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?I answered at the time (and the line went dead, so to speak), but I was just reading 1 Peter again and I think I actually came across an answer to Julianne.
In 1 Peter 2:18, Peter lays down a principle. "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." This principle is the discussion of the rest of the chapter. Peter draws a parallel not merely between servants and masters but between all Christians and the authorities in their lives, and it isn't merely about servants, but about how our example is the suffering of Christ. When we read this verse and Peter's explanation that follows, it should be noted that Peter has added an element that Paul didn't have. Paul told slaves to respect their masters, but Peter tells them to respect bad masters. This concept -- doing what is right in the face of evil people -- is the parallel Peter draws. Peter says, "If when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a good thing in the sight of God" (1 Peter 2:20). That's the thought process. And he uses Jesus as our prime example.
So when he gets to wives in chapter 3, the point is not "submit". Of course they are to submit. But when Peter says "likewise" (1 Peter 3:1), he isn't talking about "submit". He is talking about doing good and suffering for it. Why do I conclude this? I say this because of what he says in the first verse: "Be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives." The point is not "submit". The point is "Do what's right even if the one to whom you're doing it isn't right."
So when Peter gets to husbands, he says "likewise" again. He isn't saying, "Husbands submit to their wives." He doesn't even make a hint of it. Instead, the "likewise" is the same thing as before. Husbands, you are required to live with your wives in an understanding way. You are to honor them and treat them like fine china. You are to treat them as fellow heirs, not property or inferior beings. And, husbands ... it doesn't matter if they deserve it. "What if my wife is a shrew?!!" It doesn't matter. "What if she's mean and hateful and cruel?" It doesn't matter. "What if she doesn't appreciate me, doesn't respect me, doesn't submit to me?" It doesn't matter. You are to do what's right even if the one to whom you are doing it isn't right.
Peter's point is that we each have our own obligations given to us by God. What is right for us to do is not dependent on how people respond to it or whether they are worthy of it. What is right for us to do is right regardless of the other people involved. We are to submit to the authority over us regardless of how right they are (1 Peter 2:13-15). Slaves are to submit to masters regardless of how nice they are (1 Peter 2:18). Wives are to submit to husbands, even if they're bad husbands, and husbands are to treat their wives right even if they're bad wives. The point is "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil" (1 Peter 3:17). That's the point.
(On a completely unrelated note, I want to wish my son, Brad, a happy birthday. He's 27 today.)
20 comments:
Me husband and I are studying this subject. Some great sermons (in case anyone is curious) are here:
http://solidfoodmedia.com/messages/seriesview.php?id=2
ps: Someone needs to teach me html!
:D
Good advice, whether you are talking about husbands and wives, employee to boss, or any other relationship.
Happy B-day to Brad (and it all comes full circle!)...
Stan, what does it mean to submit - and in what instances, if any, is it Biblically acceptable for a wife not to submit to her husband?
Scott,
"Submit" means, literally, to "rank under". It's a military term. It means to place oneself under the other.
As in the military, it is necessary not to submit when the instructions violate higher command.
So...
If a wife believes that her husband is instructing her in a way that violates Biblical teaching - she would then be allowed (even expected?) to withhold submission in that instance?
And what if they disagree with the Biblical teaching in question? What if the husband says, "honey, you will be baptized by full immersion this week - because you were sprinkled as an infant and that didn't count" - and she disagrees with that understanding. Must she submit to his understanding?
Very good. That one gives me pause. And in thinking it through, I think the reason it gave me pause because it doesn't quite work in my head. Here's why.
1. We're talking about "Biblical teaching". I'm wondering if anyone could possibly provide a biblical reference -- chapter and verse -- that would tell us "If you were sprinkled as an infant, you must not be immersed as an adult." It would have to be a biblical point, not a personal opinion.
2. What is the basis for the husband's command? Is he afraid that if he doesn't get her dunked, she won't be saved? Does he actually think that dunking her saves her? Is it indeed a command? If he says, "I'd really like you to be fully immersed this week" -- without command -- and she says no, it's not a failure to submit. But on what basis would he make it a command?
3. What is the sin in being baptized? I know. That's closely related to the first, but even without the biblical teaching, where is the sin in baptism? What higher command is violated in getting immersed after being sprinkled as an infant?
It's a sticky question, but I can't really find the hardline stance ... on either side.
The example isn't important, it's a question of wife and husband disagreeing on any Biblical point.
The reason I ask is because it is my experience that many Christian wives struggle greatly with this issue. And if you go back to your answer to me, the Bible apparently teaches that women are to submit - except when submission is contrary to Biblical teaching.
It really does beg the question as to what happens when husbands and wives disagree. It would seem, given the doctrine that wives are to submit, that the man's understanding would take precedent. But... of course, that doesn't work - because not all men agree as to what the Bible teaches either.
Honestly, Stan - I think the whole of Scripture seems to support your argument, that wives are to submit (and not in an "equal" way). I haven't really studied it in depth, but the scholars and others I trust most tend toward this understanding. I just wonder though, whether they, and you, and I, are actually right in our own understanding. I can't argue it - but my gut tells me we're dead wrong on this one (especially given the "problem" of neither of us having an answer to the question I asked). And truthfully, I must admit that my wife and I submit to each other.
Of course, we're just a couple of sinners...
I think I did have an answer to the dilemma you proposed. When the question is "Higher Command", and there is no clear higher command contradicting what the husband is saying, I would say she must submit. I find no clear higher command in Scripture saying anything regarding whether or not she should be baptized again. I know there are those who will say "Being rebaptized is a sin", but I can't find the biblical basis.
If the husband says, "Honey, I want you to make us some extra money working out of the house by selling your body for sex", I think we can all find the verses that would clearly say she is commanded by God not to do that. If he were to say, "Come with me to rob this bank", I think it's not difficult at all to provide the biblical reasons why that must not be. But there is a stark absence of biblical support for the position that being baptized more than once is a sin.
So while this particular example of husband and wife might disagree on a biblical doctrine, there is no biblical command that prevents her from doing what her husband says. That would say to me that she should do it "as to the Lord", even if it doesn't resolve the difference of understanding. And that's an answer. =)
So ... would you say that you submit to your wife on matters of what you consider to be right and wrong? I have no problem laying aside my preferences for my wife, but I don't call that "submit". I call that "love".
Again... I was hoping you wouldn't get hung up on the baptism question. It's an example, and a fictitious and poor one at that. Let's do one that is perhaps less clear, more debatable.
John and Larry are neighbors. John believes that the Bible teaches that one must tithe 10% of gross earnings to his local church - no more, no less. Larry, on the other hand, believes that tithing is a matter of the heart, and that it could be that 10% is too much, or in some instances may not even be enough. Oddly, each wife disagrees with her own husband.
Now, these men can argue their positions - but they both can't be right. Yet the Bible teaches that both wives must submit to their husbands understanding. If they do, then one of these wives is submitting on a Biblical point being erroneously held by her husband. So, do you believe both women should submit?
To answer your question, I would say that my wife and I always reach agreement as to what is right and what is wrong. We're an oddity, really. 15 years of marriage and never a serious fight (2 disagreements that I can recall - no shouting and no hurt feelings), never cross words, and never any disagreement about anything serious in front of our kids. We just don't have the tension you find in some marriages - and in fact it really doesn't feel like either of us really submit as much as we are one of mind. I know, weird.
I suppose when it comes down do it, she probably submits on important questions when it is all said and done. But I have to tell you, I feel like the one who submits more daily - laying aside my preferences, as you wrote, because I love her so much. I have two girls, and they do girl things - so I do girl things. I've given up golf because it takes time away from them (not because she asked, but I know she's glad I don't do it any more).
You said it... "Love".
I did not drop this conversation for lack of adequate input on my part, but for other reasons. However, since you brought this up again with my comment...
Stan said:
"So ... would you say that you submit to your wife on matters of what you consider to be right and wrong? I have no problem laying aside my preferences for my wife, but I don't call that "submit". I call that "love"."
"Show preference one to another, lay down your lives for one another, beloved let us love one another, submit to one another." What do all of these have in common? They are giving up our "self" for the God's glory and His body.
Also, 1 Peter 3 is highly debated among conservative Christians if this is addressed to spouses of believing husbands in a momentary lapse of good judgment or to spouses of unbelievers. I think context clarifies, when women are given an example of a "godly" man who made a couple of "bad" calls in the midst of mostly walking in obedience to God.
Sarah was not always quiet either. Even Sarah spoke up to Abraham and God told Abraham "whatever (the whole, totality) Sarah tells you, listen to her." This word for listen means to listen, heed, obey. Abraham seemed to think she was wrong and had no intention it appears of regarding her, yet God took her side and told Abraham to listen/obey WHATEVER Sarah told him. If God is so into wives only submitting to husbands, even in wrong, why would He break His own supposed hierarchy rules?
So our example, Sarah, spoke up and God agreed in that case with her. Speaking up can be a quiet spirit? God commanded a husband to obey a wife? How do we view the entire story?
Julianne,
If I seemed to suggest that the conversation stopped because you ran out of arguments, information, or intent, I apologize. I simply intended to say, "It was odd because I didn't hear anything after that" and nothing more.
On the topic, my contention is that the message is "always do what is right even when circumstances (or people) are difficult." You disagree?
On the topic of wives submitting, it is my belief that when the Bible parallels a wife's submission to her husband with the Church's submission to Christ, it's difficult to end up with "mutual submission" without making Christ submit to the Church. You disagree?
On the topic of what submission looks like, I am in full agreement that "submission" does not equal "doormat". Wives need to stand for what is right, tell their husbands the truth even if it violates their view, etc. "Submit" is not "inferior", "nonentity", "lay down and die", or any such thing. We agree on that.
On the "highly debated among conservative Christians" topic, I think it's really odd that God was unable to bring this debate to light until women decided to rebel against men in the Women's Liberation Movement and it became evil for men to have any authority over women. It was never "debated among conservative Christians" until the women's movement, and I always have to wonder what would make God wait so long to get His intentional, fundamental, original message across.
But I suspect the biggest difference between my view and yours is that you see the abuses and I'm looking at an ideal. In your view you see the pitfalls, and in my view I see the immense value. I don't believe that abuse renders a valid position invalid. And I can't find a rational alternative explanation for all those passages. So I'm stuck with my abused by apparently biblical ideal.
For me, Scott, I understand that there is variables in understanding of Scripture, and I understand that different people see things different ways. For me, I will violate the authority that I have in my life when they command a clear violation of God's commands for me. I will not violate that authority when they command a questionable command. "Baptize as an infant or as an adult?" "To tithe or not to tithe?" So many vague principles. I would be hard-pressed to make them inviolable, and I would be a fool to make vague principles rules for my wife.
I would say that the same concept would hold for the wife and her submission to her husband.
Scott, I don't think I adequately answered your question.
"Now, these men can argue their positions - but they both can't be right. Yet the Bible teaches that both wives must submit to their husbands understanding. If they do, then one of these wives is submitting on a Biblical point being erroneously held by her husband. So, do you believe both women should submit?"
Here's the thing, the often missed point, indeed, one of the greatest blessings to women that they seem to often wish to refuse: God holds husbands responsible. Now, I know ... wives have responsibilities for their choices. If they choose to sin, God doesn't hold the husbands responsible. But when it comes to family, relationships, finances, oh, so much, God holds husbands responsible.
Imagine, Scott, if you had the option of being a godly wife. You wonder, "What is God's will for where we shall we live?" and, as a godly wife, you don't have to think about it! Wherever you live is where God has decided you should be because He is holding the husband responsible. "Should we go on the mission field?" You don't have to think about it because God is holding the husband responsible. "Do we tithe?" You don't have to fret about it because God is holding the husband responsible. Question after question gets answered for you because God is holding the husband responsible. It isn't a sin for a wife to fail to give 10% of the family's money to the church because the husband disagrees with the necessity of tithing. That falls on the husband.
Individual choices (like whether or not she is going to obey God) are the responsibility of the wife, but God is so gracious to wives in that larger choices regarding the family, the finances, and God's will for them all are not her responsibility.
Yes, they would both submit to their husbands, even if they disagreed with them, relying on God. Or, in Paul's words, they would submit to their husbands "as to the Lord". You know how that goes. "Well, I don't always understand, but I'm trusting the Lord in this."
Okay, before we continue to discuss this issue I need some clarification.
You see for years and years I was taught what you are telling me about how all the responsibility for all these things is laid on the husband and the wife is not held accountable for all those things.
However, I don't know where to find that in Scripture. I have read and read and I cannot find it. Could you please show me where you believe the bible says husbands are responsible for all these issues and wives will not be held accountable for them?
Thank you dear brother.
I wrote about it extensively here.
Stan said:
"On the topic of wives submitting, it is my belief that when the Bible parallels a wife's submission to her husband with the Church's submission to Christ, it's difficult to end up with "mutual submission" without making Christ submit to the Church. You disagree?"
Julianne says:
I think it depends on how a person understands the word. In the Greek it did not always mean "to obey" like so many want to make it from all the things I have read.
Rather in the military sense it was usually meant as support. In the non-military sense it was a voluntary choice that consisted of taking responsibilites for another, cooperating with another and even things such as carrying burdens for another.
So let me see...can I imagine Jesus Christ carrying a burden for the church? Yes. Can I imagine Jesus Christ assuming a responsibility for the church? Yes. Can I imagine Jesus Christ cooperating with the church...His body? Yes. Can I imagine in a military sense Jesus Christ supporting the church? Again, yes. None of these things would make Him less gloirous or less Jesus!
As for your comment about men having authority over women...where is that in the Scripture? Again, I think the Word teaches us not to lord over one another or exercise authority. The word for lord and authority would mean to be the master of, to hold in subjection, to exercise lordship over, exercise authority, wield power. We are supposed to have the attitude of a servant and serve one another and be willing to give our lives for one another. So it is not wrong for a wife to choose to serve through love and that very well may consist of submitting (support, carrying burdens, cooperating, etc), but the husband could and should do the same.
How can we say that when it says there is no male or female in the eyes of God as far as spiritually, but then say a husband can spiritually exercise authority over his wife even if he is in the wrong in her understanding of the Word?
I have read what you wrote there, but what I am asking is where does it say the husband is responsible for certain things and the wife is not held accountable for those issues? What I am reading is your opinion of what the entire bible is saying (and it may or may not be correct), but I would like Scripture that says a husband is responsible and the wife is not held accountable? Even if separate passages that together would lead to this belief?
You see I was taught that and you are correct that would really take a load off of wives if that is true, but I cannot find it in Scripture, rather that I (a female) will be held accountable for all my issues just the same as any man.
Also, the 1 Peter 3 passage controversy has NOTHING to do with woman's lib movement. The controversy is about whether it is written to women with unsaved or saved spouses. I mentioned that we are given an example to clarify that. Sarah was married to a believing husband who walked the walk, but he occasionally made a "selfish" call (as we all do). At times she chose to be quiet about it. Other times...
we see that Sarah spoke up to Abraham and Abraham did not agree with her request. However, God told Abraham that he should listen to, heed carefully, ALL that Sarah had to say to him. God seemed to think Sarah was capable of making a wise call and had valuable input in this situation for her family and seemed to think the husband should listen to his wife. Hmm. Why don't we hear that brought up when we hear 1 Peter 3 taught? Why not give more of a COMPLETE picture, not just the time Sarah was quiet.
I don't think it took the woman's liberation movement to bring out some hidden bible truth. I think it has been there and many lived it, but some decided they liked it better when they could wield power over another, instead of humbling "self" and coming in the form of a servant as Christ Jesus. It has always been that way and it always will be until we are face to face with Christ Jesus.
I think submission (carrying burdens, supporting, etc) and laying down our lives is a lot the same, both require humility and putting aside self and putting the other's needs before our own, so long as we always keep God first and walk in obedience to Him.
Who did God hold responsible for the Fall? It was Adam, not Adam and Eve. "Through one man sin came into the world", not "Through Adam and Eve".
But I doubt that we'll come to an agreeable conclusion. All words are up for redefinition. "Submit" may mean "submit" or "support" (which isn't the military connotation, by the way; the military connotation is "rank under"). Christ may submit to the Church. All Christians are the same. It becomes very murky because we're using the same words and the same Bible with radically different definitions. And, to be completely fair, I'm of the opinion that God has kept a solid line of truth from the beginning, so I see great value in asking, "What have men (and women) of God read this to mean from times past?" No, it has nothing to do with "Women's Lib" in the sense that Women's Lib isn't the issue. However, the question wasn't raised until Women's Lib became popular.
You're happy saying, "Well, they were all wrong all this time. Folks like Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, even MacArthur or Swindoll ... they've all been wrong all this time." I have a much harder time with it than that when all of them have been in agreement and everything I see in Scripture seems to agree. So we'll likely have to leave it as a point of disagreement.
Stan said:
"You're happy saying, "Well, they were all wrong all this time. Folks like Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, even MacArthur or Swindoll ... they've all been wrong all this time." "
Julianne says:
Before Luther we had the Catholic church for over a thousand years teaching what you now consider false doctrines, yet you do not see an issue with Luther finally taking issue with it and speaking up against it even though people could have said the same thing...that they agreed about it all this time and we see it in Scripture.
Even Luther showed hatred towards Jews and ambivalence towards women (mostly wrote ugly things about women, but chose to marry one anyhow). Calvin thought God should like him to rid the world of who Calvin deemed heretics. Spurgeon struggled with mental depression and it often permeates his writings. I am certain every other has some issue we could find (including me). Just because they have some truth does not mean any of them had ALL truth (nor do I) and did not make mistakes. It seems to take so many generations for each atrocity that took hold of the early church to be undone since Luther began posting his 95 theses.
You are correct, we will have to leave this as a point of disagreement. Please do so knowing that I still love you as my brother in Christ and I still think your wife is a blessed sister to have a husband who loves her!
Julianne, I am glad to leave this point of disgreement with the confidence that we are not at odds even if we aren't in agreement.
I believe, by the way, that the truth that God wanted preserved from the beginning has been preserved at all times. At some times (such as the Dark Ages) it was not as prevalent, but it was not gone. Luther, for instance, didn't start something new.
And while it is true that most human beings (tongue in cheek) are imperfect, when I get consistent beliefs throughout history, beliefs confirmed by reliable folks like Elisabeth Elliot and John MacArthur and the most reliable person I know -- my mother -- I suppose it is a bit overwhelming to me to think "All that I see in Scripture and all of those whom trust the most all seem to agree, but I'll have to disregard all that in favor of a new viewpoint." A bit much for me to personally overcome, you can imagine.
But it's always a relief when believers can lay down a disagreement without taking up arms. All the best to you and your family.
Post a Comment