1 Cor 11:3),

and a commentator thinks that kephale in 11:3 (head) rather means "source of" than "supreme over" (FF BRuce),

then, which of the English renditions, mutually exclusive, is inspired?

But if neither translation "supreme over" or "source of" is inspired, and only the originals are, and if the original is in Greek, then why do you suggest that someone who desires to get as close to the original WORD as he can by working hard to learn Greek is by that act being prideful?

Or, if you say you rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal to you the truth from the English , and I say I rely on the Holy Spirit to use my understanding of the Greek, how am I more prideful than you?

Therefore, why is the Bible in English? I don't think it is so someone who knows no Greek can argue about what the Greek means or insist that the translations are more important than the originals .

 

</font>[/QUOTE]==

IMO, while, yes 5:22 uses the verb in 5:21. 5:21 says that in the church each is to mutually submit.

But 5:22 begins a new context: the family. We would not argue that parents are to submit to their children as 6:1 has the reverse of that. No reciprocity of submission.In fact, 6:1 uses the same verb as does 5:22. See also 6:5. No reciprocity there either of submission. Further, the distinct role of the wife is indicated by ' idios .' She is subject to her OWN husband, not to men in general according to this text. Therefore, the family is in view and not "one another " in general.

 

My pastor approached this topic with this statement. "Men, before you shove a bible in your wife's face and say, 'see, it says you have to do what I want," read on. It tells you to love her like Christ loved the church. Are you willing to be beaten with a cat of 9 tails, wear a crown of thorns, and die on a cross for her? That's how much He says to love her."

 

===


Perhaps more Christian men fail in their duty re this text than do women and perhaps we men have the more challenging command.

 

I agree that Paul uses the same word in different contexts and I also agree that v.21 does not suggest reciprocity of the submission in the context talked about in v.22.

Finally, TexasSky's pastor and others have the correct perspective. We like to focus on the one line where Paul addresses wives, and tend to downplay the 10 verses addressed to husbands.

 

For those interested in Gen. 3.16 you might enjoy thinking of the fact that the word translated desire in that passage is the same word translated desire in Gen. 4.7.