Christian Forums

We have read this verse many times and I think we miss the greater message behind it.

Most have understood it to say that men Lord over women but if  you look closer at the context It then becomes clear that we have not understood what this was saying.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
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.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
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.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Eph 5:22-33 (KJV)

When we really look into what the teaching is really saying here we find that it is unity. Being one.

It is telling the man the same thing it is telling the woman. Just worded differently but the same aspect. The husband is also to submit to the wife just as the wife is to submit to the husband. In reality the husband should be more committed to the wife for he is to be to her as Christ is to him.

Anyway I do not really know just how to word this thought but maybe you can see the direction this thought is going and fill in the blanks. I do not want to make a really long post trying to express the complete thought so maybe we can pull it out with more post as we see where this heads.

Wait though....if the submission thing, though specifically stating that the woman submit to her husband, is equal in that the man should submit to his wife too...then the part about being as sacrificial as Christ is to her would apply to her as well in her being sacrificial towards him.

Right?

I think you are correct. I will have to look more into it. It was something that was talked about in the sermon today and I have not had the time to really study out just how to say what is being explained by Paul here. The sacrificial word there is what I have to come to grips with just what you are asking.

I'm not saying that I disagree with the traditional view, which seems at first glance to be what the text is saying. I'm just saying that if you turn one of the parts on it's head to apply to each spouse toward the other, than you have to do the same with the other part. That would make the following statement inaccurate using your logic:

QuoteIn reality the husband should be more committed to the wife for he is to be to her as Christ is to him.

Good point that statement was poorly worded and not thought out. I will have to think this through a bit. I might just be hung up on the fact that the husband is to be protector and supplier for the wife but somehow still equal in submission. Have to find a way to understand just what it means.

Quote from: bvaug on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 14:02:35
Good point that statement was poorly worded and not thought out. I will have to think this through a bit. I might just be hung up on the fact that the husband is to be protector and supplier for the wife but somehow still equal in submission. Have to find a way to understand just what it means.

That's not what the Bible says though. It clearly says that the wife is to submit. That may not be politically correct, but that's what the book says.

A virtuous woman who's worth is far above the price of rubies.....when she submits to the authority of men, when she respects him and looks to him for guidance, that's a powerful statement, imo. She is someone who can bring honor to her man, and to her children, and they can place their trust in her. Strength and honor are her clothing. Proverbs 31:10-31

love,

Sopranette

Ok let me study what the word submit means in context to these verses. I may have jumped the gun on this unthoughtout thought that came to me,

Don't get me wrong, bvaug.  It IS in a way a relationship of equals.  But too many people think the word "submissive"  means a master and servant relationship, when, in fact is is a letting go of one party, and the taking on of responsibilities of the other party.  "Submit" has many, many layers to it. My two cents.

love,

Sopranette

God wishes for husbands and wifes to be one, just as the church is one, and He and the Father and Holy Spirit are one.

Remembering that love works no ill.

The wife is to submit to the husband.  The husband is to be like Christ to the wife.  Those are commands. 

On the flip side, if the husband is like Christ to the wife, the wife will probably submit to her husband as well.

I believe in the complementarian view of husband/wife relationships and the complementarian view of male/female roles in the church.  I believe it to be the biblical way of things.  I do not believe a man being the dominant guy who barks orders is being like Christ.

bvaug, I wonder, are you seeing the servanthood of Christ to the Church and, perhaps, reading a little too much into it?

Jesus said, "I come not to be served, but to serve."

If that is the case, then let us look at how Christ served. Did he submit himself to the Church, so that the Church commanded him? No, his service was different to that. Jesus does not ask us what we want him to do - that's not the service he is providing - he is bringing everything necessary to us to be reconciled to God. Without him this could never happen.

The husband serves his wife in the same way then. He is not under her command, but there to provide all things necessary for life. Such service is not the same as submission, but the exemplary position of Jesus, our Lord.

The lead in thought is "submit to one another." The reason? Because you are all Christians - followers of God.

The six examples are ways of doing just that; they are not three if-then loops, but six examples of how submission might look in your life. These are examples, not rules.

 

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 16:24:36
The lead in thought is "submit to one another." The reason? Because you are all Christians - followers of God.

The six examples are ways of doing just that; they are not three if-then loops, but six examples of how submission might look in your life. These are examples, not rules.

Now this is what I was getting at. I did not do a good job of trying to explain it as this simple wording does much better so forget what I said earlier and build off of the above.

That is a straight forth teaching from Matthew to Revelation one in one as I in you. Many different ways it was worded but the concept is there and in the verses of the OP.

Quote from: sopranette on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 15:32:34
Don't get me wrong, bvaug.  It IS in a way a relationship of equals.  But too many people think the word "submissive"  means a master and servant relationship, when, in fact is is a letting go of one party, and the taking on of responsibilities of the other party.  "Submit" has many, many layers to it. My two cents.

love,

Sopranette

very well put sopranette.

Our minister touched on this in his marriage series this morning.  Afterward, we were talking and I made a statement that if one were to poll the long term marriages in our congregations (30 + yrs) with a question and multiple choice answer as follows, what did he think the answer would be.

Question:  If you were to describe what has kept your marriage together for all these years, what would you say:

1)  wife is in submission to the husband and the husband has the right to make the final decission in all matters as the head of the marriage (complimentarian)
2)  the wife and the husband are in submission to each other because they are both Christians and we as Christians are to submit to each other in all ways and were to make decissions together (mutual submission)
3)  Neither of the above.

 He immediately answered me with the statement that, based on his years of experience, the vast majority would pick the 2nd answer--mutual submission.

Quote from: Gary on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 16:05:56
The wife is to submit to the husband.  The husband is to be like Christ to the wife.  Those are commands. 

On the flip side, if the husband is like Christ to the wife, the wife will probably submit to her husband as well.

I believe in the complementarian view of husband/wife relationships and the complementarian view of male/female roles in the church.  I believe it to be the biblical way of things.  I do not believe a man being the dominant guy who barks orders is being like Christ.

Well said gary.
We are to both do what God has told us, even if our spouse isnt so good at doing their part, as often happens . of course it is so much easier to do our part if our spouse does theirs, and I find being submissive to my husband in a godly way, is reatively easy beucase he is so kind and sweet to me.I also hope that he is able to love me as he does becuase I am trying at least to do my part.
We arent doing it just to please our spouses but to please God.

Quote from: bvaug on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 13:14:57
We have read this verse many times and I think we miss the greater message behind it.

Most have understood it to say that men Lord over women but if  you look closer at the context It then becomes clear that we have not understood what this was saying.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
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.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
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.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Eph 5:22-33 (KJV)

When we really look into what the teaching is really saying here we find that it is unity. Being one.

It is telling the man the same thing it is telling the woman. Just worded differently but the same aspect. The husband is also to submit to the wife just as the wife is to submit to the husband. In reality the husband should be more committed to the wife for he is to be to her as Christ is to him.

Anyway I do not really know just how to word this thought but maybe you can see the direction this thought is going and fill in the blanks. I do not want to make a really long post trying to express the complete thought so maybe we can pull it out with more post as we see where this heads.

Bill,

I haven't read through the whole thread...haven't even finished the first page.  Just a quick comment.

I think you're on the right track and have essentially made good conclusions.  Paul is promoting a mutuality in the relationship between husband and wife (and also within the family of Believers to a similar though not exact degree), and a mutuality that is sacrificial.  It's a mutuality of self-sacrifice and building up the other that is rooted in the relationship between/among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I'll try and get more read later.

Thanks Bill.


V

Quote from: Gary on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 16:05:56
The wife is to submit to the husband.  The husband is to be like Christ to the wife.  Those are commands. 

On the flip side, if the husband is like Christ to the wife, the wife will probably submit to her husband as well.

I believe in the complementarian view of husband/wife relationships and the complementarian view of male/female roles in the church.  I believe it to be the biblical way of things.  I do not believe a man being the dominant guy who barks orders is being like Christ.

Gary,

Seems to me that you're wanting it both ways, so to speak.

If this is to be taken strictly on a "command" level, then the wife has no choice but to "submit", whether her husband is a saint or a lout. 

Also, your perspective still allows for the guys to be the ones barking the orders...Ive seen it work out in practice too many times that "barking guys" will be tolerated whereas "speaking women" are condemned as "not being in submission".

Verse 21, which immediately preceeds the section which Bill copy/pasted in his post reads;

QuoteSubmit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Paul instructs each Believer of the ekklesia in Ephesus to "submit" to each of the other Believers who are of that body...and to do so because they revere Christ.  Would you read that to mean that only women were to submit to men, or even that only wives were to submit to the man who was their husband?  The real issue is not so much the submission of wives to husbands, but rather that in Christ we submit to each other, to both our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Those of us reading the NIV (and other translations also) need to strike out the artificial break that the translators have made between verses 21 and 22.  That break represents a subtle translational bias (no doubt you've heard/read me say that somewhere else in the not too distant past...TRANSLATIONAL BIAS...).


V

I have to agree with V on this I think we miss understand the meaning of what is being taught here.
Everyone keeps saying stay in context  well the context seems to be more as Wiley and V are pointing to than what we were originally taught.

Quote from: bvaug on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 17:55:51

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 16:24:36
The lead in thought is "submit to one another." The reason? Because you are all Christians - followers of God.

The six examples are ways of doing just that; they are not three if-then loops, but six examples of how submission might look in your life. These are examples, not rules.

Now this is what I was getting at. I did not do a good job of trying to explain it as this simple wording does much better so forget what I said earlier and build off of the above.

Ok. So you should have started a verse earlier. I agree that all too often these verses are taken to supress, rather than to uplift. From other places in Paul's writings, I know this was not his way of thinking.

You are now saying that the most important criteria is the submitting to one another as believers in Christ. Now you need to show how you see this worked out in Paul's examples.

I think it could be interesting. If I have any thoughts, I'll certainly add them to the discussion.

Quote from: bvaug on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 22:19:26
I have to agree with V on this I think we miss understand the meaning of what is being taught here.
Everyone keeps saying stay in context  well the context seems to be more as Wiley and V are pointing to than what we were originally taught.

Bill,

Is this a shift in your understanding, and if so, why?

V

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 16:24:36
The lead in thought is "submit to one another." The reason? Because you are all Christians - followers of God.

The six examples are ways of doing just that; they are not three if-then loops, but six examples of how submission might look in your life. These are examples, not rules.

Exactly.  Good.  Well said.  Right on, bro.


V

We must also realize that Paul was writing to a culture that was extremely authoritarian in nature, man ruling over woman.  This culture also had slavery.  Paul's directives to slaves was to submit to their masters as unto the Lord; he did not oppose slavery.  Does that mean that Paul supported slavery or that slavery is not an evil social system? No; rather, Paul was teaching Christians how to live in the world's system and yet not be overcome by the system, to be in the world but not of the world. 

I believe that he approached marriage in the same manner.  Authoritarian patriarchy was the rule of the day.  Paul did not oppose patriarchy just like he did not oppose slavery; rather he Christianized slavery and Christianized patriarchy, encouraging those in charge to not oppress those whom they could potentially oppress and he encouraged those being ruled to submit and not allow resentment to rule their hearts.  So, Paul, rather than endorsing patriarchy was teaching Christians how to live in a patriarichal culture.

Considering creation, I believe that an Egalitarian model of marriage is the divine ideal - what we should strive for.  In creation, Adam and Eve were equal, ruling side by side over creation, but neither ruling over eachother.  Adam ruling over Eve was a result of sin, and was not how we are created to live together! 

Quote from: Sherman Nobles on Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 07:50:16
We must also realize that Paul was writing to a culture that was extremely authoritarian in nature, man ruling over woman.  This culture also had slavery.  Paul's directives to slaves was to submit to their masters as unto the Lord; he did not oppose slavery.  Does that mean that Paul supported slavery or that slavery is not an evil social system? No; rather, Paul was teaching Christians how to live in the world's system and yet not be overcome by the system, to be in the world but not of the world. 

I believe that he approached marriage in the same manner.  Authoritarian patriarchy was the rule of the day.  Paul did not oppose patriarchy just like he did not oppose slavery; rather he Christianized slavery and Christianized patriarchy, encouraging those in charge to not oppress those whom they could potentially oppress and he encouraged those being ruled to submit and not allow resentment to rule their hearts.  So, Paul, rather than endorsing patriarchy was teaching Christians how to live in a patriarichal culture.

Considering creation, I believe that an Egalitarian model of marriage is the divine ideal - what we should strive for.  In creation, Adam and Eve were equal, ruling side by side over creation, but neither ruling over eachother.  Adam ruling over Eve was a result of sin, and was not how we are created to live together! 

To say that Adam and Eve were not ruling over each other, is to overlook the responsiblity given to Adam.

God didn't give the responsibility to the woman (Eve) to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  God gave that responsibility to Adam.  The woman was to hearken unto the voice of the man.   What she did was to consider what the serpent said to her.  Thus she was deceived.

The obedience of Adam pertaining to the tree of knowledge of good and evil was requested by God directly to Adam.  It was Adam who disobeyed, and it was the woman who was deceived.

This is why the woman is to submit today.  And this is why the Church which is the wife to Christ is to submit to Christ.  It is where the responsibility is given.

I believe this verse teaches us to be sub(under) our husband. We are in a line of authority for our own good. If our husband is under God and we are under him we are in proper order. If we get out of that line..husband away from God...wife not submissive to husband...WE ARE IN REBELLION! If we are in rebellion God can not bless/answer our marriage/prayers.

The husband is commanded to love his wife with understanding...the wife is told to respect her husband.

Quote from: Sherman Nobles on Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 07:50:16
...rather, Paul was teaching Christians how to live in the world's system and yet not be overcome by the system, to be in the world but not of the world....

..., Paul, rather than endorsing patriarchy was teaching Christians how to live in a patriarichal culture.

...In creation, Adam and Eve were equal, ruling side by side over creation, but neither ruling over eachother.  Adam ruling over Eve was a result of sin, and was not how we are created to live together! "

YES! YES! YES!

I will give you manna as soon as I can. I've already given some to Bill and Roberson and Volkmar.

They say that an interpretation has no validity in our culture until it is embraced and expressed by a man. (That alone speaks volumes about gender bias in our culture.)  So I am thankful to you all! One cannot read just the one verse and have a clue as to what Paul was saying. Taking it out of context leads to a false teaching and a distorted gospel. THANK YOU for keeping it whole.

Quote from: Mystery Man on Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 08:24:00

Quote from: Sherman Nobles on Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 07:50:16
We must also realize that Paul was writing to a culture that was extremely authoritarian in nature, man ruling over woman.  This culture also had slavery.  Paul's directives to slaves was to submit to their masters as unto the Lord; he did not oppose slavery.  Does that mean that Paul supported slavery or that slavery is not an evil social system? No; rather, Paul was teaching Christians how to live in the world's system and yet not be overcome by the system, to be in the world but not of the world. 

I believe that he approached marriage in the same manner.  Authoritarian patriarchy was the rule of the day.  Paul did not oppose patriarchy just like he did not oppose slavery; rather he Christianized slavery and Christianized patriarchy, encouraging those in charge to not oppress those whom they could potentially oppress and he encouraged those being ruled to submit and not allow resentment to rule their hearts.  So, Paul, rather than endorsing patriarchy was teaching Christians how to live in a patriarichal culture.

Considering creation, I believe that an Egalitarian model of marriage is the divine ideal - what we should strive for.  In creation, Adam and Eve were equal, ruling side by side over creation, but neither ruling over eachother.  Adam ruling over Eve was a result of sin, and was not how we are created to live together! 

To say that Adam and Eve were not ruling over each other, is to overlook the responsiblity given to Adam.

God didn't give the responsibility to the woman (Eve) to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  God gave that responsibility to Adam.  The woman was to hearken unto the voice of the man.   What she did was to consider what the serpent said to her.  Thus she was deceived.

The obedience of Adam pertaining to the tree of knowledge of good and evil was requested by God directly to Adam.  It was Adam who disobeyed, and it was the woman who was deceived.

This is why the woman is to submit today.  And this is why the Church which is the wife to Christ is to submit to Christ.  It is where the responsibility is given.

Actually, when Adam was orignially created, Eve was part of him and thus recieved the instruction just like Adam did.  Eve was one of Adam's sides. I believe that the original Adam was significantly different than either Adam and Eve after the division.  Of course, this is all assuming that the creation account was meant to be understood as historical narrative and not only as a metaphor.

Even so, the first account in 1:28 God directs both men and women to rule over the earth; and one aspect of the curse of sin was that husbands would rule over their wives.  And frankly, the more messed up a man is the more he has a tendency to oppress the women in his life.  And the more messed up a woman is the more she is likely to allow a man to oppress her.  Of course, I speak in broad generalities.

Also, concerning Paul's comments on submission, such was predicated upon mutual submission previously stated. 

Quote from: grace on Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 08:44:50
I believe this verse teaches us to be sub(under) our husband. We are in a line of authority for our own good. If our husband is under God and we are under him we are in proper order. If we get out of that line..husband away from God...wife not submissive to husband...WE ARE IN REBELLION! If we are in rebellion God can not bless/answer our marriage/prayers.

The husband is commanded to love his wife with understanding...the wife is told to respect her husband.

And, what if your husband isn't submitted to God?  Then what?


V

Quote from: chosenone on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 18:36:17

Quote from: sopranette on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 15:32:34
Don't get me wrong, bvaug.  It IS in a way a relationship of equals.  But too many people think the word "submissive"  means a master and servant relationship, when, in fact it is a letting go of one party, and the taking on of responsibilities of the other party.  "Submit" has many, many layers to it. My two cents.

love,

Sopranette

very well put sopranette.

Thank you, Choseone.  People think Eve was the downfall of Mankind, that she is to blame for all our misery, when in fact Adam was just as guilty, and God told him so.  The real culprit is Satan, awesomely knowledgeable, as old as time itself, a seducer from the beginning.  Eve was quite literally "Born yesterday" and hardly stood a chance against that old dragon.

love,

Sopranette

Quote from: grace on Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 08:44:50
I believe this verse teaches us to be sub(under) our husband. We are in a line of authority for our own good. If our husband is under God and we are under him we are in proper order. If we get out of that line..husband away from God...wife not submissive to husband...WE ARE IN REBELLION! If we are in rebellion God can not bless/answer our marriage/prayers.

The husband is commanded to love his wife with understanding...the wife is told to respect her husband.

So grace, is a single adult woman "headless" (so to speak)?  Of course not; rather, adult single women have God as their head.  Why then would a woman who gets married stop listening to God directly and listen to God only through her husband.  Frankly, imo patriarchy criples marriage, the family, and society, keeping them all from reaching their full potential in God.  To me, marriage is like to oxen yoked together.  They are joined together to work together with both listening to the driver.  

From experience, I've also found that an egalitarian approach to family is much more functional.  My wife is a very intelligent, sensitive, and caring person, gifted in different ways than I am.  Rather than our roles being defined by our gender, our roles are defined by our strengths.  Where I am strong, I provide servant leadership.  Where she is strong, she provides servant leadership.  And in all things we work together and seek agreement.  When we have different beliefs as to the direction we should go, we wrestle until the Lord impresses one of us to submit.  I don't know how many major decisions that we've disagreed on over the years that we never really came to an agreement, but where the Lord steped in and impressed one of us to submit and go along with the direction of the other.  

Over the last several years, I've interviewed many couples married 10+ years, and almost all function as an egalitarian model of family.  Note that I said "function"; though some claimed to be patriarichal I simply asked how many out of the 1000's of decisions they've made together did the husband pull the trump card and say, "..... is the direction we're going because I'm the man of the house."  They all responded that the man rarely, usually never, resolved their conflict that way.  It's one thing to give lip service to patriarchy; it's another thing to live that way and have a lasting marriage.  

Quote from: Volkmar on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 23:02:46

Quote from: bvaug on Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 22:19:26
I have to agree with V on this I think we miss understand the meaning of what is being taught here.
Everyone keeps saying stay in context  well the context seems to be more as Wiley and V are pointing to than what we were originally taught.

Bill,

Is this a shift in your understanding, and if so, why?

V

V,  I am rethinking what I have been taught yes. I look at the verses that I posted in the OP, and with first glance they do not say, what I was taught ,when read in full. I have not had the time to really look into this yet, but I am trying to make the time, because I think there was a lot looked over in the way they taught this to me. Let me get my thoughts together, and I will get back to you.

For starters is the letter not dealing with unity? Unity does mean one over another does it?
It would be more like 2 or more joined together in one frame of mind living in harmony would it not?

It compares the union of husband and wife  to that of Christ and his bride. So to find the answer I guess we will have to define the relationship of Christ to his bride.