Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thank you for clarifying.No, I mean that a man is allowed to have authority over his wife only within the framework of the commandments of Scripture and the natural Law of God.
Thus, controlling every aspect of a wife's life will not have a beneficial effect on her, but there will be negative effect. Accordingly, this cannot in any way correspond to the Natural Law. And, consequently, it contradicts. Therefore it is prohibited.
I find the assumption that a marriage in which both spouses work together as equals, leads to conflict, to be very strange, and not at all in keeping with reality.
It doesn't guarantee it. But there's this idea repeated in several posts from different people that equality equals constant conflict. How did bella put it? "An endless battle of oneupmanship." It's just nonsense.Why would them being equal guarantee they are working together?
That is one problem; it's certainly not the only problem. Nor is the sinful nature the only problem.When I described husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church, with delegated authority within the scope assigned, which is managing the family such that they follow the Lord's commands, you indicated the problem was that not all husbands are good.
Thank you, I think all the parties who have weighed in on the topic so far have indicated that physical intervention may be necessary in exceptional cases, to restrain the wife from harming others.The husband can use physical violence in exceptional cases when, for example, the wife does not control herself and threatens the health of herself and others. In other cases, the husband cannot inflict physical violence, because as you rightly said, it destroys families.
And what has a negative effect does not correspond to the natural Law of God. Conclusively, it is not allowed.
That's a start, but it's not really adequate, though. @Tigran1245 spoke of a God-given right for a man to control his wife. He might rule out doing so by physical force, but that really doesn't make his position safe, or non-abusive.Thank you, I think all the parties who have weighed in on the topic so far have indicated that physical intervention may be necessary in exceptional cases, to restrain the wife from harming others.
...
So the consensus seems to be that physical intervention is ruled out, except in cases where someone is harming others.
It doesn't guarantee it. But there's this idea repeated in several posts from different people that equality equals constant conflict. How did bella put it? "An endless battle of oneupmanship." It's just nonsense.
Nor is the sinful nature the only problem.
He also clarified the scope of authority narrowly, when asked.That's a start, but it's not really adequate, though. @Tigran1245 spoke of a God-given right for a man to control his wife. He might rule out doing so by physical force, but that really doesn't make his position safe, or non-abusive.
Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels(1Cor.11:8-10).And where, there, do you see any instruction or permission for a husband to coerce or control his wife?
In other cases, the husband cannot inflict physical violence, because as you rightly said, it destroys families.
And what has a negative effect does not correspond to the natural Law of God. Conclusively, it is not allowed.
In other cases, only verbal persuasion and an appeal to the wife is sufficient.What do you see the means of the husband being, in exercising authority outside of these exceptional cases?
Yes, I certainly agree with this.Showing love, good temper, exhorting, persuading her with arguments, attentively studying the Scriptures, instructing her in true riches, in the heavenly philosophy, etc. And not chain down with fear and menaces, not dwell with his wife as a slave, not upbraid her, not give expression to insults or taunts or revilings?
Perhaps Ephesians 5:22 was written according to the time period. Would you say that Ephesians 6:5 would also apply to us in a modern society?My view currently is that texts like I Peter 3 seem pretty straight-forward, and do indicate wives submit to husbands. Though it also warns husbands to treat wives honorably.
There appears to be no situation unique to a given area, because he addresses churches in various Roman provinces:
1 Peter 1:1 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,He ties it to holy women of the past, taking it beyond the local situation:
1 Peter 3:5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbandsHe references a specific OT passage for support:
1 Peter 3:6 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.Genesis 18:12 . 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” (NKJV)Peter references cautions to men against treating wives poorly, and assures that women are co-heirs of salvation:
1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
Peter was married, as we see reference to his mother-in-law, and Paul's statement about him having a believing wife. So while some have at times indicated Paul's view may be shaped by his unmarried state, the same would not be true of Peter.
Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever.1 Corinthians 9:5 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
The passage shows continuity between the behavior of holy women of old, and those in the New Testament era, in a variety of locations.
In its cautions regarding treatment of wives it also parallels Ephesians 5.
In its relating that wives are co-heirs of the grace of life it parallels Galatians 3, where there is no male or female in Christ in regards to being heirs of the promise.
I would not limit exceptional situations to harming others. Things happen in life. On this issue, the point of view of Catholic theology is closest to me.We still have not clarified whether he sees the husband's role as primarily persuasive or coercive. But he has ruled out physical means to induce obedience, other than extreme situations of harming others.
That's still a massive problem.
And where, there, do you see any instruction or permission for a husband to coerce or control his wife?
I find the assumption that a marriage in which both spouses work together as equals, leads to conflict, to be very strange, and not at all in keeping with reality.
Perhaps Ephesians 5:22 was written according to the time period. Would you say that Ephesians 6:5 would also apply to us in a modern society?
“Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;”
Ephesians 6:5 NASB1995
I would not limit exceptional situations to harming others. Things happen in life. On this issue, the point of view of Catholic theology is closest to me.
"Can I not chastise my wife when she is guilty of misconduct?"
Yes; if there is a just cause (particularly if your wife fails in chastity), and if, after being corrected several times, she does not amend, you can chastise her, but with moderation. But it is not lawful to beat your wife for trifling defects, such as for saying a word in anger, or for disobedience in a matter of little importance."
(de Liguori, Saint Alphonsus. The Saint Alphonsus de Liguori Collection [30 Books]. Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.)
There are two kinds of community. One is the domestic, like a family, and another is the political, like a city or kingdom. Therefore, the man who rules the second kind of community, such as a king or judge, can inflict a penalty both in order to correct a person and to expel for the purification of the community that he cares for. But that man who rules in the first kind of community, like the father of a family, can only inflict corrective punishment, which does not extend beyond the boundaries of reform, whereas the death penalty does cross these limits. And therefore, a husband, who is set over his wife in this way, cannot kill her, but only chastise her in other ways.
(St. Thomas Aquinas Aquinas)
To me I just see it fitting with the time period and how society at that time operated. I don’t see any evidence in the passage that indicates that it is intended to be metaphorical or allegorical.This was addressed previously in the thread, but here is the short version.
The husband being head is described in theological arguments in I Corinthians 11, and Ephesians 5. Particularly in the latter case, it is based on a simile comparing the relationship of the husband to the wife, to that of Christ and the church.
Submission is said to also be more than just culturally applicable to Rome as I Peter describes that holy women of old also did this. Submission to husbands is described as fitting in the Lord in Colossians 3. And the various indications of headship in the pre-fall and fall accounts were also examined, including the commentary on such in the NT (Eve made for Adam, etc.)
On the other hand, slavery was argued against by Paul in I Corinthians 7, where he said we should not be slaves of men,and if you can buy your freedom do so. If not, don't let it trouble you. And he argued for Philemon to release Onesimus so that he would no longer be a slave, but a valued brother and fellow-worker.
So no, the two are not seen the same way, as one is argued for theologically, and appeal is made to creation, and to holy women of old, and especially to the Headship of Christ and the church. And the other is argued against, and those who are in slavery are advised to buy their freedom if possible.
To me I just see it fitting with the time period and how society at that time operated. I don’t see any evidence in the passage that indicates that it is intended to be metaphorical or allegorical.
To me I just see it fitting with the time period and how society at that time operated. I don’t see any evidence in the passage that indicates that it is intended to be metaphorical or allegorical.
I don't agree that I am doing so.But the question was why you are looking at your system from the vantage point of the ideal, but our system from the vantage point of the clear violations of the ideal?
Generally speaking, while it is true that other factors influence the incidences and severity of abuse, if someone does not hold the attitudes which drive male domestic violence against women, he does not abuse, even if those other factors are present.And even from a secular perspective, the various studies note abuse involves a variety of factors.
But he still argues for a man's right to control his wife. That, in itself, is not okay.He also clarified the scope of authority narrowly, when asked.
We still have not clarified whether he sees the husband's role as primarily persuasive or coercive. But he has ruled out physical means to induce obedience, other than extreme situations of harming others.
I would argue that the word has a bigger semantic range than just "power," and that when talking about how humans are to relate to one another, it is not talking about a relationship of control.The authority here is the word ἐξουσία.
This word literally means power. Thus, the New Testament uses the same word when it says that Christ forgives sins:
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (Mat.9:6)
Here is the same word ἐξουσία.
So, if you deny the power of a husband over his wife (and power in any case is a certain control), then you should also deny the power of Christ to forgive sins.
And if she is not persuaded? She is free to disagree?In other cases, only verbal persuasion and an appeal to the wife is sufficient.
Absolutely horrifying.I would not limit exceptional situations to harming others. Things happen in life. On this issue, the point of view of Catholic theology is closest to me.
"Can I not chastise my wife when she is guilty of misconduct?"
Yes; if there is a just cause (particularly if your wife fails in chastity), and if, after being corrected several times, she does not amend, you can chastise her, but with moderation. But it is not lawful to beat your wife for trifling defects, such as for saying a word in anger, or for disobedience in a matter of little importance."
(de Liguori, Saint Alphonsus. The Saint Alphonsus de Liguori Collection [30 Books]. Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.)
There are two kinds of community. One is the domestic, like a family, and another is the political, like a city or kingdom. Therefore, the man who rules the second kind of community, such as a king or judge, can inflict a penalty both in order to correct a person and to expel for the purification of the community that he cares for. But that man who rules in the first kind of community, like the father of a family, can only inflict corrective punishment, which does not extend beyond the boundaries of reform, whereas the death penalty does cross these limits. And therefore, a husband, who is set over his wife in this way, cannot kill her, but only chastise her in other ways.
(St. Thomas Aquinas Aquinas)
Generally speaking, while it is true that other factors influence the incidences and severity of abuse, if someone does not hold the attitudes which drive male domestic violence against women, he does not abuse, even if those other factors are present.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?