22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:22-24).I know ... I said we couldn't talk about these things. And I know ... I'm about to take a poke at a hornet's nest. But it's on my mind, and this is my blog, so I should be able to to this kind of thing on my own blog ... right? (We'll see from the responses I get how wise this is, won't we?)
17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father. 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord (Col. 3:17-18).
1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external -- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Peter 3:1-6).
Christianity in general and the Bible in particular sometimes fall in the "politically incorrect" category. It's politically incorrect to talk about sin. Too judgmental. It's politically incorrect to talk about repentance. Too intolerant. And it's definitely politically incorrect to suggest that wives are called to submit to their husbands. Not only is it politically incorrect, but anyone with half a heart would have to admit that it can be difficult to make such a statement, given the character (or lack thereof) of so many men and the abuses women have suffered under such a suggestion. So perhaps it gives one pause to make the suggestion that wives are supposed to be subject to their husbands. Maybe it's not right?
When we look at the first one, there is always the "hand raise" from the crowd. "Doesn't it say that we should be subject to one another?" Yes, indeed. The preceding verse, Eph. 5:21, says exactly that. In fact, truth be told, Eph. 5:22 does not say, "Wives be subject to your own husbands." The Greek words simply give us, "Wives to your husbands." The translators fill in "be subject" because it is inferred from the previous verse. So, let's carry this thought through from the passage. Wives, be subject to your husbands. Husbands, be subject to your wives. Children, be subject to your parents (Eph. 6:1-3). Parents, be subject to your children. Slaves, be subject to your masters (Eph. 6:5-8). Masters, be subject to your slaves. Perhaps, when we lay it out like that, we can see that it doesn't quite work. Wives are to be subject to their husbands, but the subjection of husbands to their wives is to love them (Eph. 5:25), not submit. Children are to obey their parents, but the subjection of fathers to their children is not to exasperate them (Eph. 6:4), not to submit to them. Slaves are to be obedient to their masters, but the subjection of masters to their slaves is to please Christ and not threaten them (Eph. 6:9), not submit to them. In other words, the way each is to "be subject" is not the same for each function. The wife "ranks under" (the actual intent of "subject" or "submit") the husband's leadership. The husband subjugates his personal interests in seeking the best interests of his wife. The children obey their parents. Fathers subjugate the extent of their control so as not to exasperate their children. Slaves submit to their masters. Masters subjugate what could be their rightful control to show kindness to their slaves that their society didn't require. There is "mutual submission", but not the same kind of submission.
This is why there is no equivocation in the Col. 3 passage. This one is not stated as examples of mutual submission. Wives are to rank under their husbands.
Peter's passage starts with a tell-tale phrase: "In the same way." What way? "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (1 Peter 2:13). Peter lists this as part of our growth in respect to salvation (1 Peter 2:2). More specifically, it is part of "Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles" (1 Peter 2:12). The verses that follow explain what this "submit yourselves" looks like. "Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable" (1 Peter 2:17-18). The rest of chapter 2 is precisely on this topic of servants submitting to unreasonable masters. "You have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps" (1 Peter 2:21). So we find ourselves once more on the doorstep of submission. This is why Peter says to wives, "Be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives." Now, some use this as a tool to bludgeon wives. "He hasn't been won. You must not be submitting right." That isn't in the text. It says they may be won. They may not. It isn't intended to be a measurement of submission. However, it seems very hard to get around the fact that it is a call to submit in the same sense that slaves submit to masters and Christ submitted to the cross.
The problem for many is the concept of authority. While many argue for "co-equal submission and headship", it doesn't seem to work here. Some will point to the Trinity. "They're co-equal in headship." This, however, is not true. Jesus clearly indicated that He submitted in all things to His Father, and clearly the Father and the Son send the Spirit, so within the Godhead there is a submission. Paul, in fact, repeats this structure in 1 Cor. 11:3, where he says, "the head of Christ is God." Now, if Christ who is co-equal with God is in submission to the Father, what makes us think that the equivalent submission process doesn't work in human terms?
The other problem for many is the abuse of this concept. Too many over the centuries have taken this concept to extremes, requiring that wives submit to anything their husbands choose to dish out -- abuse, cruelty, anything at all. Men have used this concept to batter wives with the command: "Submit!!!" First, "submission" does not mean necessarily mean "obedience". In the case of a child's submission to his parents, it is obedience. But not in all cases. In the language, "submit" is a military term meaning "to rank under". In the military, when you are outranked, you "submit", but that does not mean you always follow orders. When the orders you are given are immoral, you are obligated to disobey them. The point is to be a helper. That does not mean to be inferior or a doormat. And sometimes the help that is needed is to withdraw. A husband on drugs does not need a wife who gets him his drugs, but a wife that refuses him his drugs. A husband who is damaging his family with abuse doesn't need a wife that lets him, but a wife that stops it. That is help. "Submit" doesn't mean "doormat". And the men that have used it to mean such have been quite foolish, considering the burden placed by God on men is much larger than that of women. I mean, seriously, guys, since you are the one that God holds as responsible for just about everything in this world (home, family, children, work, wife, church, etc.), do you really have time to be berating wives who aren't matching your twisted idea of "submit=doormat"? Bottom line, an abuse of a concept does not render the concept false. It is simply an abuse of the concept.
The Bible represents a serious departure from the culture of its time. Women were to be considered of equal value. Men were not to lord it over them. They were "co-heirs". No longer were they the chattel of their husbands. Still, God set up a "chain of command", a family order. The Son submitted to the Father. Husbands are to submit to the Son. (For some reason, no one seems to have the slightest problem with these two.) And, despite the protests of so many today, wives are to submit to their husbands. This isn't a "doormat" submission. It isn't a death of personal identity. It isn't intended to make women whipping posts. It is part of the order that God has designed. It may not be easy, and it may not always function as intended, but it is the command.
4 comments:
I can say this, you seem to be one of the few men on the conservative side that treat these texts with such a view. If more men in the conservative side (which I belong to) would have shown your view towards the children and me as we have went through so much pain, I would not now be re-examining all these texts and questioning them. I would have never had to say, "What is wrong? This is not the God I know that forces children and women to stay in an evil household NO MATTER WHAT!It does not fit with the whole of Scripture."
Now that I examine the words in archelogical evidence, I no longer can grab your view and embrace it as truth. I realize it may be, but now I realize it may not be.
I see how valued and precious women are to God. I see that a wife who called her husband a "fool" was also called "wise" something most men seem to think all women are incapable of.
More and more in the conservative side I see how men truly think women are lesser beings as you talk to them and they always state all of our comments are "emotional" even when they are only a fact. If they stated the same thing they would say it was "logical."
Stan, I am blessed that you love your wife as you do and see woman as something more than just put here for your pleasure and otherwise should leave the room and be quiet. I really wish more men had your view. The more I interview pastors and elders in my area, the more I see how little worth they see in women. I see how "stupid" they think their own wives are by comments they make about them. I am sorry, but right now I am crushed by the response of the conservative church males towards women. It is sick and and a distortion of Scripture for the most part. You are an exception to the rule I am finding.
I read an article by RC Sproul Jr where he acts as if being a female would mean you are weak and useless. He is completely insulting to women and the God that created them.
This is the stuff fed to the men in our conservative churches that continues to create monsters for wives. This is the place a man given to abusing his wife can feel comfortable and knows he can hide his abuse from the congregation since a good wife would never speak up about her husband and if she tries she will be told she just isn't being 1 Peter 3 enough or her husband would not be abusive. It is her fault. After all, she is just a woman.
No, I am not mad at you for what you shared. If just one man reads this and can treat his wife with a little more genuine love and compassion...I will be blessed indeed! If one woman reads this and treats her husband with respect...I will be blessed indeed. We need more godly marriages inside the church. It is sad when I am finding better marriages outside of the church. Something needs to change. Speak up brother!
Just a little, tiny comment, Julianne, without detracting in the least from what you said. I just wanted to be sure we avoided confusion. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. R. C. Sproul. No one is right 100% of the time, and Dr. Sproul is no exception, but I find that Scripture bears him out an awful lot. On the other hand, while I have found a few things R. C. Sproul Jr. has said to be useful, he holds nowhere near the same amount of respect his father does. I could probably list half a dozen things off the top of my head on which I think he's dead wrong.
Just pointing out that Sproul and Sproul Jr. are two very different men.
I'm sorry that you've found such a lack of godly men in your life and area. I guess I'm not surprised. The Church is in trouble in America, and the presence of a lot of churches belies the serious lack of real believers. I just want to ask you to be careful not to judge the truth of a proposition (especially in Scripture) by its abuse. If we did that, we'd have to assume Christianity is a lie because so many people have abused it over the centuries.
On the topic at hand, I've examined the Scriptures and the arguments on the topic and come to the conclusions I've presented. I recognize that others don't. I cannot but come to the conclusions I come to, so I have to also conclude that those who disagree are wrong until I get someone to give me a better argument. (I'm using the word "argument" in the legal sense.) I see the abuses and misuses, but that doesn't change the truth. I can only conclude "Let God be true though all men are liars."
You know as I am studying this today, I realize that 1 Peter 3:7 also says "Husbands, in the same way, live with your wives" so that is referring back to the last passage, so if that is referring to a woman submitting and winning her husband without a word, then the husband is supposed to do the same thing if we apply the same rules of interpretation?
Here's my problem, Julianne. Paul says that wives are to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord". He says that they are to submit to their husbands "as the church submits to Christ". If "in the same way" means that husbands are to submit to their wives, too, then the only possible conclusion is that these parallels are all the same. The Church must submit to Christ ... and Christ must submit to the Church. Children must submit to parents ... and parents must submit to children. And so on. I don't know how to make "as the church submits to Christ" work both ways.
Post a Comment