Marie makes some excellent biblical points here — In Defense of Complementarianism…(Submitting to Your Husband, and Fun Things Like That). Go read it. I’ll wait here.
If you read the whole Bible I think you can’t go wrong with the guidance on marriage and families. I’ve enjoyed teaching some small groups of men at CareNet Preganancy Center about their roles as husbands and fathers. My wife and I will be teaching a class at church based on the Fireproof movie this Fall (which reminds me that I should probably read the materials!).
Some people get hung up on the “submission” thing because they don’t understand it properly and don’t take the time to learn more.
Part of the problem is reading the text from a perverted 21st century worldview. The writings were probably just as controversial when originally written but for the opposite reasons. If one understands just how poorly women were treated in those cultures (as they are today in many other cultures) you would have been shocked at how Jesus elevated wives to their proper status.
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
Ask yourself: How much did Jesus love the church?
P.S. For guys with wives who think it is politically incorrect to say that men and women have different roles, try this the next time your hear a sound that could be a burglar: “Honey, it is your turn to go check it out.”
First, I think that some women (especially armed with a gun) would rather be the ones to chase off the burglar than have to “submit” to their husbands, if those are the options given to them. I dispute the last part, since people can have different roles without the inherent inequality of submission.
Beyond the false dichotomy, there’s the issue of how readily it lends itself to abuse. Yes, if people were perfect, the Ephesians verse wouldn’t be a problem: men would never dream of using it as a bludgeon against their wives, who are their equals. But if people were perfect, the Bible (at least according to Christians) would be unnecessary.
Finally, a few comments on what I’ve observed about human nature. Young men can be horribly insecure, domineering, controlling, and determined to squash their women under their thumbs. (Yes, most do mature.) It takes women decades to learn to stand up for themselves and set boundaries that enable them to live functional lives with their spouses. It is incredibly difficult for many women to learn how to assert themselves and the lack of such assertion does not, contrary to what I’m sure some sexist men will think, harms marriages: women are so bloody miserable that they stop loving their husbands.
We get tired of giving everyone else their way and putting other people first while being ignored ourselves. We get tired of being voiceless. We get tired of always losing, always being the first to reconcile, and always being the one to give in to keep the peace. It is a HORRIBLE way to live your life.
In light of that, telling women to “submit to your husbands” is insanity. Only the cruelest of gods would make women the way we are and then tell us to submit.
I think you are using “submit” in a different way than we, and the Scriptures, are using “submit.”
When you use submit, what do you mean?
The first, and primary, definition of the word.
If that is not what you mean by “submit,” then I respectfully request that Christians, well, find themselves a different word. Until that day happens, though, do NOT complain when rational humans see the word “submit” and translate it as commonly used.
Thing is, if you have to work too hard to explain it, then, aside from the obvious point that you’re either mis-interpreting the Bible to soften an obviously misogynistic command or obtusely leaving a word in there whose objective meaning differs from the intended meaning, you are leaving women open to all sorts of abuse. You cannot explain to each and every Christian husband that “submit” does not really mean submit; it means something (who knows, really) else, even though the language is incredibly clear. The result is so blindingly obvious that you cannot argue that it’s unintentional.
We had the word first
.
I think it is also useful to read the whole Bible with respect to women, such as this. It is hardly the stereotype many people have.
Proverbs 31
The words of King Lemuel. An oracle that his mother taught him:
2 What are you doing, my son? What are you doing, son of my womb?
What are you doing, son of my vows?
3 Do not give your strength to women,
your ways to those who destroy kings.
4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
it is not for kings to drink wine,
or for rulers to take strong drink,
5 lest they drink and forget what has been decreed
and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.
6 Give strong drink to the one who is perishing,
and wine to those in bitter distress;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
8 Open your mouth for the mute,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Open your mouth, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.
The Woman Who Fears the Lord
10 An excellent wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant;
she brings her food from afar.
15 She rises while it is yet night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She dresses herself with strength
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes bed coverings for herself;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates
when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she delivers sashes to the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 ” Many women have done
excellently,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.
Also, on a side note, this argument is beyond asinine when coming from the people who (rightly) point out that women have the ability to dictate sexual mores in society. Sometimes, men – especially young men – are only as good as women let them be. Submission is license to let them use you as a doormat, not to encourage each other to be the best possible people. Human beings – which includes men – do sometimes need another human being to lay down the law.
Men do not obtain Papal infallibility when a wedding ring goes on their finger. Neither do they obtain Allah’s status; do not forget that the entire Islamic religion is predicated upon submission (Islam’s literal meaning); even though they submit to a god, we can all see how well that “human beings should engage in complete submission” idea works out.
::Rolls eyes::
“Sometimes, men – especially young men – are only as good as women let them be.”
I don’t disagree.
But I think that your understanding of this text is divorced from the original meaning of the text, especially when we consider the cultural context that the text first appeared in.
When we consider that in the ancient world, and under Roman law, the ‘Pater Familias’ had total power and authority over his family (including the right to sell people into slavery and/or to kill them under certain circumstances). When we consider that the addition of verse numbers, section breaks, and chapter breaks are not in the original text, it becomes much easier to understand what is being said in Ephesians 5.
If you read just Ephesians 5 (I like the ESV translation) and ignore the heading breaks, I think it is very difficult to understand the passage as you are currently understanding it.
The key to wifely submission is the husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church. That’s why it’s so important that women marry men who are submissive to God, because in turn those men would be very loving husbands – the fun ones to submit too!
But since the bible tells saved folks to stay married to unsaved folks, then at some point a woman must submit to a man who doesn’t understand godly submission. Those marriages are very difficult, yet very possible to do.
I was married to a man who abused me emotionally and sometimes physically. I didn’t seek a divorce because of that abuse, but through much counseling (for myself) I learned to be submissive as much as possible, fulfilling my responsibilities as wife. Although my husband wasn’t obeying God, I still had to do so, as long as my husband wasn’t having me to do things contrary to biblical principles.
We eventually divorced only because he cheated on me – even abandoning me and the children for days and months at a time and coming home as if nothing happened. He was a horrible husband and father – and even today my five children I had by him have barely anything to do with him.
I was surprised by the women who were influenced by me and actually admired me for sticking with him. I felt like a failure for not hanging in but the adultery was a bit too much and broke the relationship completely. If my ex had ever ask forgiveness, I would have taken him back. But he didn’t.
The author said that physical abuse, abandonment and adultery were grounds for divorce. Adultery/abandonment I know is biblical, but physical abuse?
Oh, I didn’t add that through much counseling (one of which was Pastor John MacArthur’s head marriage counselor and right hand man during that time, the late Dr. Fred Barshaw) my husband did stop the physical abuse. Emotionally I had become so much stronger that he was powerless to my inner happiness!
Re. physical abuse: If a guy beats his neighbor’s wife he goes to jail. Why should he get to beat his own wife? Only in a truly fallen world would people even consider letting that happen. I’m not saying they have to go straight to divorce, but physical separation should be the norm in physically or emotionally abusive marriages.
Carlotta, you are a true woman of God and I pray that your witness continues to reach others.
Thanks Neil! As a divorcee I really do try to avoid discussions on marriage as the best counselors on that topic are happily married Christian couples.
But if anyone can learn from my experiences as they relate to scripture then I’m always glad to share. This topic struck my interest because of the abuse=divorce sentiment.
More on that with Marie.
Carlotta,
I have just developed a deep sense of respect for you and am truly sorry that your marriage could not be saved, after all that you endured. My sister was subjected to emotional and physical abuse in her marriage as well. I say ‘was’ because the abuses have stopped now. At least the physical part of it. But even when she suffered the most, she suffered in silence. And now more than ever she’s quite determined to make her marriage work, ’cause she finally has a child. (The abuse was mainly ’cause her husband didnt want her to have children). It’s my personal opinion that it’s women like you and my sis who are the ones with real strength of character contrary to what the (misguided)feminist society might think. I think of myself a coward for that very reason ’cause I shy away from marriage.
Thank you Shailini! I’m just praying for your sister because I can imagine what she’s been through and what she may be going through if her husband never wanted her to be pregnant. I’m glad the physical abuse has stopped and praying that it never returns! But most of all I’m praying for her marriage to succeed!
I don’t blame you for shying away from marriage but praying when given the right person and situation, your heart will be ready for it – if it’s meant for you to be married!
Thanks again for your kind words!
*Bump for Shalani’s sister!
Shalini,
Funny you should mention “misguided feminists” in that, since your sister is acting exactly like them: it’s all about her.
No sane woman brings a child into an abusive marriage. I’m obviously not talking about accidental pregnancy, but how screwed up do you have to be to deliberately conceive when your husband abuses you? It sounds like the only thing that the screwed-up husband, in that screwed-up marriage, got right was to not want to bring children into it.
What cracks me up about the supposed “Christian” (scare quotes deliberate) attitudes about marriage expressed here is that if a liberal expressed the exact same sentiments, you would all (rightly) criticise that person. We all understand that divorce and single parenthood are bad things for children and deplore the modern glorification of them. Yet, the same things that make those situations bad makes Shalini’s sister’s child’s situation WORSE. Growing up while witnessing emotional and/or physical abuse between your parents is, psychologically, among the worst things that can happen to you. The outcomes are predictable and horrible: drug and alcohol abuse, sexual immorality, dropping out of high school, and, of course, finding abusive relationships (either being abused or being the abuser).
Let’s hope that the abusive husband is magically unlike, oh, every single other abusive husband in that he won’t start in on the kid, too.
Absolute mindlessness… and a good heaping of heartlessness, too. Hello, adoption! (Is there seriously no one in your family who would take the child so he/she does not have to grow up in that house?)
As my very Catholic grandmother used to say, “Get off the cross; we need the wood.” Or, as the Queen of Swords frequently says, “Jesus Christ did not call on us to be doormats.” Either way – glorification and/or acceptance of physical abuse is messed up and indicates some mental problem – either revelry in the victim role or lack of an understanding of how life- and marriage – should be.
Who is the queen of swords…?
Queen of Swords = Former blogger.
Theobromophile,
Uhm, by misguided feminists I meant those people who believe breaking things empower them rather than making things work.
Let me explain my sister’s situation further, ’cause I somehow feel compelled to defend her stance. The abuses started in my sister’s marriage when my sister decided she wanted children in the marriage but her husband for some odd reason wanted to make lots of money before they had children. He abused my sis because being better educated and better employed and by the fact she earned twice as much as him, she continuing to work would help him realize his dreams quicker than she being a stay at home for a few years. Those 2 years when the abuse was at it’s pinnacle, she DIDN’T get pregnant, nor did she try to. It was after 2 years of suffering in silence that she decided that she needed to stay apart from him for sometime to decided what she really wanted of that marriage. So she fled, yes fled, to my eldest sister’s place who lived in the same country as she. It was then we found out about the abuses she had endured. But again, my b-i-l is seriously someone I fail to understand. In those 6 months my sister stayed away from him, he constantly tried persuading my sis to come back to him and he claimed to love her. In a last ditch effort he conceded they can have children first. It was then she went back, though she never had any intentions of leaving him permanently, when she felt she could trust at least that may be he did love her despite everything. It was only then did she try having children and finally gave birth to my nephew last year (after 3 miscarriages and 1 ectopic pregnancy). And there’s another thing about my b-i-l. He himself was a victim of abusive marriage and so he promised my sis that despite all their differences, he wouldn’t let all that happened to him to happen to his son. And am hoping he sticks to that. So I really don’t think my sister was completely insane in the decisions she took in her life. Though I don’t really believe my b-i-l is all that repentant, I really can’t blame my sis if decided to give her husband a chance! The truth is, it’s not that she revels in being servile nor does she suffer from something akin to the Stockholm syndrome. I feel she’s stronger ’cause despite everything, despite the obvious betrayal of her trust and love by her husband, she still chose to forgive him. That is what I meant by strength of character.
And trust me, I am a lot worried about my nephew but since sis has been assuring me that all is fine, that she’d let me know if things go wrong, I am bit relaxed right now. Anyway, if she needed any help at all, she only needs to ask. She has 4 loving siblings after all.
“Or her father could shove a .45 in the husband’s face and tell him that, while there is a breath in his body, no man will do that to his little girl.”
Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on this!
I was more than miffed when my dad simply chose to forgive my sister’s husband after extracting a promise from him that he would never lay a hand on my sis again. I would have been more than happy had the job of dealing with him had gone to either of my brothers or my eldest bro-in-law. But since he still has stuck to the promise he had made, I guess I should stop complaining!
Christianity really does not advocate glorification/acceptance of physical abuse. It only advocates forgiveness. It was the forgiveness that makes my sister more Christian than the abuses she suffered. I don’t even find myself talking to him beyond the perfunctory “hellos” and “how are yous”. To be able to forgive and live with such a man truly does requires a lot of emotional strength!
And I seriously dont think God wants women (Christian or not) to suffer, in or outside marriage. That’s not what the ‘submit’ there in that verse, really means!!!! The job given to husbands is equally complicated, really.:)
Yes, but the Queen of Cups would remind you that you to love with a full and quiet spirit! You catch more flies with honey than vinegar!
Or her father could shove a .45 in the husband’s face and tell him that, while there is a breath in his body, no man will do that to his little girl.
Just sayin’.
I’m OK with that.
Hi Carlotta,
Thanks for making many of the same points I tried to touch on. Are you familiar with Martha Peace’s “The Excellent Wife”? Many women have been helped in their marriages similar to the one you described through her counsel. The abuse “case” is indeed harder to make from the Bible alone; as I explained to Neil in my combox I would look at the overall tone of Scripture and God’s attitude towards abusers. Scripture describes Him as a defender of the innocent. Another reader cited that abuse falls under the Talmudic definition of neglect, and is indeed biblical grounds for divorce.
Since I am the author of the original article, I would like to clarify: I am using the word “submit” in the sense God uses it: joyful obedience based on respect and intimate love patterned after what we see in the Trinity; NOT servility based on fear. I made the point several times in my original post and will say it again: nowhere does the Bible endorse violence or abusive coercion and any man who abuses his headship in such a way is out of God’s will (and will have Him to answer to). He is to follow Christ’s example of servant leadership. That is so clear Scripturally it doesn’t even require much elaboration. God’s plan of delegated authority has always been male leadership in the Church and in the family; that implies a difference of role, not significance. Women by nature are more nurturing than men (never yet seen a man give birth or nurse); does saying that they are primarily providers strip them of the role of fatherhood? Not at all; it simply points to an obvious fact.
I’ve seen more marriages fail because of pride and a refusal to subjugate one’s personal “rights” and desires than because of biblical submission. It is not a catalyst to abuse (physical or emotional), nor should the biblical model be used to rationalize such heinous behavior.
I hadn’t heard of that book Marie, but the book that was most dearest to me during my marriage, which I still have is “The Measure of a Woman” by Gene A. Getz. Of course I bought the book “The Measure of a Man” for my husband to read and that never worked. The whole “Measure of” series were excellent reads for me back in my day (over 30 years ago).
I’ve had my children to read family books by John MacArthur which are excellent in describing biblical manhood and womanhood. I will definitely check out that book you mentioned as I’m constantly looking for books to pass on to my children.
You’ve described submission right on point: submission is joyful obedience and NOT servility based on fear. I think it’s that latter description of submission that many women believe the bible is describing it to be.
I struggled with the physical abuse = divorce bit during my marriage. I had a rule of thumb during my dating years: if a man ever laid a hand on me that would be the end! I dated my husband and his abusive side never never was shown. He was a gentlemen …but then again he was competing for me so he had to be on his best behavior I guess.
So when abused in my marriage, my first instinct was to end it all immediately! I looked for scriptural support but wasn’t satisfied so counseling was next. Oh, if he had abused me severely where I could prove it (bruises and such) then I would have had him arrested. But there were no obvious physical scars. My abuse wasn’t as severe as what many women go through.
That’s why I asked in my first comment about physical abuse being scriptural. I never found the biblical grounds for it. But I don’t think a woman should stay in a relationship if her and the children’s lives would be endangered.
AWESOME post Marie! I’ve blogged about this too, but in a more…shall we say…sexist environment!
Neil, I’m jealous. Your post discussing my post gets exactly TWICE as many comments as my original post did.
Well, granted, I never said physical abuse was ok or that women should put up with it…..but hey. Even with hijacking, lively discussion is always good publicity.
Ha! Well, I tried to send ‘em your way — I think it is sometimes a case of what “room” people are in when the discussion starts.
Wow! Quite a discussion going on here! Submission is a hard concept to grasp but just as was said above it’s not a bad thing and it’s not hard to do at all if your husband is in God’s will and is loving you as Christ loved the church. Because of my childhood as well as my personality, submission can be difficult for me at times – I’m a little strong-willed and stubborn some might say
– but I’m ALWAYS striving to be submissive to my husband. He loves me and wants what is best for me and does not take that “power” and use it against me. Just my 2 cents. 
Oh, and I’m MORE than happy to have my husband checking out those noises in the night. In fact, he wouldn’t have it any other way.
Thanks, MLBH. Great to hear from you and blessings to you and your husband.
Simple question: Should a man stop loving his wife if she isn’t submissive/obedient?
Hi Charzetta,
Thanks for visiting and commenting!
Simple answer: No, a man should not stop loving his wife if she isn’t submissive (in the Biblical sense).
Longer answer: I’m glad you asked. One of the things I like to emphasize when discussing these passages is that there aren’t exceptions. The Bible says multiple times, “Husbands, love your wives.” It doesn’t say, “Husbands, love your wives except when they are unlovable” or anything like that.
I’m not saying I obey that command well all the time, but the command in scripture is clear: We are to love our wives at all times, keeping their long term best interests at heart, and we are to do that regardless of what they do.
The flip side of that is that likewise, we are called to submit to our husbands even when we don’t feel like it. Even when we think he’s wrong. God is looking for our faithfulness and obedience in this area over and above our judgment call of whether and when our husband might be off-base in a given decision. He will answer to God for that; we are still called to respect and submit, regardless.
Good point. Though if the husband’s decision isn’t just question but actually violates God’s commands then the wife shouldn’t follow (i.e., follow God when God and man disagree). I assume you agree but thought that would a good place to point that out.
That’s right – I forgot to mention that. That was the caveat Martha Peace used in “The Excellent Wife” – if your husband is trying to get you to sin (she used the example of lying to his boss to cover for him), the wife should not do it because she must obey the higher law – God’s.
I always forget about that one, but it’s a good point. I’ve known Christian women whose unbelieving husbands tried to prevent them from going to church.
Hi, Neil (and others)
It’s been a while. I believe “Shrimp Theory” was the last we talked.
1. There isn’t an exception for a husband to love his wife. The COMMAND IS “Husbands, love your wives even as also Christ loved the church”, NOT “Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church ONLY WHEN SHE’S SUBMISSIVE/OBEDIENT.” There are great godly husbands who have unsubmissive/disobedient wives. They can take the low road and not love their wives in response to the wives’ unsubmissiveness/disobedience, but then the husbands would be responders to circumstances instead of being led by the Spirit of God in him and his word; that wouldn’t be true love anyway!
Love isn’t love if I only react “lovingly” to my wife’s good behavior. True love is loving her regardless of my wife’s response. True love loves my wife whether she loves me back or not. True love takes the initiative and doesn’t respond to circumstances.
2. There isn’t an exception for a wife to be submissive/obedient to her husband. The COMMAND IS “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands”, NOT “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands ONLY WHEN HE’S LOVING YOU AS CHRIST LOVES THE CHURCH.” There are great godly women who have unloving husbands. They can take the low road and not submit/obey their husbands in response to the husbands’ “unlovliness”, but then the wives would be responders to circumstances instead of being led by the Spirit of God in her and his word. And that wouldn’t be true submissiveness/obedience anyway!
Submissiveness/obedience isn’t submissiveness/obedience when all of the decisions made are in my favor or when I agree with them. Submissiveness/obedience is submissiveness/obedience when there is a decision made that isn’t in my favor or that I disagree with. I’m not talking about right or wrong as in “honey, will you kill your mother for me,” that’s a no brainer.
Example: It doesn’t take submissiveness/obedience if a husband gives his wife a credit card with a $10,000 limit and tells her that she can use it to buy shoes. But it takes submissiveness/obedience when the husband says “Honey, you’re buying too many things with the credit card, we’re over the limit, please hand me the credit card until we can get the finances back in order”. ……that’s when Real submissiveness/obedience is needed! And using the christian life as an example also: It doesn’t take submissiveness/obedience if the Lord tells me to stay here in Dallas, Texas to minister and teach bible studies. But if he tells me to go to preach the gospel in a gospel-hating third world country where they persecute christians, that’s going to take REAL submissiveness/obedience to the Lord!!
3. If the husband is loving his wife as Christ loved the church, and the wife is submitting/obeying her husband as the church submits/obeys Christ, BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE’S NEEDS ARE MET, AND BOTH ARE SUBMITTING THEMSELVES TO THE LORD AS FAR AS THE PRINCIPLES OF MARRIAGE ARE CONCERNED.
Also, Paul doesn’t say “Husbands, have an expectation of submission. And wives, have an expectation of love.” We get into trouble because we leave the focus of the instructions – which is my attitude and behavior as to what I should be doing as a husband or my attitude and behavior as to what I should be doing as a wife. Yes, It’s hard for a woman to be submissive to a unloving husband, but it’s also hard for a man to love an unsubmissive wife also. Those facts aren’t the issue. IF WE CHRISTIANS MARRY GODLY MEN AND GODLY WOMEN WHO HAVE A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THESE THINGS AND TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO DO THE SAME, I THINK DISCUSSIONS LIKE THESE WILL DECREASE.
And I am a man…..”Charzetta” is the name of an unborn daughter of mines !!!
On a side note, every single one of you is forgetting that back in the day, husbands were legally responsible for their wives’ actions. (Yes, wives could get stoned, etc, but the husbands were the ones who had to pay for any property damage, torts, etc.)
In light of that, telling wives to obey their husbands is a proscription for marital harmony: otherwise, a husband would be responsible for things not under his control.
In this day and age, it makes no sense. Any system that elevates a human being to divine status is wrong.
Theo,
Do you think it is elevating someone to divine status, or do you think the text is encouraging people to act in a more Godly fashion?
May I suggest that your hermeneutic towards the text is biasing your understanding of the text in a significant fashion?
Theo,
I don’t know where you are getting that biblical submission = elevates a human being (presumably the husband) to divine status. No one said that, nor did I in the original posting. On the contrary: both husbands AND wives are UNDER divine authority. We all answer to the same Lord. Our roles and functions differ. God has instituted a “chain of command”, if you want to call it that, but NO ONE is elevated to any kind of demi-godlike status. That is self-evident in the Bible itself.
Marie,
Thanks for that reply. I think western philosophy and western culture has overpowered logical reasoning when it comes to the word of God. I didn’t read anyone’s post saying or even alluding to a male being elevated to “god-like status. There is submission and headship in all areas of life: employers are head of employees and employees are submissive to employers; coaches are head of players and players are submissive to coaches. That’s the same principle that God calls for when it comes to marriage. That’s the true balance that God requires and that makes a marriage godly and one that works. God ordained order, INCLUDING IN MARRIAGE. It doesn’t make one better or worse nor higher or lower than the other…….
Um, from you and your fellow believers, actually.
Why “submit to” or “obey” someone, even if they are wrong and you know that they are wrong? Well, that would be the entire thing about marriage supposedly reflecting the relationship between God and man. Let me spell it out for you: God who should be obeyed = male; followers who are lesser forms who must obey even if they think the other is wrong = female.
There is no reason – NONE! – to assign to any one person, especially based on sex, the role of submission in a marriage. You unquestioningly and routinely submit only to your betters, not to your partners or equals.
Submission = inequality. That should be pretty clear.
Lol, theo, geesh you sound so much like me – 30 years ago! I was stubborn, I questioned the bible, God and everyone else when I was told I needed to “submit.” I was like — nuh uh!
But during my marriage and as I began to allow God to shape me into whom He wanted me to be, I began to see the difference. I obeyed God even though I didn’t really understand why I needed to. Me having a quiet and peaceful disposition brought peace to our relationship. It brought more peace to my children. Having one calm parent helped even when there was still one crazy acting one.
God is the designer of the family and He knows what works best. He made male and female to compliment one another in the family. The woman He created from man’s side, from his own flesh. They are Senior and Junior partners in running the unit called the family. If done God’s way, the family thrives!
Submission doesn’t mean inequality, it simply means someone has the last word. When there are two bodies, two minds, two personalities, at some point those will conflict. God has given that position of final authority to the husband. The wife is still an equal because a godly man will seek her opinion in matters, he will SERVER HER as Christ SERVES THE CHURCH. True godly men a woman should just want to race to the alter to begin her life of submission!
Now you must define what you mean by “submit when they are wrong.” Wives aren’t to submit when their husbands want them to do something ungodly, but wrong? God wants wives to submit to things that are right – not wrong. Hopefully you can clarify what you mean there.
Lovely internal contradiction. The man ALWAYS has the last word, even though women, by nature, submit when men don’t even notice, because… um… oh, yeah, men and women are not equal. The person who gets the last word, the final say, the ultimate authority, is the one granted higher status.
ROFL. Bull! Such bull! That’s not intrinsic equality; that’s equality of sometimes-happenstance. It’s equality when the husband feels like it. It’s equality when it doesn’t count – i.e. when they aren’t disagreeing over big stuff. It’s window dressing.
Oh, that’s blindingly obvious. There is nothing contrary to the Bible about forcing your wife to abandon her educational pursuits or do all the housework, nothing inherently sinful about wasting money or moving away from her family so you can fulfill your dreams, or any number of selfish or misogynistic acts – nothing sinful, but still wrong, and still something she must “submit” to.
He can invest their money badly, waste it by throwing it into failed business ventures, force her to stop working or educating herself or make her his slave around the house, and you would agree that she should “submit” to that. Sure, you would dress it up and make it pretty, but it would still be submission to something that benefits him and not her but is not sinful. You might talk about how a godly husband wouldn’t do those things, but you wouldn’t actually take issue with the fact that there’s no convenient footnote in there about how this doesn’t really apply when the husband is acting out of spite or malice or stupidity – she’s just supposed to STFU and submit.
PS – sweetie pie, you could not be more wrong about my character or what I think.
You do, in that regard, resemble every other middle-aged harpie who loves to condescend to me. One day, maybe when I’m fat and wrinkled, I’ll understand the big draw behind patting grown adults on the head, but, until then, I’ll just call your b.s. like I see it.
I will not end up like you, because I, unlike you, understand that having one’s backbone surgically removed is not a prerequisite for being a good wife.
If I were to marry and my husband could not have a reasonable discussion with me as to why a course of action is appropriate and convince me of it, then it shouldn’t be done. If he cannot convince an intelligent, reasonable, naturally Switzerland-like (bet you never thought that was my nickname growing up, did you,. cupcake?) wife that his course of action is sensible and reasonable, then, in the spirit of a partnership, he shouldn’t do it. Submitting to that is to say that my viewpoint is less valid than his, that my mind is less rational than his.
I first turned away from Christianity because I was told that I asked too many questions. Half my life ago, I recognised the reality that any “God” who gives a human being an amazing mind but then tells her to not use it is not one to be worshipped, but to be mocked. C.S. Lewis draws people to Christianity for the same reason: most people understand that, if there is a God who gave us these brains, we’re supposed to use them.
Likewise, I will bring my brain into any marriage that I get myself in to, and any man who cannot engage that mind in decision-making is not going to get laughed at… because he’ll deserve it.
(N.B. Trust of a partner’s intuition, faith in their ability in certain areas, and the like are all components of rational decision making. Stating a priori that one person, based on genitalia, is always right is pretty stupid.)
Was your nickname really Switzerland? I couldn’t tell if that was serious or not.
I’m willing to really discuss this issue with you, I wrote a bit about it elsewhere in the thread, and I’d like the opportunity to flesh out the text in question, its meaning, and its imagery.
I have great respect for your posts, and you make important and valuable contributions. As someone who respects your intellect, I honestly believe you are misreading this text, in part because you do not fully understand the imagery and references that are made. The text is deeply rooted in Old Testament imagery with a view of Christ having been the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
In addition our thinking structures are radically different from the thinking structures Paul often used. We are often applying a greco-roman structure of
I.
II.
III.
to a text that is meant to be read more as
A
B
C
B
A
So when things appear as pairs, or on opposite sides of an argument, they are viewed as complimentary and equal (for example in Genesis, it goes
A. Man
B. a bunch of stuff
A. Woman
which indicates man and woman as being equal), where we who are in the western mindset read it as:
I. Man
II. A bunch of stuff
III. Woman
With man being the most important and woman being the least important. Things like that often cause us to seriously misread scripture (Another example, Mark’s Gospel does a variation of this, with the middle being the most important– at the exact middle of the Gospel is the question “Who do you say that I am?” Followed by the reply of Peter giving Jesus’ identity, so the middle is the most important part there, and 2 side by side things are viewed as equally important structurally, the question and the answer).
If you’re open to the possibility that you might be incorrect, and are seriously interested in visiting the text (and I am certainly open to the possibility that I am wrong too) together, I would be very open to that as well.
“Why “submit to” or “obey” someone, even if they are wrong and you know that they are wrong?”
Treasure in heaven.
If there were treasure in heaven for submitting to your wrong-headed husband, why wouldn’t both parties be required to submit, since husbands could then get their treasure in heaven for doing a wife’s wrong will? Or just require husbands to submit and not wives, so men could get their treasure in heaven?
Oh, yeah, that’s because this “submit to your husband” part doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny save for justifications based on either a) total misogyny or b) legal realities of the pre-modern era.
I disagree.
I assert that you have a pre-conceived bias and it is making it difficult for you to understand what is actually being said.
Have you read Colossians in its entirety? One variation of the line appears there. The more common one is in Ephesians, have you rea that document? They are not terribly long, I recommend the ESV translation since it’s relatively accurate in translating and remaining faithful to the original text, while also being highly readable in English.
The titled “section breaks” (like “Put on the new self” and “Rules for Christian Households”) do not appear in the original, and the document is really best read as a whole.
Let us consider when the lines immediately proceeding it read:
12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
And in Ephesians when the immediately proceeding lines read:
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
and immediately following in Ephesians read:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31″For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Theobromophile, when we place these lines in their immediate textual context, the reading of the lines that you propose becomes exceptionally difficult to maintain.
Further, if we consider that Paul is writing of Christ as an example for persons to imitate, does your reading really make sense?
The meaning seems clear. We do not blame the laws against murder for instances of murder– if a person claims that the law against murder permitted them to murder, we say that they are wrong and are misreading the law.
Similarly, when a passage that, when placed in its context, is absolutely not about misogyny or abuse is cited as an excuse for misogyny and abuse, we say that the passage is being misread.
Is it possible that your specific ideology on some matters is skewing your reading of these lines? You seem to have a great deal emotionally invested in your reading of these lines, and I understand that you surely have your reasons and that they are good ones.
But, is it possible that you are wrong on this matter?
As a slight addendum, you wrote,
Which is a great question. That’s exactly what the text says.
That is exactly what the text is saying. It begins with a discussion of mutual submission, and then proceeds to discuss in detail how that mutual submission would function, illustrating it with examples.
Paul then sketches out the various relations, within a household, going from husband/wife, who are equal, to the children, who are under the husband and wife (and different language is used, spouses submit to each other, but children obey. Very different language is used). Again slaves are discussed, and slaves are to obey. The section then concludes with… a focus on the equality of the relationship even between master and slave
Now, unless you’re going to make an argument that the text is putting slaves above wives, and that wives can be threatened but slaves can not, it seems that your original objection has been answered definitively.
1 Peter 3: 1-7
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,
2 when they observe your chaste CONDUCT accompanied by fear.
3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel—
4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is VERY PRECIOUS IN THE SIGHT OF GOD.
5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who TRUSTED IN GOD also adorned themselves, being SUBMISSIVE to their own husbands,
6 as Sarah OBEYED Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are IF you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with UNDERSTANDING, giving HONOR TO THE WIFE, as to the weaker vessel, and as being HEIRS TOGETHER of the grace of life, that your PRAYERS may not be hindered.
Titus 2: 3-5
3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, TEACHERS OF GOOD THINGS—
4 that they ADMONISH THE YOUNG WOMEN to love their HUSBANDS, to love their CHILDREN,
5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, OBEDIENT to their own HUSBANDS, THAT THE WORD OF GOD MAY NOT BE BLASPHEMED.
I’m not sure I understand your point Charzetta, throwing out scripture with lots of caps doesn’t really constitute much of any argument, and I don’t understand what you’re trying to demonstrate.
I think it is also important to note Genesis 2:23-24 says, “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. ”
Many times we are not prepared to marry someone else, because we have not yet learned to love ourselves. Our relationships with other people are the mirror image of how one sees themselves and the cornerstone for any healthy marriage. Shalani and Carlotta have given us examples of both men and women with ‘personal’ issues before they even got married.
How do you let someone beat you, cause pain, repeatedly often in front of your children and you let it happen? How do you let someone put you at risk for sexually transmitted diseases and you say nothing about how ‘safe’ is never safe!?
If you cannot protect yourself from the darkness, how can you expect to promise to protect someone else–forever? This is what is meant by Paul’s lesson in 1 Corinthians chapter 7.
Side note: Another issue with Paul, Neil. Ephesians should have been placed before Corinthians. Paul loved them for their obedience, and I have often wondered what the world would have been like had these lessons been taught in proper order.
mizclark you are correct in that there were issues for me before I got married. “Just letting it happen” or a “lack of personal love” weren’t any of my issues though.
I was a pretty confident woman especially when it came to the men folk. My ex didn’t show his true colors until after we were married because I was dating not only him but others as well so he knew the competition was on. That would explain why he hid his “evil” side from me so well. After the ring went on the finger then the control factor began show itself!
I was not expecting the violence when it occurred, and in my case it was so seldom an occurrence, just when I thought things were fine, more children come along the way and then more violence until it got to a point that there became no more violence.
Now the issues that I did have before marriage was the issue of not being prepared for what TYPE of man to look for and what TYPE of woman I needed to be. I didn’t really come from a Christian home where biblical principles were taught. My dad was a Marine Corps officer and the only thing he cared was that the man I marry be able to provide for me and my children. He didn’t like my husband because I chose him over a Laker’s basketball star I was dating at the time I was dating him. Money was all my dad could think of.
I was spiritually unprepared for marriage. I was a staunch feminist having the preacher take out the word “obey” in our traditional wedding vows. I was just as stubborn as my husband in the beginning of my marriage. The Lord used this marriage to get my attention and during my 15 years with him, I grew from rebellious feminist to a wiser and more spiritual wife in spite of my troubled marriage.
But I went from wanting to give up my marriage immediately and find a new guy, to hanging in there and growing up spiritually. Yes, the marriage ended anyways, but not before God taught me many great lessons!
LCB,
I was just giving scripture to back what was sated in earlier post by me and others also. God says for husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church without exceptions and God says for wives to submit to their own husbands as the church submits to Christ without exceptions. My point is to show that there aren’t any exceptions in the word of God!!!
Theo,
Again, no one said that a wife is to submit or obey a sinful request from a husband. A wife is obligated to refuse to obey any request for her to do anything wrong or sinful because it would be a sin against God. There is a difference between “wrong” and “I don’t agree with you” or “I don’t like your decision”.
Either that’s where you’re confused or the language is too plain for you.
ROFLMAO. Look, buddy, if your argument is predicated on my lack of reading comprehension, then just be real and make a concession speech, because you’ve lost.
The Bible is very clear (at least in English translation) that women are to submit to their husbands. That language leaves no room for mutual submission, no room for equality, no room for a wife who is freakin tired of knuckling under to her not-sinful-but-still-domineering husband, and no room to the interpretations you give it.
Submission = inequality.
Thanks for reminding me why I’m not a Christian… something about not having absorbed the idea that I should knuckle under to some SOB because he has a dick.
Do you sincerely believe that is what the passage is saying?
Is it at all possible that an ideological bias is skewing your perception of this matter?
And finally, is this passage really what keeps you from being a Christian? As in, if this passage were not there, you would be Christian?
Charzetta,
I agree with you. This is so simple it should be obvious. No one is equating biblical submission (based on respect and love) with abuse or mis-use of power. This seems to be taking on the feel of argument for argument’s sake; it has nothing to do with what I actually wrote in my original rebuttal.
Marie,
I can understand where Theo gets his thinking. I believe the misunderstanding of “HEAD” and “submission” has played it’s part of the western culture of the “neither of us is submissive / we both make decisions” mentality here in America. Husbands have mistaken “head” for “dictator” and it plays a role in rebellion…..and vice versa. But neither of those nullifies God’s word.
I’ve been married for 18 years now. My wife and I were 2 days from divorce a few years ago because of mistakes that we both made. We had to be disciplined by God and truly learn what love really means and what submission really means. And it’s easier now than before.
Look, moron, I’m a WOMAN. In case the picture of a long-haired lady in a dress (i.e. ME) next to my comments is not sufficient to let you know that, then consider this to be a notice.
On that note, I see no point, whatsoever, in listening to anything said by someone who cannot understand that my avatar is of a female, because I’m not a guy.
LCB: if there really is mutual, identical submission, what is the point of this post? Is it more of the same misogyny, wherein both parties are supposed to do something good (like chastity) but somehow, we end up beating only women over the head with it? Or is the “mutual submission” pretty window-dressing made to make women feel better?
Yes, my nickname was Switzerland. My little sister has self-appellated “America” because she takes sides and throws bombs.
Let me tell you, the “Switzerland” mentality did me no good in relationships. It doesn’t do women, as a whole, any good, in relationships nor in marriage. Studies show that men derive more satisfaction out of marriage than do women. They live longer; yet, married women die sooner than their unmarried counterparts. Women initiate some 60-80% of divorces. As I said before and will continue to say: with many women, the lesson to be learned is how and when to pull the chain and tell men that you’ve had enough. That is directly at odds with, “Wives, submit to your husbands.”
Certainly, there is something also, um… mentally retarded, pardon the term… about assuming that 100% of women, in 100% of marriages, in 100% of circumstances (barring, of course, obvious sin) should be the ones to submit and give in. Nevertheless, that is the stance being taken by many people here and is what we like to call “the whole point” of the post.
Moreover, I will forever maintain that the ONLY thing that makes this particular passage make sense is the legal situation two millennia ago; it’s not unlike, for example, requirements in the OT that men marry the women they rape. Makes perfect sense for the era and no sense now.
“Moreover, I will forever maintain that the ONLY thing that makes this particular passage make sense is the legal situation two millennia ago”
So you are not open to the possibility that your ignorance on the topic is causing you to arrive at incorrect conclusion?
That’s a lot of hubris.
6 billion people, 3 billion women – yeah, I happen to think that one-size-fits-all submission is a pretty crappy idea. That’s not hubris; that’s common sense.
Then again, you can find any number of die-hard Christians who think that particular passage is a load of malarky, but somehow, I’m the prideful one.
Nice ad hominem attack, LCB, but try hitting the merits. Here are the merits, one more time: 3 billion women should all submit to their husbands in the way Marie and Neil describe. Now have fun defending that.
Theo,
With all due respect, as the author of the original article, I would like to assert that I am neither “mentally retarded” nor a misogynist. I have refrained from getting too involved in the subsequent furor it seems to have provoked over here on Neil’s blog because you, by your own admission, are not a Christian. I don’t say that in an accusatory or inflammatory way at all; but rather to point out that on spiritual matters, we are never going to agree no matter how many passages I exegete or how many ways I prove from the text that the command is not culturally specific, but rather intended to promote marital harmony (the way God intended it).
You don’t agree. I get that, and that’s fine. However, just because you disagree with our worldview (which no one is forcing you to embrace) does not mean people are inviting aggression. My initial response to your first comment on the post (which was a rebuttal I wrote of an article that ran in a CHRISTIAN magazine, yet was FULL of errors and poor hermeneutics), was to explain the responsibility BOTH spouses have before God in a marriage that honors Him. Please do not read something more into what I wrote that is not there. In fact, I explicitly stated that abuse constitutes biblical grounds for divorce. I don’t understand why you, as someone who doesn’t share my worldview (God is to be obeyed; and since He is God, He gets to make the rules, not us) why you are so offended.
I agree with the biblical view of complementarianism, which does not imply a difference in intrinsic value, only in role and function. Others (including Christians, like the author of the CT editorial) embrace egalitarianism (mutual submission). You don’t believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, so you don’t have a dog on the fight. And for the last time, neither I nor anyone else on this combox was rationalizing any form of abuse against women.
Why can’t we just leave it at that?
There are racist blacks and misogynistic women, Marie. You fall into the latter category.
Awfully presumptuous assumption for someone who’s never met me, Theo.
I find it ironic that if we’re as cruel, nasty and bigoted as you make us out to be, in 65 comments you’re the only one who has resorted to personal attacks.
I have no desire to be a man or assume their God-given responsibilities or role. As a working mother of four Interpreter) with a writing career on the side, I’m a little too busy. The radical feminists and ironically-named NOW (National Organization of Women) are the true misogynists, and I have a feeling you know that as well as I do.
I suppose I should apologize for having a great marriage, successful career and well-behaved kids, but I won’t. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Obviously, we must be doing something right.
I know this is a little late but…
Theo,
My apologies for calling you a man. It’s been a while since I’ve been on this blog and I just read a few comments by you and others, including the comment made that you’re not a christian……. which leads me to my last comment towards you. I will agree with Marie on this issue and this conversation.
The reason you’re not a christian is not because of the issue of submission; that’s merely a topic. The reason you’re not a christian is not because no one answered a lot of questions you had; that’s a smokescreen.
The reason you’re not a christian is because you’re rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ, pure and simple. And a proud heart is what you have. That why you’re not a christian.
You cannot understand spiritual things so you cannot understand submission from God’s word.
Titus 3:9-11
9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.
So you presume to know my heart? Last time I checked, real Christians thought that only God could do that.
You’re not just an idiot; you’re a cruel and arrogant one as well,.
ROFLMAO. Such hubris. LCB, where are you on this one?
By the way… last time I checked, the Bible tells you Christians to live good lives because your religion will be judged by your action.
I think this post has run its course. I think it has just about all been said at least once, so please just re-read it if you are interested.
Pingback: The rules for friendship and courtship between Christian men and women « Wintery Knight Blog