Should wives submit to their husbands?
- Thread starter Cristo Rei
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No sense in being rude about it.
I am a respectable theologian and I consider that v.21 is in context of what is after it and that it refers to marriage.
(As a matter of fact, my Bible breaks it up so that v.21 is in the same paragraph as the rest of the passage.)
I put this into practice in my own life; and it works for me quite well.
I think that perhaps you don't want to submit to your own wife; and I think that very likely from her perspective this accounts for why she won't submit to you on the most important things.
Love has to do with give and take. If you don't give she's not going to give back to you. If you don't submit to her, she's not going to submit to you. You need to set an example for her so that she knows what it means to submit; what it is exactly you are requiring of her.
Jesus doesn't ask anything of us that He didn't do Himself.
He requires that we take up our Cross and follow Him: He wouldn't have the right to require this of us if He hadn't taken up His own Cross and led the way, showing us what it means to obey in this manner.
It is the same way with a husband and wife.
I have a very good marriage because of the way that I treat my wife.
Stan B
Well-Known Member
Scripture provides a very simple chain of command:
God
+
husband
+
wife
+
Children
So as a wise manager who married someone really smart, I shared all the authority given to me by God, to my wife. That worked out rather well for the 50 years we enjoyed together.
Yes; and the husband us given the authority of having the final word in any given situation; along with the responsibility if anything goes wrong because of his decisions.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Let's bring this into sharper focus. If we think about it, Paul's exhortations in Ephesians 5 don't appear to be anything new. It isn't as if Paul is bringing the church a new teaching or a new way to look at society. Even non-Christian husbands love their wives. Non-Christian wives submit to their husbands. Non-Christian children obey their parents. Paul comes from a Jewish family and we can be sure that he has heard things such as this from childhood. Nothing Paul said is anything new.
So why did Paul bring this up? Why list a series of exhortations concerning normal, expected, human interactions? Why say, "husbands love your wives" as if that wasn't going to happen anyway? Why say, "wives submit to your husbands" as if that wasn't already understood?
Answer: Paul teaches us that "in Christ" there is neither male nor female, Jew or Greek, slave or free. We are all one in Christ. All Christians love the Lord and want to follow his teaching and live in holiness. For this reason, Paul found that married couples tended to focus on serving Christ at the expense of their own marriages. Children tended to focus on serving Christ, even, perhaps, while ignoring their duties to their parents.
Rather than understanding Ephesians 5 as a list of imperatives; try understanding Ephesians 5 as a list of permissions. Paul isn't exhorting wives to submit to their husbands, he is giving them permission to submit to their husbands. Think of it in from the perspective of those who just came to saving faith and remain excited about becoming a Christian and wanting to serve the Lord.
Wife: Paul, I know that Jesus wants me to love him and serve him. Shouldn't I submit to Jesus rather than my husband?
Paul: No, because when you submit to your husband, you are also, in effect, submitting to Christ. So go ahead and submit to your husband just as you always do.
Husband: Paul, I know that Jesus wants me to love and serve him. Shouldn't I devote my time to this effort?
Paul: No, because although Jesus loves the Father, he demonstrates his love for the father through his love for the church. Therefore, you demonstrate your love for Jesus through caring and providing for your wife.
Children: Paul, does Jesus want me to obey him rather than my parents?
Paul: No, because when you obey your parents, you are obeying God, who gave your parents responsibility to care for you and raise you.
Sorry this is so long. Think of the passage as a list of permissions rather than imperatives. What is Paul saying to people who want to drop everything, and run out to preach the gospel everywhere?
Dn't be silly, LoL, that's fine. You can't write anything that has any substance in a few sentences
@CadyandZoe - what an interesting viewpoint - have to mull that over - food for thought x
It’s interesting because I came to faith three years into my marriage and I had a desire to serve the Lord, but I had to taper that with being married to a non believer. It involved making choices between what I wanted to do and what I should do - I didn’t always get it right back then and it ended up affecting the marriage. Rita xx
It’s interesting because I came to faith three years into my marriage and I had a desire to serve the Lord, but I had to taper that with being married to a non believer. It involved making choices between what I wanted to do and what I should do - I didn’t always get it right back then and it ended up affecting the marriage. Rita xx
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why WH would omit "submit," unless the word is not in the text that they were relying on. To say it is a "corruption of the Received Text" assumed that WH were basing their text on that tradition, which was not the case.
There are different sources of text, and WH based their text on sources that were earlier than the Received Text. The Received Text itself was filled with many errors in the time of Erasmus, who tried to publish a Greek text based on an inferior set of Byzantine texts.
It is hardly a black mark against WH to say "submit" was excluded because other biblical passages made the same point, where it is clear that wives were to submit to their husbands.
Evidently you are not familiar with WH and their corrupted critical text of the New Testament. There are thousands of omissions in this text based upon a handful of corrupt Greek manuscripts -- Aleph, A, B, C, D, and a few others. All modern versions are based upon the text of Westcott and Hort.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Why don't you enlighten me, brother? I like the more ancient texts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I think what you're saying is wrong. If I don't agree with the superiority of the Received Text, I'm not educated on the matter? Is that what you're saying? ;)
Are you aware of how many mistakes Erasmus made? Are you aware of all the changes that had to be made to the Received Text?
::cool:The myth of "oldest = best" is TOTALLY FALSE. "oldest = most corrupt" is more accurate. If you wish to enlighten yourself kindly read and study The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, and many other books by him and Scrivener (the leading textual critic of the 19th century).
And referring to Erasmus is a non-issue (although Erasmus is to be commended for his labors). Also Erasmus was offer the Codex Vaticanus, which he rejected. There were many others after Erasmus who worked on the Greek NT Text for almost 100 years. And by the time the King James Bible was translated there was indeed a Received Text accepted by all the Reformers. The 1550 edition of Stephanus was primarily used by the KJV, but they also had access to a wide range of texts and translations at that time.
Anyhow, getting back to the WH absurd omission in Eph 5:22, there were many other absurdities introduced into their text. Take some time to study that.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Greetings, C&Z.
I understand what you are trying to say here, but I think that arguing for the verses not being imperatives is something of a misinterpretation. Embedded in Ephesians 5 are the words, "As the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husbands in everything." The church isn't given permission to be subject unto Christ. The church is given an imperative to; it is a command, and one from the Lord Himself. He is described as the King of kings and Lord of lords, and Peter used Sarah as an example of the Christian wife, in that she used to call Abraham Lord and honor him as such (1 Peter 3:6).
Granted, modern Western cultures know very little of this sort of dynamic in marriage and will reject it out of hand as evil whenever it is presented. But that is because they only know Satan's kingdom and how it operates. They do not know God or how His does, which is in love, service and self-sacrifice for those one is given charge over (Matthew 20:25-28).
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
You're not making any valid point. It doesn't matter that the Reformers received a particular text. Textual Criticism may not have been the issue of the day, but rather, access to copies, period. The fact you say a 100 years of work took place on the Greek Text just proves my point, that a lot of corrections to the Received Text needed to be made. In other words, Erasmus threw together what he had to produce the first published version of the Greek text.
Gradually, it was thought that earlier texts would be more reliable, since newer texts were possibly the product of multiple revisions, additions, omissions, etc. Today, the versions that you despise are accepted, I believe, by the vast majority of scholars, precisely because they are based on the most texts as well as the earliest texts.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about all this. My brother, however, knows quite a bit about it, and I could call him for more information. He's friends with people who know more than he does--some pretty scholarly people.
But to get into the KJV is best argument is, in my opinion, shallow. So let's not do that.
When I wrote Wet Paint Principle (Freedom), I remember that the first draft was not what I wanted it to be, so I made editions to the text.
As the author of the document, I believe that the 3rd edition is better than the 1st. Editing took out all the kinks.
As the author of the document, I believe that the 3rd edition is better than the 1st. Editing took out all the kinks.
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,471
- 21,160
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
I understand what is being said here... but some of the posts I find a bit strange.
Dave and I will have been married 59 years in August.
Submission in marriage is surly to the Lord...
if a husband is insecure enough to want 'the last word', fine.
But since 1961 we have always got down in prayer and asked the Lord what His will is in whatever situation needs an answer...and in a day or two we both know what we should do.
We are one in the Lord. There is no one-up-man-ship when it is the Lord who has the leading and last word word on any matter.
Dave and I will have been married 59 years in August.
Submission in marriage is surly to the Lord...
if a husband is insecure enough to want 'the last word', fine.
But since 1961 we have always got down in prayer and asked the Lord what His will is in whatever situation needs an answer...and in a day or two we both know what we should do.
We are one in the Lord. There is no one-up-man-ship when it is the Lord who has the leading and last word word on any matter.
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,471
- 21,160
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
Agree. As usual this kind of debate always derails any thread subject.
The OP has got left behind....again!
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
One. I don't know you from a bar of soap so your claim is moot.
Two. I don't base teaching on anecdotal evidence.
Three. If I need advice about my marriage, I will confer with a professional marriage counselor, not a supposed respectable theologian.
Four. You cannot be a respectable theologian because a respectable theologian does not base their teaching on what they experience personally.
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Hello Helen. You are ahead of me. My wife and I are celebrating our 50th this year. We decided we would celebrate the whole year because you are married for 50 years for twelve months.
I think we have got this far because I am the boss in my house because my wife says so.
I was reading an article about the longest-married people in Hollywood. Apparently 10 years was considered a long time.
and that is how marriage is supposed to be, equal share, one never demanding of the other, the two are as one, when one is above the other it is not equal and the two are not one, as it is with Christ, His bride and Him equal share, Christ loves His bride and has demanded nothing from Her, because love makes no demands and God is love.
Similar threads
- Locked
