Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

Reluctant Theologian · May 19, 2024

tall73 said:
So God did not intend that the man be head of the wife?

We agree Christ is the example.

I would hope we could agree that Christian principles are not invalidated by people's rejection of them.

A husband abusing his wife is going DIRECTLY against what Paul said in that text.

In egalitarian theological circles the concept of 'headship' is interpreted as meaning 'to be the source or support of' instead of having authority; their arguments couldn't convince me - so I'm sticking with the traditional interpretation.

Christ is the absolute ruler of His Church - a loving and considerate one that is; precisely similar to how husbands are expected to be. The terms 'despot/tyrant/dictator' are used to make a caricature of the concept of hierarchy/authority and by proxy, patriarchy.

Especially in Australia the term 'abuse' gets abused a lot. Any communication/reminder/exhortation of husband towards his wife regarding certain expectations conveniently may get labelled to be (mental) abuse. And as such used as an excuse for 'valid' Biblical divorce.

Paidiske · May 19, 2024

tall73 said:
E. I don't think you addressed the part I asked about.

He doesn't speak just of the Roman culture in his time. He says holy women of old did this. Was that God's will?

I am not clear if you are asking if it is God's will that he wrote this, or God's will that the holy women of old did this.

If the former, I would respond that while this is part of the canon of inspired Scripture, we need to read critically. If the latter, I'd say that it's a fairly selective appropriation of the legacy of the holy women of old, to further a particular agenda.

tall73 said:
Of course it is not unconditional. He gives conditions right in the text to believing husbands, as does Paul in Ephesians 5.

No, I mean unconditional on the wives' side. They do not need to submit, no matter what.

tall73 said:
If it is just an accident of culture, then perhaps you don't see it that way.

I do see Paul and Peter writing within a particular culture, and reflecting the accidents of their culture. I do not see the particulars of that culture as binding on all Christians in every culture.

And as @Reluctant Theologian alludes to, as someone who's done a lot of work on abuse prevention within faith communities, I am very wary of readings of these texts which are used to justify abuse.

tall73 · May 19, 2024

Paidiske said:
We would have to look at what is meant by "head." There are a couple of good articles here:
An Overview of Paul’s Use of Kephalē (“Head”) - Marg Mowczko

Kephalē ("head") as Metaphor in First-Century Texts - Marg Mowczko

Here are some ancient Greek texts, contemporary with the apostle Paul's writings, that use the word kephalē ("head").

margmowczko.com

My own sense is probably slightly different from some of her conclusions, but I agree with her that God did not mean that a husband is head of the wife in the sense of controlling her.

Perhaps you ought to spell out your slightly different view then.

But in regards to her view, looking at texts with head/body language, where she sees the connection of nourishment, inter-connectivity, etc. she seems to miss an element . We certainly agree everyone in the body is nourished by the head, and that Christ exercises his authority over other powers on behalf of the church (in benefit of the church, as per Ephesians 1). But that does not mean that the body does not submit to the head. And she seems to have missed this element in the very text that is at issue:

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

The church is said to be subject to Christ. So how can the head concept be divorced completely from such considerations? It is not limited to those considerations, certainly. Christ is the Savior of the body, the source of nourisment, exercises power on behalf of the body, brings it to fullness, etc.

But the church, the body, is also to submit to Christ.

Ephesians 5:24a Ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ χριστῷ,

And I think we can say that this is not just a reflection of Roman norms.

Paidiske · May 19, 2024

tall73 said:
Perhaps you ought to spell out your slightly different view then.

My own view leans more towards understanding head in the sense of "source," and in particular, in the Greco-Roman world, as the source of identity, purpose, and so on. In that world, it's the father who gives the family their name, it's his social standing and work which give them their place in the world, and so on. (And we can say the same for Christ and the church; our identity, purpose, mission and so on all flow from Christ as our head). The emphasis is on household unity, not on dynamics of control.

tall73 said:
The church is said to be subject to Christ. So how can the head concept be divorced completely from such considerations?

I would argue it's an analogy with limitations. Again, you have to read this section as governed by verse 21; submission in marriage is mutual.

tall73 · May 19, 2024

Reluctant Theologian said:
In egalitarian theological circles the concept of 'headship' is interpreted as meaning 'to be the source or support of' instead of having authority; their arguments couldn't convince me - so I'm sticking with the traditional interpretation.

Yes, but others may not be familiar with the argument, and we should look at the details.

I think that:

Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ

indicates that the headship relation of Christ to the church does involve submission by the church to Christ. And I think most would see that from the overall teaching of Scripture--Christ is in fact leading His church, not only serving it, though He certainly served it! Thanks be for His indescribable gift.

tall73 · May 19, 2024

tall73 said:
And I would imagine you acknowledge that Ephesians 5 does not at all allow a Christian husband to kill his family.

Paidiske said:

No, but people using it to argue for wifely submission all too often use it to excuse abuse

tall73 said:

A husband abusing his wife is going DIRECTLY against what Paul said in that text.

Paidiske said:
But that is not the point. The point is the wife's obligation. Calling for submission, no matter what, is the issue.

You said they use it to excuse abuse. I noted that any husband abusing his wife is going directly against the text. So the idea of excusing abuse is clearly not in the text. Those who do so are twisting the text. And again, Scriptural principles are not invalidated by people ignoring them or twisting them.

Now you raise the wife's obligation aspect. I think this is addressed by Peter more, because in Paul's text the emphasis is on the believing husband and his showing the same love as Christ, giving himself up for his wife. The Greek despot is not in view. When the prescription of Ephesians 5 is followed by both, there is no abuse.

Once again, could someone twist the text to manipulate? Yes. But that would be twisting, and against the principle spelled out. And we don't judge the wisdom of biblical principles by the abuse of them, by those who disregard them.

In Peter's text the despot is potentially in view, and anticipated, depending on the particular unbeliever. But even there he does not say just do whatever the guy says. He still urges chastity, and avoiding adornment, in favor of a quiet and gentle spirit, which may be out of line with the desires of some of the gentiles described by Peter in the same letter:

1 Peter 4:3-4

3 For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. 4 In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. (NKJV)

As with submission to the authorities, you cannot go against God's law to favor the laws of men, or the will of a husband. God's law trumps that of the husband. And she is not to submit in that.

About concerns of the woman being in danger in this situation, I think it is fair to say that Peter anticipates some may suffer unjustly in this regard.

1 Peter 3:6 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (NKJV)

Terror is mentioned. He knows this may happen.

That is, however, the plight of his entire audience who live in a pagan culture of this sort, who may at times suffer unjust persecution:

1 Peter 3:13-17 13 And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. 17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (NKJV)

This part, I think, is cultural, in that there was no way to just leave the authority of the unbelieving husband. And there was no governing authority that would step in either, as would be done in many settings today, to punish the wrong-doer. She had little option. That was true for much of Peter's audience, in that none of them could just check out of the pagan, at times hostile, culture they were part of. But he addresses an even more difficult situation here. He hopes to win over the unbeliever by a true display of Christ's love. That includes suffering, if need be.

Would I tell someone in a society that does have an authority that can punish the wrongdoer in this regards to just deal with it? No.

But they had no out clause. And he tells them to follow the example of Christ. The women who did that were showing amazing love, and we can only hope to do so if we are faced with persecution.

Paidiske · May 19, 2024

tall73 said:
You said they use it to excuse abuse. I noted that any husband abusing his wife is going directly against the text. So the idea of excusing abuse is clearly not in the text. Those who do so are twisting the text. And again, Scriptural principles are not invalidated by people ignoring them or twisting them.

I perhaps expressed myself badly. The reality is that some husbands abuse. And some people - church leaders and others - argue that wives are obligated to submit to that abuse, because these passages allow for no exception.

But here is the deeper issue, as I see it. Abuse is, fundamentally, control of one person by another. Within marriage, it can take any of the following common forms (as well as some not listed here, especially, for the purposes of our discussion, spiritual abuse; using religious beliefs to control):

Notice the key thing, no matter the form of abuse, is control.

So, if a husband is commanded to love his wife, and we know that abuse is not love, and abuse is essentially defined as controlling someone, then a model of marriage in which men control their wives is Scripturally excluded, since control and love are mutually exclusive.

tall73 said:
in Paul's text the emphasis is on the believing husband and his showing the same love as Christ, giving himself up for his wife. The Greek despot is not in view.

I don't agree. The Greek despot is very much what husbands are being told they should not be, despite having the legal right, in their society, to be. The whole point of the comparison with Christ is to set up a contrast with the Greek despot.

tall73 said:
The women who did that were showing amazing love, and we can only hope to do so if we are faced with persecution.

I would never ever say this to a woman in an abusive situation. I would tell her that she is God's beloved daughter, that God does not will that she be abused, and I would encourage and help her to leave. Telling her that she should hope to show amazing love to her abuser is downright irresponsible and dangerous.

tall73 · May 19, 2024

tall73 said:

E. I don't think you addressed the part I asked about.

He doesn't speak just of the Roman culture in his time. He says holy women of old did this. Was that God's will?

Paidiske said:
I am not clear if you are asking if it is God's will that he wrote this, or God's will that the holy women of old did this.

If the former, I would respond that while this is part of the canon of inspired Scripture, we need to read critically.

Please elaborate. What would reading critically tell us about whether it was God's will that Peter wrote this?

Do you have a particular criteria for discerning which parts of Scripture you read critically?

Paidiske said:
If the latter, I'd say that it's a fairly selective appropriation of the legacy of the holy women of old, to further a particular agenda.

That still didn't answer the question. Was it God's will that Sarah, among other holy women of old, submitted to their husbands?

Regarding the agenda, please elaborate. Certainly we see the example of Abigail, who did not tell her husband of her actions, was not particularly complimentary toward him, etc. But in that case she acknowledged a higher authority, God, who had determined for David to be king, and who wished to turn David from bloodshed. David admits as much in the text that the Lord sent her.

I think it is a bit of stretch to say that Peter didn't think that holy women of the past had as a trait this aspect of submitting to husbands, but was just manipulating things to get them to do what he deemed necessary.

tall73 · May 19, 2024

Thank you Paidiske for being willing to engage in a scriptural discussion on the issue. I will have to continue this down the road as it is late! Feel free to spell out your view in the meantime.

God bless

Paidiske · May 19, 2024

tall73 said:
Please elaborate. What would reading critically tell us about whether it was God's will that Peter wrote this?

No, I mean that reading critically means that even though this is inspired Scripture, there may be more than one way to understand it.

tall73 said:
Do you have a particular criteria for discerning which parts of Scripture you read critically?

All of it...

tall73 said:
Was it God's will that Sarah, among other holy women of old, submitted to their husbands?

This is too simplistic. There are occasions where submission is right and good and loving and so on. There are occasions where it is not. (Queen Vashti comes to mind). You cannot simply say "holy women of old submitted to their husbands, and this should be the pattern for marriages today."

I would note also that what he particularly speaks of here, addressing her husband as "lord," was simply a way of being polite and respectful in that culture. We see it in many interactions, and not just between husbands and wives. Rebekah and Abraham's servant (before she knew who he was), are an example. And Rachel and Laban. And many examples between men, also. This is not necessarily an indicator of a relationship in which one person is given control over the other, but it is an indicator of a degree of respect and deference being shown.

tall73 said:
Regarding the agenda, please elaborate.

I mean that the author of the letter is making a point, and selecting from Scripture to support that point. It is not a systematic treatment of marriage relationships.

tall73 said:
I think it is a bit of stretch to say that Peter didn't think that holy women of the past had as a trait this aspect of submitting to husbands, but was just manipulating things to get them to do what he deemed necessary.

No, Peter probably did think that holy women of the past (largely) submitted to their husbands, if for no other reason than that that was normal and required in their cultures. What Peter is trying to do, is put that within a Christian framework of mutual love, and mutual service, and (although this is more Paul's language) mutual submission.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
And as @Reluctant Theologian alludes to, as someone who's done a lot of work on abuse prevention within faith communities, I am very wary of readings of these texts which are used to justify abuse.

So to be clear, you think the texts are fine, and inspired, but just the interpretation that is the issue?

tall73 · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:

The church is said to be subject to Christ. So how can the head concept be divorced completely from such considerations?

Paidiske said:
I would argue it's an analogy with limitations. Again, you have to read this section as governed by verse 21; submission in marriage is mutual.

Let's clarify, before moving on to the analogy. Do you voluntarily submit to the leading of Christ?

If so, is that relationship abusive?

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
So to be clear, you think the texts are fine, and inspired, but just the interpretation that is the issue?

Yes.

tall73 said:
Let's clarify, before moving on to the analogy. Do you voluntarily submit to the leading of Christ?

If so, is that relationship abusive?

Yes, I voluntarily submit to the leading of Christ.

But a husband is not God. A one-sided relationship between two mentally competent human adults in which one is supposed to lead, and the other submit, over a lifetime, backed up with the claim that to ever deviate from that is to disobey God, is abusive.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
I perhaps expressed myself badly. The reality is that some husbands abuse. And some people - church leaders and others - argue that wives are obligated to submit to that abuse, because these passages allow for no exception.

And we both agree those pastors are twisting Scripture, and have no warrant to do so, correct?

There is nothing in the text that would support a reading of abuse.

Paidiske said:
But here is the deeper issue, as I see it. Abuse is, fundamentally, control of one person by another. Within marriage, it can take any of the following common forms (as well as some not listed here, especially, for the purposes of our discussion, spiritual abuse; using religious beliefs to control):

Notice the key thing, no matter the form of abuse, is control.

If you can be led by Christ in voluntary submission, then leadership does not equal control.

Paidiske said:
So, if a husband is commanded to love his wife, and we know that abuse is not love, and abuse is essentially defined as controlling someone, then a model of marriage in which men control their wives is Scripturally excluded, since control and love are mutually exclusive.

The text tells women to submit, not men to control.

Paidiske said:
I don't agree. The Greek despot is very much what husbands are being told they should not be, despite having the legal right, in their society, to be. The whole point of the comparison with Christ is to set up a contrast with the Greek despot.

I do not disagree that they are to live in a counter-cultural way. But I was noting that in the Peter text reference is made to the unbelieving Roman head of the household, and fear. That is not what Paul is addressing directly in Ephesians. He is addressing what the proper Christian dynamic would look like. So while the description is against the backdrop of the society, the notion of the unbelieving Greek despot who is hostile to the faith is not addressed head on as in 1 Peter.

Paidiske said:
I would never ever say this to a woman in an abusive situation.

See my post above, where I indicate I would not either. We are fortunate to have alternatives, that still uphold biblical principles. We can involve legitimate authorities who will help in these cases. But they had none of that, because none of the authorities were going to interpose in this issue.

And those authorities were consistent throughout the various Roman provinces that she might flee to.

In my area our denomination has a church-run shelter where we can help women to involve legitimate authorities. But they had no such recourse. There were no authorities to help.

I would tell her that she is God's beloved daughter, that God does not will that she be abused, and I would encourage and help her to leave.

He did say that they were co -heirs of the gift of life. And he indicated in many ways how beloved all of the church were to Christ.

But Peter still said what he did about the whole church, not just wives with an unbelieving husband. He indicated that they could act in such a way to not invite persecution, but if they are persecuted, they are blessed. And he did so because if the entire culture is hostile to the church, there is no escaping that. There is no authority to interpose. So he doesn't tell any of them to leave. But he does say their suffering is unjust, as was the suffering of Christ. And he does say that such suffering CAN be the will of God, about all of the Christians facing such hostility.

1 Peter 3:13-17 13 And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. 17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (NKJV)

1 Peter 4:12-16 12 Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; 13 but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. 14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter. (NKJV)

Paidiske said:
Telling her that she should hope to show amazing love to her abuser is downright irresponsible and dangerous.

Was what Peter wrote to the church inspired? If so then he said the following to all of them, not just wives in this particular situation:

16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter. (NKJV)

Yet, Peter was not opposed to fleeing improper authority, if there was an opportunity. He did so himself when he was freed from jail.

But if there was nowhere to go, then he was right to encourage the entire church to suffer for Christ. And I do, in fact, hope I would be willing to submit to Christ in that way, and show such love, as he describes.

Peter lived what he wrote, and suffered for Christ, as the Scriptures predicted, and tradition records.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

Will respond later again.

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
And we both agree those pastors are twisting Scripture, and have no warrant to do so, correct?

There is nothing in the text that would support a reading of abuse.

I think those pastors are twisting Scripture. But I think advocating for husbands to have control over their wives, because he must lead and she must obey and submit, is abusive, so I'm not sure we both agree.

tall73 said:
If you can be led by Christ in voluntary submission, then leadership does not equal control.

I don't see this as a question of leadership, though. Both parties in a marriage can exercise leadership, without making that about submission/obedience stuff.

tall73 said:
The text tells women to submit, not men to control.

If the submission is one sided, rather than mutual, it's the same thing. He's the boss, he's the one who makes decisions. That's control.

tall73 said:
See my post above, where I indicate I would not either.

But you are posting it publicly, and you do not know who will read this thread. I put it to you that such sentiments are potentially highly damaging.

I would appreciate it if you would stop asking me if particular verses are inspired, as if that is in question. I am not denying the inspiration of Scripture. I am adamantly opposed to any reading of Scripture which will give even the most slender leeway to any abuse. And I do see focussing on a victim's need to show "amazing love" to an abuser, rather than the overriding need to end any and every justification for any abuse, as part of the problem.

Rose_bud · May 20, 2024

Hi there

Hope you are well.

Great, I see you started the thread elsewhere and made it specific.

I would still group the texts you cited under the following elements.

1. Creation
2. Rebellion/(Fall)
3. Redemption/Rescue
4. Consummation

So I'll respond in that manner. As I've indicated before my opinion is that the best approach would be a biblical theology which takes into account the whole corpus of Scripture. Tracing the theme through the four elements. To determine what God intended as He progressively reveals Himself throughout the text.

Creation passages would be the first two you cited in post #2. Is there any indication of hierarchal submission in these texts?

The Creation stories is a rebuttal of the creation stories in the ancient times. We know they had quite interesting theories regarding Creation. Every nation did, some African creation stories are very interesting.
Israel's God and ours we know spoke everything into existence and formed humanity (adam) from the earth (adama). First all the spaces then the things that would fill them. Tim Mackie does a great job explaining this concept.
Every space was filled with something, sky was made for birds, seas was made for fish, land for creatures. But what fills humanity is God's breath. Both male and female.

He gave them both the commission of being fruitful and multiplying, both were to rule. I don't see anywhere in the text that it is only man and that he ruled over her.. verse 27 and 30 are to them/they. When he created humanity they had purpose and His creation was good.

Genesis 2 on the otherhand is a zoomed in version of the day He made humanity.
On first glance of this passage it appears as if the man is made then later out of the ground comes animals and trees. So which is it?

The immediate context determines the meaning, the previous verse tells us man was alone, it's not good, he needs a suitable help (ezer kenegov).

I understand the following passage is trying to show us that everything else created was not a suitable helper. God did a lineup and nothing that existed would do. Until one is created to suit Adam.
Taken from his side. God created someone who would be able to co-rule. As I don't see anywhere in the creation text the concept of ruling over woman.

We know the animals and plants were created first, thereafter Adam. Yet God brought them to Adam who read them and called them assigning to them a name according to its uniqueness. The calling and naming was directly related to finding a creation that was uniquely suitable to him. Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, woman- a suitable one, able to do with him, what God purposed for them in Genesis 1.

Tigran1245 · May 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
Husbands, be like Christ; he, and not the Greek despot (absolute ruler of a household), is your example.

And do you think that Jesus is not absolute ruler of every household and the world in general?

As far as I know, anglicans believe in monergism (that every person can start believing only by will of God, without his own desire). So, how can you say that Christ is not absolute ruler of the Church?

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

Tigran1245 said:
And do you think that Jesus is not absolute ruler of every household and the world in general?

Be that as it may, that is not the aspect of Christ that is put to the fore for the husbands to take as their example. Rather, loving, self-sacrificing service is the model.

ralliann · May 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
I perhaps expressed myself badly. The reality is that some husbands abuse. And some people - church leaders and others - argue that wives are obligated to submit to that abuse, because these passages allow for no exception.

But here is the deeper issue, as I see it. Abuse is, fundamentally, control of one person by another. Within marriage, it can take any of the following common forms (as well as some not listed here, especially, for the purposes of our discussion, spiritual abuse; using religious beliefs to control):

View attachment 348182

Notice the key thing, no matter the form of abuse, is control.

So, if a husband is commanded to love his wife, and we know that abuse is not love, and abuse is essentially defined as controlling someone, then a model of marriage in which men control their wives is Scripturally excluded, since control and love are mutually exclusive.

I don't agree. The Greek despot is very much what husbands are being told they should not be, despite having the legal right, in their society, to be. The whole point of the comparison with Christ is to set up a contrast with the Greek despot.

I would never ever say this to a woman in an abusive situation. I would tell her that she is God's beloved daughter, that God does not will that she be abused, and I would encourage and help her to leave. Telling her that she should hope to show amazing love to her abuser is downright irresponsible and dangerous.

Do you think Jewish women are abused? Since Paul gives Sarah as an example, Looking to Judaism and the marital relationship in that culture is a start.

Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

אַבְרָהָם

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Armenian Apostolic Church

Clara bonam audax

christian

Similar threads