Some of the most controversial teaching in the Bible is its instructions concerning wives.
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
Colossians 3:18-19
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Ephesians 5:22-33
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
1 Peter 3:1-7
What do we do with these texts? Is this really God’s word to wives and husbands living in twenty-first century Australia? To answer that question I think we need to hear these texts in their original historical context and consider how the biblical writers are interacting with that context.
Not only the arm of the virtuous woman, but her speech as well, ought not to be for the public, and she ought to be modest and guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders…For a woman ought to do her talking either to her husband or through her husband, and she should not feel aggrieved if, like the flute-player, she makes a more impressive sound through a tongue not her own… If [wives] subordinate themselves to their husbands, they are commended, but if they want to have control, they cut a sorrier figure than the subjects of their control. And control ought to be exercised by the man over the woman, not as the owner has control over a piece of property, but, as the soul colonists the body, by entering into her feelings and being knit to her through goodwill. As, therefore, it is possible to exercise care over the body without being a slave to its pleasures and desires, so it is possible to govern a wife, and at the same time to delight and gratify her.
Plutarch, Moralia: Advice to the Bride and Groom 142 C-E
A woman must live for her husband according to law and in actuality, thinking no private thoughts of her own, but taking care of her marriage and guarding it. For everything depends on it. A woman must bear all that her husband bears, whether he be unlucky or sin out of ignorance, whether he be sick or drunk or sleep with other women…If her husband thinks something is sweet she will think so too; if she thinks something bitter, she will agree. Otherwise she will be out of tune with her whole universe.
Neo-Pythagorean text
The husband governs, but the wife is governed…But he does not rule over her with a despotic power: for he is diligently attentive to her welfare…Those husbands that govern their wives despotically, are hated by them, but those that govern them with a guardian authority are despised by them…but those that govern them politically are both admired and loved.
Callicratidas, On the Happiness of Households 105.8-.106.9
The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed, for the authority has been given by God to the man.
Josephus, Against Apion 2.199
Wives must be in servitude to their husbands, a servitude not imposed by violent ill-treatment but promoting obedience in all things.
Philo, Hypothetica 7.3
This is the thought world in which the New Testament writers operate. The household of the first century Greco-Roman world was hierarchical, with the adult male firmly entrenched at the top and his wife, children and slaves below. Submission meant a woman was expected to center her life around her husband, avoid the assertion of her own desires and conform herself to her husband’s will.
When first century authors of Scripture penned their words and first century audiences heard them they do so in this context. They knew what submission to husbands meant. It meant exactly what we have outlined, that a woman would center her life around her husband, avoid the assertion of her own desires and conform herself to her husband’s will. And lest we be in any doubt, some of the texts are quite explicit. 1 Peter 3 commends Sarah, who treated Abraham as her lord and was obedient to him. Ephesians 5 says husbands are in a situation analagous to Christ and wives in a situation analagous to the church. And the church is obedient to Christ, centers its life around the will of Christ, and takes its identity from Christ.
These are difficult ideas to modern ears, so there are numerous ways we try to soften the meaning. Some point to the verse in Ephesians that immediately precedes the call for wives to submit to husbands. This calls us to “submit to one another”. There are two possible ways this could be read. First, it could be read as applying to the people in subordinate positions in the pairs that follow – “submit to one another, that is wives to husbands, children to fathers, slaves to masters”. Or it could be read as applying equally to everyone, but with the application different depending on one’s position in the household. “Husbands, submit to your wives by loving them, to your children by being patient with them, to your slaves by being fair to them. Wives submit to your husbands by obeying them in everything, children submit to your fathers by obeying them, slaves to your masters by serving them to the best of your will.” I think that the first reading is the most likely way the texts would have been read by the original audience, but either way the meaning of wifely submission remains the same.
If we believe these are God’s word to us today we need to be quite clear: we are asking husbands and wives to enter a relationship that is hierarchical in nature, with wives expected to abandon their own identity and center their every waking moment around their husband’s desires and interests, to conform their opinions to their husband’s and to obey their husband’s will.
Nor does pointing to the responsibility of husbands to love their wives with a generous and servant natured love change the reality of what is expected of wives or make them equals. This should be obvious from the use of the Christ-church analogy. Christ’s love for the church means he acts for the church’s welfare, but it does not mean he abandons his position as Lord of the church nor his expectation that the church will be obedient to him and center itself around his will.
If we are to understand what God is saying to us today I think we need to abandon attempts to soften the meaning of these texts to the point they are palatable to modern ears. Rather we need to understand what the bible writers are trying to do. As I have argued in other posts, they write pastorally. They are asking a simple question: how can the followers of Jesus to whom I write live out their faith in the concrete realities of their lives? In the first century one of those concrete realities was hierarchical household structures, where an adult male stood at the top and his wife, children and slaves were ordered below him. So the writers look for models that might be relevant. In Ephesians 5 Paul draws upon the relationship between Christ and the church. If you want to know how to live well within a hierarchical marriage structure look to the way Christ and the church relate. Husbands model yourselves on Christ; wives model yourselves on the church. When he considers slaves, he appeals to the relationship between humans and God as analagous to that between slave and master. Slaves, if you want to know how to live as a Jesus-follower, give your masters the same service you give to Christ as Master. Masters you should treat your slaves with the same dignity as your heavenly Master treats you.
The bible writers are not staking a claim that hierarchical household structures are endorsed by God. They’re simply asking how you live Christianly when hierarchical structures are what you live within. Indeed, the gospel undermines hierarchical structures by declaring we all stand on the same footing before God (Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 3:11). It would take time, but this simple insight contributed to the overthrow of monarchy in favour of liberal democracy, of slavery in favour of freedom, and of patriarchy in favour of the liberty of women.
Thank God we live this side of that historical development. It’s high time then we got rid of the language of male headship and female submission altogether. Forget trying to reinvent it, to soften the meaning of the terms. Let us state plainly and clearly God does not call men to be the head of the household, nor does God call wives to submit to their husbands. These were part of the hierarchical marriage structures that first century Christians had to contend with but have now been swept away by history and the gospel. Let’s instead start searching for the theological models that can help us live Christianly within the egalitarian marriage structures of our time.
I believe in time society’s progress will make most of the bible’s teaching obsolete. Enjoy it while it is relevant.
Thanks marx,
Bible has remained relevant for some 2000 years and i suspect it will remain relevant as long as humankind exists, for it tells us who we are, who God is and provides an orientation to life
>Bible has remained relevant for some 2000 years
Except, of course, the parts that contradict your secular progressive philosophy.
>and i suspect it will remain relevant as long as humankind exists
Despite your best efforts to make it irrelevant…
Christopher,
It’s NO T direct translation and remember it is translated by men who were , as my priest says, if their time. God valued all human beings and the only reason why men or some men want to hang on to these archaic terms is because empowered women can intimidate some men . God gave us ALL talents and gifts regardless of gender and we ALL ave a responsibility to use them.
Such comments are AKIN to subservience on the basis of social class which is equally as ridiculous!!!!
Dear Egalitarian Friends,
We know that many of you within the evangelical world hold your views because you have been convinced that egalitarianism is what the Bible teaches. You tell us that our differences on male and female roles are just differences in interpretation, and that Bible-believing Christians can honestly and fairly interpret the Bible to support complete equality in most or all roles for men and women in the family and the church. You say that you are sincere in adopting your views not because of modern cultural pressures but because you think that the Bible itself supports your position. In response to this, we want to say that we appreciate your sincerity in these matters and we believe that you are telling us the truth about your motives.
There are, nevertheless, certain questions of fact that come up frequently in your writings. We focus on these specific questions in this letter because they do not involve detailed arguments about interpretation, but involve only matters of factual data. We are simply asking to see the evidence that has convinced you about certain key interpretations of Scripture passages. If you can point out this evidence to us, then we will be able to understand more fully how you have come to your understanding of key passages. But if you cannot point out this evidence, and if no one among you can point out this evidence, then we respectfully ask that you reconsider your interpretations of these passages.
Here are our questions:
1. kephal: Where the Bible says that the husband is the “head” (kefalh) of the wife as Christ is the “head” (kefalh) of the church (Eph. 5:23), and that the head of the woman is the man (1 Cor. 11:3), you tell us that “head” here means “source” and not “person in authority over (someone).” In fact, as far as we can tell, your interpretation depends on the claim that kefalh means “source without the idea of authority.”
But we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature that gives support to your interpretation. Wherever one person is said to be the “head” of another person (or persons), the person who is called the “head” is always the one in authority (such as the general of an army, the Roman emperor, Christ, the heads of the tribes of Israel, David as head of he nations, etc.) Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the “head” of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons. So we find no evidence for your claim that “head” can mean “source without authority.” Can you show us any evidence?
We would be happy to look at any Greek text that you could show us from the 8th century BC to the 4th century AD (a span of 12 centuries). In all of that literature, our question of fact is this:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for “head” (kefalh) is used to say that person A is the “head” of person or persons B, and means what you claim, namely, “non-authoritative source”?
If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if we cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of these key verses, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if such factual basis existed. We would also respectfully ask that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.
2. hypotass_: Where the Bible says that wives are to “be subject to” to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and implied in Eph. 5:22, 24), you tell us that the verb “be subject to” (hypotass_, passive) is a requirement for both husbands and wives — that just as wives are to be subject to their husbands, so husbands are to be subject to their wives, and that there is no unique authority that belongs to the husband. Rather, the biblical ideal is “mutual submission” according to Eph. 5:21, “be subject to one another,” and therefore there is no idea of one-directional submission to the husbands authority in these other verses (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and Eph. 5:22, 24).
But we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature where hypotass_ (passive) refers to a person or persons being “subject to” another person, and where the idea of submission to that persons authority is absent. In every example we can find, when person A is said to “be subject to” person B, person B has a unique authority which person A does not have. In other words, hypotass_ always implies a one-directional submission to someone in authority.
So our question is this:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for “be subject to” (hypotass_, passive) is used to refer to one person in relation to another and does not include the idea of one-directional submission to the other persons authority?
If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if we cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of these key verses, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.
3. “or” (Greek h): In 1 Cor. 14:36, some of you argue that the Greek word h (“or”) shows that the preceding verses are a quotation from the Corinthian church which Paul denies. Therefore you say that Paul is not really telling the Corinthian church,
the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Cor. 14:34-35),
but the Corinthians are saying those things, and Paul is just quoting them. You tell us that Paul’s response might be paraphrased as “Are you crazy?” This, you tell us, is the force of the tiny Greek word h, which is usually translated “or.” You tell us that h, “or,” is used in Greek to deny what has just been said.
Our problem is that when we look at other examples of h used in constructions like 1 Corinthians 14:36, it functions in just the opposite way to what you claim. In fact, h is used in rhetorical questions to affirm what has just been said, and we can find no examples where it is used to deny what has just been said. This is also what all the Greek lexicons tell us as well.
So our question is this:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for “or” (h) is used in rhetorical questions to show that the writer is denying what has just been said?
If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if we cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.
4. authente: In 1 Tim. 2:12, Paul writes, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men.” Many of you claim that the word translated “have authority” (auyentein) means “misuse authority” or “domineer” (or even “instigate violence”) in this sentence, so that Paul is not prohibiting women from having authority over men, but he is prohibiting women from misusing authority or domineering over men.
Our problem is this: we have never seen any clear example in ancient Greek literature where auyentein means “domineer” or “misuse authority.” Whenever we have seen this verb occur, it takes a neutral sense, “have authority” or “exercise authority,” with no negative connotation attaching to the word itself. We are aware that a related noun, authent_s, has several different meanings, but that is not the word Paul used, and we are interested in the word that Paul actually used.
So our question is this:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where the verb authente means what you claim, namely, “misuse authority or domineer” (or even “instigate violence”)?
If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.
5. “neither X nor Y”: In 1 Tim. 2:12, where Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” the grammatical structure in Greek takes the form, “neither + [verb 1] + nor + [verb 2].”
Regarding this verse, many of you tell us that the phrase “to teach or to have authority” means “to teach in a domineering way,” or “to teach in a way that usurps authority.” You base your understanding on the idea (already mentioned above) that the verb authente_ has a negative sense such as “domineer” or “usurp authority.”
But we have a second problem with this: when we look at other examples of this Greek construction, in the form “neither + [verb 1] + nor + [verb 2],” only two patterns occur: (a) verb 1 and verb 2 are activities or concepts that are both viewed positively, such as “neither sow nor reap,” or “neither eat nor drink,” or (b) verb 1 and verb 2 are activities or concepts that are both viewed negatively, such as “neither break in nor steal” or “neither leave nor forsake.” (In fact, Andreas Kestenbergers research found 52 examples of this structure in the New Testament, and 48 more examples in Greek literature outside the New Testament (from 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D.), and the pattern was the same in all 100 examples. So we wonder how your interpretation can claim that verb 1 (“teach”) is a concept that is viewed positively but verb 2 (“have authority”) is a negative concept (“domineer, usurp authority, or instigate violence”).
So our question is this:
Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where the pattern “neither + [verb 1] + nor + [verb 2]” is used to refer to one action that is viewed positively and one action that is viewed negatively?
If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if we cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.
6. Women teaching false doctrine at Ephesus: In 1 Tim. 2:12, where Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man,” many of you say the reason for Paul’s prohibition is that women were teaching false doctrine in the church at Ephesus (the church to which 1 Timothy was written). Our problem in understanding the basis for your claim is that we see no evidence inside or outside the Bible that tells us that any women were teaching false doctrine in the church at Ephesus. More than that, since Paul’s prohibition applies to all women, it seems to us that your position really needs to show that all the women at Ephesus were teaching false doctrine. So we are wondering if there is any text that tells us that all (or any) Christian women were teaching false doctrine in the church at Ephesus.
We recognize that some women were gossiping at Ephesus (1 Timothy 5:13), but that is not the same as teaching false doctrine — we all know people who gossip but who don’t teach false doctrine! We have read evidence about people teaching false doctrine at Ephesus, but they are not women, they are men. So, for example, Paul talks about “Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:17-18). He also speaks of “Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. 1:20), but these are men, not women. Similarly, Paul warns the Ephesian elders, “from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:30), but here he says these false teachers will be men (Greek andres), not that they will be women.So our question is this:
Will you please show us one reference in all of ancient literature, whether inside or outside the Bible, that states that all the Christian women at Ephesus (or even that any Christian women at Ephesus) were teaching false doctrine?
If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if we cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses. We know that there are many other questions of interpretation on which we may differ, and we realize that these matters do not solve all of those questions. But we thought that these matters might be the simplest to resolve, since they just involve questions of factual evidence.
Thank you for considering our questions. We look forward to hearing a response from you.
Interesting this was never responded to. Thank you for a thoughtful study of the actual words in the text. Might we continue to pursue this mode of Bible study. Well done.
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful response. I am an evangelical egalitarian and I agree almost completely with your critiques of the arguments that many evangelical egalitarians put (even though I find your strident confidence somewhat patronising and condescending). I am convinced the new Testament drives us towards complete gender equality, but the interpretive path I take to get there is very different to the one you are combating.
When one looks at first century Greco-Roman writers there is a very clear correspondence between the expectations of men and women found in those documents and that found in the New Testament letters. In both wives were expected to subordinate themselves to the will of their husbands, to avoid public speech other than prayer and prophecy (where there were deemed to be under the control of the god/s and therefore not speaking for themselves), and confine themselves to the domestic realm (in some contexts this meant never leaving the home, in other contexts wives moved freely in public but spoke through their husbands). In view of this it seems to me highly likely that when the New Testament speaks of “headship”, “submission”, and calls women to silence in the church that such language would have been understood very clearly in terms of patriarchal social structures.
Moreover, the Greco-Roman world was able to accommodate a small number of women who flouted these norms by either condemning their behaviour as manly, or commending it as women rising above the limitations of their gender. The presence of such anomalous women did not indicate a shift away from patriarchal values. Neither then should the presence of anomalous women who served in positions of leadership and responsibility in the early church to be taken as implying the wider norm of patriarchal values was abandoned.
The really interesting thing however is where the New Testament texts diverged from those of their Greco-Roman contemporaries. Greco-Roman writers almost universally argued that men and women have distinct natures, that women are by nature less able to control their emotions and less intellectually and morally capable. For this reason it was necessary that they be controlled by men. This type of reasoning seems to me thoroughly absent from the New Testament documents. Rather than insisting men and women (and slave and free, barbarian and non-barbarian for that matter also) have different natures, the New Testament declares we are all being conformed to a single nature, that of Christ. We therefore have the curious situation in which the gospel thoroughly undermines the basis for patriarchal expectations, yet the New Testament letters continue to ask women and men to observe those behavioural patterns.
Some argue on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 that the New Testaments provides alternate grounds for the subordination of women to men, that of an “order of creation”. While this is certainly one possible interpretation of these texts, the references to the creation narratives are so brief that it is difficult to say exactly what these texts are asserting when they appeal to the Adam and Eve story. Moreover, Christ’s challenge to the patriarchal family and the fact that created order reasoning is absent from the scriptures outside of the New Testament letters leads me to believe that the creation order argument is flawed.
I suspect that the grounds for the injunctions to men and women are much the same as those for the injunctions to slave and master. At the same time that the gospel undermined both patriarchal marriage structures and slave-master structures, it called believers to practice love and honour for one another. In a cultural context where husband held sway over wife and master held sway over slave love for the person in the position of power meant using their authority with gentleness and respect, and love for the person in a subordinate position meant subordinating themselves to the person in authority over them.
Over time the logic of the gospel has, thankfully, won out. When power is unevenly distributed in any relationship it inevitably gets abused, and there are simply way too many women who have been subject to physical, emotional and economic abuse at the hands of their husbands.
Please explain text instructing slaves to endure harsh treatment from their master. Is slavery God’s intended mode throughout history?
I have one response to this. Under these circumstances, why would any woman in the 21st Century EVER marry a man?
If your argument is that because of societal norms of ancient Israel or Ancient Greece, and because some random man who claimed he met Jesus seventy years after he died and decided he could speak for him (in case you have not guessed, I am not a big fan of Paul, at least as he is most often interpreted), that marriage today should be organized the same way, I am not seeing any benefit whatsoever for women.
We are no longer property. We are allowed to be educated, to engage in the world, to have a voice in politics and business. We have legal rights. Why in the world would we give that up for a hierarchical, patriarchal, second-class existence in which these things are dependent upon approval of our husbands? Thanks, but I don’t need to “speak through my husband” in public. I am perfectly capable and now legally allowed to speak for myself. And he would think it very odd if I asked him to.
I learned well from childhood example. Never will I EVER put myself in a situation where I am completely physically or financially dependent on a man. No woman should ever be that vulnerable. Nor is someone, just because he is male, automatically better or stronger, financially, emotionally, or morally. Women at the time were legally property with no rights or protections. The only protection they could get (if they were lucky) was to marry a man who would care enough to do so. We are no longer in such a situation, thank God!
Why would any woman today voluntarily put herself in the position you describe with your interpretations above?
I also have a question : exactly what “male” and “female” roles are you speaking of in the above?
Carole, it sounds like you have an unhealthy view of marriage in general, and of men in particular. The hope of Christian believers is that in marriage, two people can love each other and share mutual admiration and respect of each other’s unique wisdom, intellect and, yes, gender differences the wife and husband bring into the relationship. If you find a man who wishes to use these texts and this concept as a means to establish some kind of patriarchal authority to swing around in his marriage, you can bet he is not himself surrendered to the Lordship of Christ, considering himself a “slave to righteousness,” as Paul would consider him to be if he is in Christ (Rom. 6:18).
I am sorry if you have had a bad experience with men, and have not been honored, respected, admired, listened to, or were abused or treated unfairly by sinful men who claimed Christian faith but did not follow Jesus’ example.
I don’t think anyone defending here what the Scriptures teach about the ordering of Christian households and the role of husbands to be humble leaders would want any woman to enter into a relationship where she would be “second-class” or have no voice or rights. I don’t think you can conclude that is what Paul is teaching in these texts, either. Men who would want that in their marriage want something that the Bible does not permit, which is precisely what Paul’s instructions to husbands forbids repeatedly.
Thank you, Cameron. I truly do appreciate your response, although I disagree vehemently. The marriage described by the OP sounds horrific to me. I did not make those conclusions about marriage, the OP did. And if you look at the comments on this forum, several others echoed the sentiments. I was responding to that, and you are right. I do think that view of marriage is unhealthy. Fortunately, my view is different and not dictated by Paul.
The OP states that men should be the “authority,” that women should be “subject” to their husbands, but the reverse is not true. Thus, all authority is invested in the husband, and they are not accountable in any way to their wives. And he expands on that by saying women should not teach men or have any authority over them at all. Thus, women are given no power or authority within their own marriages or outside of them. They are at the mercy of their husband’s good will, with no recourse should he not live up to his “responsibilities.” In fact, the OP uses the words “one directional” authority. Again, I ask, and you never answered the question, what is the benefit to the wife in the scenario described in the 21st Century?
The fact is that my mother was told by a priest to “go try harder,” and then dismissed when she tried to get help. She was unable to get a credit card of her own. She was denied access to HER money, given to her by her father, without her husband’s permission. Until her father intervened, and told them to give it to her. Again, she needed a MAN’S permission to access HER money. She was denied housing after her divorce because she was a single parent, without a man to “provide.”
The fact is that had my mother not left him (despite the obstacles, and there were MANY, financial, practical, social, and legal. She is and always will be my hero), all of us would likely be dead.
The fact is that whoever controls the money (and the legal structure) has all of the power. And this means that many women even today are stuck in situations where they are financially, legally, and practically unable to leave abusive relationships. And many are stuck because the “Christianity” they have been taught tells them that divorce is wrong no matter what, and they are supposed to just “try harder.” Even on forums such as these, women are told that no matter WHAT their husband does, they are to submit, because it “might bring [their husband] to Christ.” It is appalling.
And, yes, many “Christians” are teaching and defending EXACTLY what you say they should not. The post I responded to advocates exactly that, and these attitudes are very easy to find on “complementerian” websites.
I thank God my mother was able to do what she did, and that she gave us that role model of strength. She taught us how to do for ourselves. She taught us how to NEVER allow ourselves to be treated, and that we can take care of ourselves.
And, personally, I do not believe you are ready for a relationship if you are not a complete person yourself, who can take care of yourself. Regardless of gender.
The fact is that these “gender differences” were used for centuries to LEGALLY make women non-citizens–often non-PEOPLE– or second-class citizens. To LEGALLY restrict women’s activities, rights, education, and employment. Women were put in jail or sent to insane asylums for wanting to vote! And even as of last year, WOMEN were saying that Hillary Clinton was not capable of being president, NOT because of who she was or her qualifications, but simply because she is a woman. In those words. And we STILL do not have an equal voice in business or politics. These attitudes have disastrous consequences in the real world.
Even today, doctors will not perform a tubal ligation in most cases if a woman is under a certain age, or if she has not had children, and even then, often if she she not had a certain number of children, and not without her husband’s permission. Because “you might change your mind.” Or “You might get divorced and remarried and what if HE wants more kids?” If you are not married, they will often refuse because, “What if you get married and HE wants children.” Notice, they completely ignore the woman’s wishes about her own body, and place the hypothetical wishes of even some hypothetical husband over hers. Does not matter if she never wants children– her husband’s possible wishes, even if he does not exist, take priority. Very common. Every woman experiences that attitude.
The same is not true of men seeking vasectomies. They are presumed to know their own mind and not need permission. In fact, they just did an article about men in the Hamptons who want to sleep around but not be chased by a one-night stand for child support, so vasectomies are becoming the fashion trend. Rarely are they asked if they have children, how many, and what if they get married and their WIFE wants kids. As if they owe it to them, regardless of their own wishes.
It was not until the mid-70s that married (and ONLY married) women were allowed birth control, and again, only with their husband’s permission. If you were not married, you were out of luck. My (married) flatmate was denied b/c by a doctor because “if you didn’t want children, you should not have gotten married.” Despite the fact that she had been told that getting pregnant could be dangerous for her, and she was using it for other physical reasons, as well. Again, she was placed in a position where she was made dependent on a man (her husband) to ensure that she did not get pregnant and possibly die. She was not considered capable of making decisions for herself.
This is what a patriarchal society looks like. Not a positive, in my book. A woman SHOULD NOT have to depend on a man for basic rights and protections.
The fact is that I now have exactly what you describe, with a man who sees me and treats me as his equal. Our relationship is as individuals, not prescribed roles based on gender. Gender simply is not a factor in how we interact, run our home, or make decisions. Nor should it be. We do not “need” each other, we want and CHOOSE each other.
Which is another question I have. I see all of these statements about gender roles and gender differences, and yet not ONE of them has actually described what those differences or roles are. And, I have looked extensively. So, what gender differences are you talking about? What, exactly, are these gender-based roles, aside from simply quoting Paul or Timothy? What should this “Christian complementary” marriage actually look like in the real world, in your opinion? I am looking for specifics.
This is a very serious question, because I have not seen it addressed anywhere. These are the questions I started searching for answers to in the first place, and have not found.
Aside from statements that a woman should “submit” (with never a real definition of the word), and the man should make the decisions (OCCASIONALLY, but not always, with the proviso that he should maybe ask her opinion and consider it), and that he should be the “leader” and be the initiator. And that she must make sure that she faithfully completes her “duties” at home, because her husband and children should be her only priority. And being a “helpmeet” to him, helping him reach his goals and being his biggest cheerleader, and give him confidence in his “leadership.” Still no definition really as to what “leadership” means aside from making the decisions.
Oh, and of course, even with the children, he makes the decisions and her role as “second in command” is to carry out and support them, even if they are wrong. The only occasional exception is if he asks her to do something immoral or something she believes violates her religious principles– but even then, we have to be careful, because we can’t have her using that too often as an excuse to “not submit.”
Because, basically, even if he’s wrong, that’s God’s will. And he’ll be the one held responsible by God. And maybe if there’s a problem (like addiction or abuse), she should ask the men at church to “hold him accountable.” So, again, she is dependent upon the good will of men for her life, livelihood, and safety, and has no autonomy or authority of her own to say to him, “No. I will not accept this.” These are the statements I have read from “Christians.”
The relationship you describe may seem idyllic to you (not to me), and may work in a Perfect world (although I still don’t get it), but this is the real world. With real people.
I will keep my separate bank account (along with the joint one– and he gets to keep his, too), my right to participate fully in society, and my right (although as recent events have shown, pretty much still does not exist in many cases) to legally protect myself, even from my husband if necessary.
I will keep my right to decide who is worthy of my trust, instead of having someone else choose that for me; and I will keep my right to decide whether or not I even WANT to be married, without the necessity for a “guardian,” legal or otherwise.
A right which I have seen several complemeterians deny, saying a woman MUST be a wife and mother, (and even that a “Godly man,” must be married and have children, unless he has religious calling, like being a priest–women do not even get that), that that is God’s plan. I don’t believe that for a second.
Much of what my mother experienced would be illegal today. It was not then. It was, in fact, the norm. I am not eager to return to those days.
Personally, I think marriages with prescribed roles and restrictions, and hierarchical, patriarchal structure, are not healthy. At all. It is not healthy, in my opinion, for anyone, male, female, or otherwise, to be that dependent on someone else. It is, in fact, dangerous.
Did you actually read the article. The point is acknowledging that hierarchical society existed and here are instructions to live as Christians within the accepted culture of the day, it is not promoting the accepted culture of the day as God’s will, but in fact, the Bible illustrates elsewhere that all are equal before God.
I’m no scholar but the Spirit in me said their interpretation and use in our age didn’t line up. Came here looking for info on submission and your comments solidified what the Spirit lead me to believe.
Thank you.
I don’t think that it will be enjoyed by anybody as it
was written or rather rewritten by .old misogynistic
men who were happy to live off women. Early scripture
reveals Jesus actually empowered women not
s ubjugated them. It is not interpreted correctly.
God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If you do not think he thought of future generations when The Book was written and inspired by him, then why read it? If you believe one part of the Bible you must believe it all and take it literally. I do not know how you have been taught on this subject but I think you are a little skewed on it. Submitting is following trustfully and therefore being submitted back to. Allowing the husband to be a leader in the family and respecting decisions he makes. Upsetting the balance is harmful to the relationship. I am no drone. I am a wife of a wonderful husband. I have my own personality and have not abandoned anything I have not wanted to ( such as immaturity.). If God is the same throught the ages than the Bible is literal about this. Let us look at the relationship between the slave and master as a work- boss relationship. Do you not have to submit to your boss? How would the balance be ruined if you did not? Wives do not lose themselves as they submit to their husbands but gain a relationship of trust. I trust what my husband decides is right and I will follow it. My children submit to us as children should. These days it is hard to come by with the new generation of kids ruling over their parents especially here in the United States.
Just my thoughts and experiences on the matter as a Young Christian.
Samantha, 25, Iowa.
HiSamantha
Thanks for taking the time to post a comment. Yes, God is unchanging but the particulars of his will for us are not.
first, the New Testament argues that the Law of Moses was given to guide the behaviour of God’s people up until the coming of Jesus and the Spirit, but we are now guided by the character of Jesus. This is why we feel free to eat shrimp, wear polyester clothing, etc, all of which are forbidden in the Law.
Second, our circumstances and cultures change. This means while the character of God remains constant, how we give expression to that in our relationships and communities will vary.
Take the idea that we should welcome each other with grace and respect. In biblical times men greeted each other with a kiss to the cheek, but in Australia, where I live, men usually greet one another with a handshake. So, do I fulfil the command to “greet each other with a brotherly kiss” by forcing a kiss on my fellow Australian male or by shaking his hand? To literally follow the command would be to miss entirely it’s intention.
So biblical commands are always a description of how people living in a particular time and place could express the character of God in the circumstances in which they found themselves. I believe we are called to do the same. In my opinion the commands around leadership and submission in marriage are like this. The circumstances of the new testament era were that men held great power over their wives. So Paul asks the question, how do men and women express the virtues of love, grace, generosity, etc in that context? The men do it by using their position to lovingly serve their wives and wives do it by graciously following the lead of their husbands. The underlying value, in other words, is not leadership and submission, but love, grace, and generosity.
Finally, as you raise the master-slave commands, let me ask how your assumption that all biblical commands are to be taken literally would have played out two centuries ago? Would you have opposed the granting of freedom to slaves, or argued that slaves should not have sought their freedom?
>So Paul asks the question
Paul asks no questions in this book. He gives commands from the Lord to be obeyed.
>The underlying value, in other words, is not leadership and submission, but love, grace, and generosity.
No, the underlying value is authority and submission. The husband-wife relationship is a sacred symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church. It can not be changed without altering the very foundations of Christianity.
Wow Christopher. Are you seriously equating one’s view of marriage with the gospel?
I don’t know if Christopher is equating one’s view of marriage with the gospel, but I certainly will! Look at Hosea: “The time will come when you will call me, ‘my husband’ instead of ‘my master’ is almost certainly a foreshadowing of our relationship to God through Christ. Throughout the old testament, God calls Israel his stubborn wife. And throughout the new testament, we the saints are referred to as “the bride of Christ”. How can you understand the gospel, that is, the good news of a restored relationship with God, if you can’t properly understand marriage, the single most-drawn comparison that God makes to said relationship? If men and women were supposed to be the same, not just equal in value, but the actual same, there would be nothing wrong with homosexuality, and we might see some God-approved homosexual relationships in the Bible. But we don’t. Instead, we see marriage defined by Jesus as a man and a woman, different beings, two becoming one, just as our savior comes together with us and makes us one with him. Marriage without man at the head is like Christianity without Christ as the head. It doesn’t make sense.
So Timothy, because marriage is used as a metaphor for our relationship with God that renders it an unalterable institution? On that logic we should never oppose slavery, for God as master and humankind as his servants is also a widely used metaphor. And while we’re at it there’s no room for democracy or republicanism either, for an even more widely used metaphor is of God as king.
Scott, I think you are hardworking and eager to know the truth in other to liberate others but the truth is not in you, and I don’t think you want to have the truth or be guided by the truth. Paul as inspired by God did not tell us things that will remain mysterious to us or use words we will struggle to understand. God doesn’t need any favour from us and he will tell us what he wills for us as it is or as he wants us to hear it. We don’t need to argue that. In every human society or even in the animal Kingdom there is always a leader and head for that matter. Lions, wolf’s, etc etc have a dominant male that puts the herds and pack together. Imagine a home where there’s no leader. Everyone takes decision and that is right, all members adhere to it. God!! There will be absolute chaos. Abraham was head of Sarah and even though certain decisions were his sole perogative he listened to Sarah and accepted Sarah’s ideas. He respected Sarah, loved her and placed her above everybody else in his household but Sarah called him lord. That is an example of the christian standards of authority. God doesn’t expect his appointed head to be a master or bully but to make decisions in times when necessary to keep the family in the line of God. The case of submission by wife and loving by husband in marriage is not a matter of debate or to make women inferior to men but to ensure sanity and peace. And automatically love will ensue. That a man will take control of the family by helping the wife to put the home in other. And who who doesn’t know these is a liar and the truth is not in him. Finally if your research is to enforce some kind of gender advocacy in favour of any new world order or concept of modernity or what I term,” darkened enlightenment of modernity in the 21st century ” then I’m sorry. God is God and his word to those who know him and hear his voice will not change and they will not disobey him. I conclude with 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Thanks Albert Martey from Ghana.
Based on what authority? His (unsubstantiated) claim that he met Jesus on a road decades after he was dead and that that somehow meant he condo speak for Jesus? No, thanks. I need a bit more than that.
And if I am not mistaken, Christianity had been around for a few decades (despite his public attempts to destroy it). Not seeing how HIS letters somehow become the “very foundations” of Christianity. And, frankly, if this is what my church taught (thankfully, it does not), I would not be a Christian.
And, as stated, if interpreted in the way you do, what reason would any 21st Century woman have for getting married?
No. Christopher, Jesus is Lord and Jesus never subjugated women. Would you advise your daughters to do this. My priest says that Paul’s words were misinterpreted. But I think it was written by some human being about his own understanding of circumstances he viewed
around him. However I think he was just a mysogynists man who worked with early Christian women and was happy to live off them economically and I advise you to view the YouTube video Jesus s female disciples. Also HIS mother is the true CHURCH
Wrong. Christopher,
I doubt A Loving Jesus would expect someone to answer to another human being like a relationship based upon slavery, dominance subservience. I can understand it is natural for men to choose to believe this as it is fitting to their agenda. Men generally are not as street wise as women so that has no basis to it. If you are in a relationship and you want to marry somebody if you RESPECT them then you wouldn’t ask them to accept the underdog role. If you respect someone then you won’t expect subservience from ! Anyway the CHURCH is Christ’s
Mother NOT a wife . Jesus wasn’t married.
So many men committed abuse using those MISINTERPRETED psssages.
In a society in which slavery was legal, Christian slaves were not to rise up and rebel against their masters, to escape from them, or to malinger or pilfer from them, but to serve them dutifully and cheerfully in good conscience.
Christian masters, whether slaveowners themselves or overseers, were to deal fairly with those under their authority.
Christian principles absorbed by the society led to the eventual abolition of chattel slavery. This spread over the world via the British Empire.
“I trust what my husband decides is right and I will follow it.” Every single time? No input or opinion of the wife is valid? So we are lesser beings and not equal in God’s image? We are equally in God’s image and equal in value. God created Adam in His image, put Adam to sleep and took half out and created Eve. Eve is equally created in God’s image. The two halves make a whole together not one over the other. Roles should not be confused with value.
Read more https://scottjhiggins.com/wives-submit-to-your-husbands/
C W M iller,
If it works for you but for an educated person not so. You must have self respect and if he loves you he won’t ask or expect subservience from you.
You must have self respect or your relationship will account for little because you must have self worth or if you don’t it can lead to potentially dangerous and even abusive situations for you. Have confidence in yourself and in your own worth or else
you will never command respect either your husband’s or society’s.
GooSJd luck
The Bible is God inspired and is for all generations, but it is not a literal guide for all generations. It does talk about slavery and directs slaves to obey their masters. this was very relevant when written and honoured God then, but of course, does not now. It does not say ‘boss’, it says ‘slaves’, because in that culture it was normal to have slaves. Paul is saying ‘dont rebel’, not saying ‘go and get a slave because this is God’s will’. Men were told never to cut their hair, women not to wear jewellery etc. That honoured God then but is not so relevant today. Healthy submission can be wonderful but the Bible does not always talk of healthy submission as this is what was normal then: women ‘speaking through their husbands’, ‘being silent’, ‘not leading’. the Bible uses this language because that was the cultural norm then, but it is not now and should not be enforced now. Enforcing it now upsets balances, causes oppression and can lead to some unhealthy situations.
Oh Jesus, that women should submit is not to say women should be slaves or inferior to their husbands or to be bullied by husbands. No!! the Bible also goes ahead to say that in return for the woman’s submission the man “must” love her. I don’t know what kind of love will be oppressive, abusive, autocratic, unfair, bullying and disrespectful. Love accepts each other’s ideas, support each other, teaches, respects adorable etc, so in a whole God even instructs the man to even go beyond being submissive to his wife by asking him to LOVE the wife. But the woman no matter your argument was made a weaker vessel out of a “single rib”of the WHOLE MAN. And no matter her academic pedigree and bravery will run to her husband when she sees a rat or wild gheko in the room. I wish to see a marriage flourishing where the woman thinks she’s always right, yells at the husband because the husband disagree with her opinions. Infact our century has seen and accepted most of these anti Bible philosophies than any other generation. But we have also seen the most overwhelming divorce ever on earth because we think we are now seeing and knowing better than God.
Albert
It is precisely this because love is either there or it isn’t. The attitudes of this country are we behind my
own country by about 50 years. You need to have respect and if you have you won’t have those archaic views. Albert respect your wife and then love her
But the women must submit to the husband in everything no matter how he treats her
God bless you Samantha, this was not revealed to you by men but by the Holy Spirit Himself. Jesus America still have Bible believing Christians. There can never be two captains authorising a ship. The will be ruin. One must be subject to the other just for the ship to reach its final destination in peace. Don’t be surprised the Bible has said. 2 Timothy 3:1-9. 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. God bless you dear. A bible believing husband will never bully a submissive wife. Rather love, respect and adore her whole heartedly and with passion.
Albert
I saw it done all the time but thankfully Jesus didn’t intend it that way. Women shouldn’t accept anything other than equality. If a relationship is not based on equality and then it isn’t a proper relationship If you respect somebody you won’t ask them to be a doormat or take a back seat. What if the woman is smarter?
These passages were misinterpreted because Mother Mary is the Church and it means the R.C. Church at that. Women generally have more common sense than men and they are generally more street savey.
An honourable man would NEVER expect that from a future partner anyway because that imba lance is an insult if you are marrying an educated empowered woman. These passages men cling to to because they feel threatened as some have fragile egos so they have to try to subjugate a partner to give themselves significant.
These passages were written by men and St. Paul on the basis eat he saw where and in a certain context.
It was also subject to dubious and unclear translations from three differing languages by a man who claims to be a reformed character whose role was actually to torture and murder Christians plus he actually worked with these females and was happy to take financial support from them .
Ladies if you endorse being treated like a doormat and then you do get mistreated you invited it you respect
You must command respect
I saw spousal abuse carried it using this passage as an endorsement. WaKen up women and where is your self worth??????
“Women generally have more common sense than men and they are generally more street savey.”
Was it April Fool’s Day when you wrote this?
Essentially, the way the relationship works is if the wife is dominated by the husband. What grown woman in her right mind would want to enter into such a restrictive relationship — and have no real way out except through fornication, abandonment, or domestic violence? And some in the church believe wives are to supposed to take an awful lot of crap from their husbands without a word — including domestic violence.
People, both male and female in the church use certain scriptures as a means of subjugating Christian wives. Because the Feminist movement has entered the church, the submission of the wife has become all-consuming and is the prime directive for the marriage — be a “keeper at home” and shut up. She’s playing a role — she’s a bit player and the husband is the main attraction — the only thing I don’t know is where she picks up her daily script.
I always thought submission was abuse to be honest. If a wife has dreams, desires, and goals, her husband should have no right to tell her no. If she wants to work or go to college or not have children that is her right. The Bible really doesn’t care about human rights though. As it advocates putting up with being an abused slave. So of course it advocates marital abuse in marriage calling it ‘submission’. But lots of women like to be treated that way. Where their dreams, desires, and goals a bashed. It’s like some maledom fetish or something. Or they fear God will send them to hell for eternity for not being her husbands doormat. Or they feel inferior. Or they don’t know they are being abused. Their overlord husband’s may not even realize he’s being abusive.
I suppose children should not submit to their parents either… I have respect for your opinions. Thanks for sharing.
Children should not submit to their parents either?
False equivalence. Children are still completely dependent on their parents, and all legal, social and financial obligations that the child incurs becomes the debt of its parents.
The same is not true of wives. It *was* true of wives at the time that the Scripture was written in but it is not today.
Yeah for real..comparing children to an adult EQUALLY created in God’s image! I will not submit to a man who does not submit to God in Spirit and in Truth AND only IN that role will I submit as yield. But if God didn’t want women to have a mind of their own He wouldn’t have given them a mind!
Are you telling us that those passages you mentioned were only to be followed by the first century Christians? It is written that God’s word is settled in heaven forever. His word will never change forever. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Again, there is hierarchy among the angels in heaven. God is not an author of confusion.
What was said was that wives and husbands were to respect and love each other, and always keep the orher’s best interest in mind. The details were examples of how to do that in the society in which they lived at the time. The ways in which we show each other love and respect or work for each other’s best interests are different in a society that has changed drastically in the last thousand years.
Precisely that Augustus and any man who would expect a woman to be treated in an infantile manner like she is subhuman does not deserve any woman. How can you ask this of a person if you’re are dealing with an intelligent educated person?????? Or do you just marry an idiot
These passages are confused in translation over several differing languages. In truth they are not the words of a icing
Jesus but rather a bunch male misogynistic translators who twisted Christs true words to fit their own agendas.
Men might like the idea of being bosses but often/sometimes they don’t necessary make good ones.
If somebody is or isn’t good in leadership should not necessarily be based entirely upon body parts you are born into at birth but on given abilities. God gave women talents like men and he expects us ALL to use them
If you submit that ‘It’s high time then we got rid of the language of male headship and female submission altogether’, what would you now say of the relationship of Christ and the church? Bear in mind that the relationship of husband and wife is likened to that of Christ and the church.What is certain is that Christ remains the head of the church, the bride, forever.
Hi Augustus,
As I read it, Scripture is always an applied word, ie God’s word applied to concrete historical settings. This means we need to separate he underlying values from their cultural application. We then aply the values afresh into our context.
my argument is that the underlying value of the biblical household codes is not authority relations but how to express virtues such as love and honour. in a patriarchal social setting such as that of the NT era this was done in accord with the patriarchal social structures of the time.
And no, it doesn’t mean getting rid of the relationship between christ and the church, anymore than being a republican means i can no longer speak of God as king, or getting rid of slavery means abandoning the image of myself as a slave of christ.
>anymore than being a republican means i can no longer speak of God as king
When you reject God’s viceroy, the monarch, you reject the kingship of God.
>or getting rid of slavery means abandoning the image of myself as a slave of christ.
One can be a slave without owning a slave.
In the USSR women’s “equality” meant they got the formerly men’s only jobs: heavy construction, roadbuilding (and not just directing traffic, like here in the US), the work that most men who did them didn’t like but did because the jobs were available.
Truth because then His Word COULDN’T be the SAME yesterday, today, and forever. We don’t drive the cars that were made 100 yrs ago! A good advice book or Christian book is not going to apply the same today as it did to everyone or 20 yrs ago, but many principles that are presented in such texts are still valid. How much more the bible? Men have free-will to be tyrants? And women don’t have free-will to stand up for themselves as creatures made in God’s image who have value and who God EQUALLY loves. This kind of patriarchal mandate sounds more muslim than Christian! That is not my God! I know my God is the God who lifted me out of the muck and mire of sin for HIS Glory; not carnal man’s!
Its dangerous to believe that the truth in Gods word is relative to our culture or to anything else. Truth, by definition, is absolute. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter which culture it’s applied in. Even if you feel uncomfortable about it, or if you are confused by it. That being said, we know that our Father is good and so his commands are also good and life-giving. They do not bring bondage as you have portrayed this command as doing for woman. But if you read the scripture and truly understand what it says you would see that Christ has built the structure of a family such that all members might experience freedom. Its our misunderstanding and consequent misapplication of the truth that distorts this scripture into something that produces bondage. Proper understanding and application of Gods Truth will always lead to blessing and life. Whether you live in Australia or Ephasus.
Jacob, the truth in God’s word is, in my opinion, not relative to culture but applied to culture and historical particulars. This is why widows are encouraged to marry in 1 Timothy but discouraged from marriage in 1 Corinthians and why women are commanded to cover their heads in 1 Corinthians 11, to give jst two examples.
The “cover head” instruction” in English translation is not about head coverings & NO head coverings at all .
The greek shows up in the Instruction to men as well. For women it was unkempt falling down hair as used by prophetesses of the local pagan deities & for men it related to cross dressing immitating the effeminate with falling down hair. ie…long tresses as if a woman. …..
The behaviour of these new believers had to be transformed from prophesy in a pagan manner for the women or acting transgender homosexual within the assembly of believers for men.
Look at the cult activity of the area the correction letter was given to. The learning in silence for women is another twist away from truth & disempowering women. These newbie former pagan women were teaching pagan eons of false gods & a false creation story creating Havoc & controversy with those who already knew the Truth ..Paul shut them down to learn quietly as a student would. Again look at the Greek.
Paul gave a short TRUE creation account with the gospel about the child to come who would save us. He also said it is good to want to teach the Law but you NEED to KNOW it first.. Blessings
Hi F Jay,
The language regarding head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 is open to interpretation. Some scholars see it as referencing some type of clothing; others see it as referencing hairstyles. The key question is, as you point out, the significance of the practise, which is difficult to establish with any certainty. This is not surprising given we’re talking about determining the significance of particular hairstyles/head coverings in a particular Christian congregation (or congregations) in Corinth somewhere in the mid first century. The understanding you suggest is possible, but is only one of a number of plausible explanations. You assert it with a degree of specificity and certainty that is inconsistent with our access to the congregation and the culture. For example, it is possible that there had been previous exchange between Paul and the Corinthians in which a distinctive theology of head coverings/hair styles was developed that is now inaccessible to us. The possibilities are almost endless. It seems to me that our reading of Scripture would be much enhanced if we simply admitted that in many cases we simply don’t know enough to be certain about a given reading of Scripture.
I would just like to say that there is a difference between “God’s truth” and someone’s “interpretation of the Bible.” I have a lot of questions about this issue, but I’m inclined to say that the Bible doesn’t give us a guidebook on hermeneutics. If we decide to interpret everything literally and as binding on a modern-day context, we’ve made extra-Biblical hermeneutical moves based on logic and reason. Same goes for any other method of interpretation.
My question for Scott is: If there is something inherently wrong with the system of Male headship in a marriage (it seems you’ve implied that there’s something wrong, since you say that in this system a wife must “abandon her own identity”), then why doesn’t Paul liberate Christians from the system altogether? If Christianity admits that we are all equal in Christ, why submit to a societal convention that seems to militate against this truth?
Hi Noel,
yes I believe there is something seriously wrong with the system of male headship in marriage, just as I believe there is something seriously wrong with masters owning slaves. Why doesn’t Paul liberate Christians from the system altogether? I cannot really do anything but speculate about that, but simply note that he doesn’t. He chooses to infuse slavery and patriarchy with love rather than declaring them wrong. But I believe we should treat his statements about patriarchy the same way we treat his master-slave statements,
We need a like button
Galatians 3:26-28 ” 26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Oh what a joy it is to see someone who views this scripture the way I have come to understand it. I have felt so alone in my views. Being that you are a man makes me even happier.
One love.
Hahahaaa Ada Abraham’s seed indeed. Sarah was Abraham’s wife who submitted to him even as her Lord. Like the saducees, they asked who will marry a wife given to many brothers in the new life when they resurrected just to justify that there was no resurrection. But Jesus answered ” you are wrong, because you know not the scripture or the power of God. for in the resurrection, they do not marry or are given in marriage”. Matt 22:23-30. Being in Christ is spiritual and there’s no marriage. We are all one spiritually in Christ Jesus. No slave, no free man, no male or female. Yes but physically you are a woman and your husband is man. When you first accept Christ you are pacified by his blood spiritually, Christ puts on us a new robe which we do not see. But physically what we are wearing doesn’t change. Man and woman will not change as long as we remain mortals in this world and marriage will go on. Don’t be confused sister.
I do not believe we can say submitting and leading are not applicable but I do believe there is a lot of misinformation about it. For one thing the idea that leading means the husband has final say. This is an idea that has be regurgitated for decades and continues to be accepted although it has no basis in truth. A husband is to provide, protect and lead his family spiritually. The wife is to support him in these efforts. A husband who is loving sacrificially (dying to self) will never insist upon having his own way(final say) the goal in marriage is unity(oneness) that cannot be achieved when one always insist upon selfishly having their own way. I know many make the claim that well he must make decisions unselfishly but we must not forget that the husband is not God and is not perfect nor all knowing. That is way God created a comparable companion(helper). A husband should lead in the effort to finding a mutually acceptable and Godly solution. When he insist upon his own way (final say) oneness or unity has failed. A husband putting his wife first(loving sacrificially) and a wife submitting(putting husband first) is a beautiful relationship. There is no room for selfishness nor Lording it over one another.
Well said.
Basic Bible philosophy is a product of Bronze Age thought. Consequently, it is almost exclusively patriarchal. Of the almost three dozen women mentioned in the Bible, perhaps only Esther could be said to play a prominant role.
From Genesis through Ephesians, women primarily exist to serve – or, in some instances, service men. Even rape of women is permissible under some circumstances. Spoils of war is a good example in this regard.
Women in Bible times usually married at a young age. Mary, the mother of Jesus, may have been either in her late preteens or early teens when she was pregnant. If true, this would have made her barely middle age when Jesus was crucified.
Even in the early 21st century, it is not unheard of for girls in their tweens to still get spanked by her moms! It is also a time in a girl’s life when today’s romantic infatuation becomes tomorrow’s discard. As parents of tween daughters know, maturity most certainly is not their strong suit!
These days, things are a little different than they were back when the Bible was written. Beginning the the 18th century, British law began discouraging teenage marriages. Although by no means uniformly applied in Britain or its colonies, it nonetheless signaled a change of attitude.
Throughout the 20th century, woman typically entered into first marriages in their early to mid 20s. By the early 21st century, that age had climbed to a little past the mid 20s. Along the way, especially beginning in the mid 20th century, women began acquiring more education and work experience outside the home.
Since obtaining more education, women have acquired a distaste for marriage. In the early 21st century, American women are more inclined to cohabitate or remain single than they are to marry. Wives are also more likely to file for divorce than are husbands.
As presently constructed, female/male relationships are highly unstable. This has produced some questionable ripple effects in society. Among them are some notoriously undesirable outcomes for children raised by single mothers.
As always, the future of male/female relationships lies not with the current generation of parents, but with future generations. It also depends on whether or not the legal framework changes.
A change of regime, perhaps precipitated by collapse of the present governmental paradigm, could not only wipe the slate of all laws, but also significantly alter opportunities available to women. This happened in Russia a quarter century ago.
Prior to collapse of the Soviet Union, women enjoyed the same rights as their male counterparts. Today’s Russian woman is clearly a second class citizen. Both legally and economically, opportunities for women are greatly diminished when compared to the status of their grandmothers’ generation.
Any significant change in governance might also be accompanied by a reevaluation of biblical texts. This also might either enhance or reduce the status of women.
Titus 2:
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
The children are to learn submission and obedience from the mother and authority from the father. Look around you for absolute proof in countless decades of failure and blaspheme of the Word of GOD in testing theories. Ephesians 5:6 “Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of GOD upon the children of disobedience. “
Control, structure and authority are required by HIS plan. Romans and Hebrews 13 both speak of such; otherwise look to Matthew 7:20-23 for the results, especially the “DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS” part.
The Greek word hupakouo describes the same obedience for children to parents in Ephesians 6:1 and for the wife to her husband in 1 Peter 3:6.
Maybe we should just stick to GOD’s Plan. Ephesians 2:10 “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” We walk and grow when our trust is placed in HIM; Hebrews 12.
I think HE is capable of protecting HIS Word.
Again: Ephesians 5:23-24 “For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
Whatever definition or derivation of head or kephale you may choose; you had better remember Christ has the same referential authority. Are you going to put HIM in your sandbox also?
Even today in our Enlightened era women’s “rights” depend entirely upon the good graces of men. Feminists rely on the support of men for every privilege they have obtained.
Women are not in the position of American Blacks. Women, adult women, constitute a majority. Blacks are about 10% of the population. Blacks never have had dominance at the polls and never will even if they all registered to vote, all voted, and all voted in unity, even on ethnic related matters.
Relatively few women vote and those who do vote are hardly unified even on gender related matters.
U know there are women in the black race lol
Do you feel threatened by women’s equality then? Inadequate men usually are!????
The “kingdoms” (regimes) of this world are separated and distinct from the kingdom of God. The laws of Christ for His people cannot be applied to the unbelievers and rebels. They will be held to account for their rejection of the gospel of Christ.
Those who sinned in ignorance will be “beaten with few stripes, while those who sinned wilfully, those who knew right but did not, will be “beaten with many stripes.”
Marx….Jesus is about to come back ….FACT …. then your so called “society’s progress” will stop and God’s Word will be the only relevant thing on your mind….so repent… if you will not then enjoy for your teachings they are about disappear.
And in the new world to come gender, ethnic, and other issues will be left behind.
The solution is easy don’t marry. I really don’t know why most Christian women would even consider marriage. Far better to remain single than to enter into a humiliating Christian marriage. Full of teachings like final say (ie he always gets his way)obey (like you are a dog). Sure they can say even Jesus had to submit, like that is even a comparable comparison. Sure Jesus submitted to a sinless flawless God.
Most husband are very far removed from sinless and flawless. To enter into a Christian marriage as a woman is to be subject to a selfish self serving human being. It is to be regarded as a man’s servant. His inferior. They can say you are equal all they want, but saying you are equal and yet subordinate is just a dishonest thing to say.
I must note that I am married(30 years so far) we submit to one another. He does not regard what is important to me as less important than what he wants. He would never say well we don’t agree so we will have to do it my way(final say). I would not have married him if he was the typical self serving, selfish pig of a Christian husband. If we don’t agree about something, we discuss it until we reach something we can agree upon. This way has been working for over 30 years. I genuinely feel pity for the women who are married to selfish final say pigs.
I am a Christian but this is one of the reasons I may never get over my resentment towards God. Possibly never enter heaven because I have troubles loving and respecting a God like this. It may be that I won’t enter heaven, because I cannot reconcile the picture of humiliation and degradation of women with a fair, just and good God.
I cringe every time I know our preacher is going to preach about women and wives. It feels like being publicly stripped naked and humiliated as I have to sit through the sermons. It makes me feel shame for being unfortunate enough to be born a woman. I hope my children do not have any daughters. It is one thing to be shamed for things you’ve actually done but quite another for what you were born and had no power over.
I asked my husband how he would feel if the shoes were on the other foot. How he would feel if he had to endure all of the degradation that Christian women go through, and he admitted he would not like it at all. To be fair to my husband, my problem has never been with him. It is with the humiliating biblical teachings. While I know it is true that God as creator can treat us however he chooses, it is hard to love someone who does this. It is hard to feel loved and honored when the verses that come from him denigrated and humiliate. Yeah, I know you will say Christian women are elevated above all others by God. Is that really saying much. Sure we can contrast it to Muslim and we are to be grateful because we aren’t treated quite as badly as some do?
How would you men like to be told you have to obey/submit to another very obviously flawed person? I remember being a girl in school already aware of all the awful bible verses and contemplating them as I watched boys make farting noises in their armpits. Thinking about these verses as boys crept up behind us and popped our bra straps. Thought of these verses as they had their belching contest and their arm wresting matches. I could go on all day listing the nonsense. I could go into the fact that more men than women are in prison, etc. , etc.
I know we are reminded that it isn’t because they deserve it, it’s because God deemed it to be so. But why would an all knowing God set things up so unfairly? It makes it really hard to love and respect a God who set up a tyrannical abusive situation giving complete to one over the other merely based upon the anatomist they were lucky enough to be born with. Yes, I know as creator He can do whatever He feels like and it doesn’t have to be fair and just according to most. It is fair and just because He says it, doesn’t matter whether it seems that way to women or not.
June I know how you feel. As a woman I spent most of my life resenting God for making me a woman and resenting the bible for degrading women (ever noticed that just about every woman in the bible is a whore and every man is a man of God, I mean seriously you can count the number of Godly women on one hand). The God in the bible often sounds like you typical sexist male using religion to keep women “in their place”. I started quetioning whether the words written in the bible are indeed the words of God (Arent the words of God suppose to bring joy, love and peace not resentment and bitterness). So while feeling very detached from God I came across the book “a conversation with God” and it totally changed my view of God and life as a whole. I couldnt help but fall hopelessly inlove with this new view of God, everything else just became meaningless. I realised I did not understand who God is ( I probably will never fully understand who God is) … Female and Male roles in a marriage, you think the God of the universe cares about such petty human things? I feel like I have wasted time resenting God over something so meaningless in life as a whole. I have decided to experience God in my own way and my own life, not in the lives and times of people who lived thousand of years ago.
June, thank you so very much for expressing your feelings so openly and honestly! Your post sounds like something I would have written. I too have trouble dealing with sermons discussing the role of women and wives and also struggle with loving a God that would doom us to a life of subordination based solely on the fact that we were born women instead of men. It’s comforting to know there is someone out there that is struggling with the same things I am.
One thing I always wondered (I left Christianity a long time ago and I now follow Sikhism where women and men are treat equally). But something always struck me odd:
Christianity does not believe in reincarnation. Everyone is once born.
In Gods eyes we are all equal
So if a soul has only one life, how does God choose who gets to be born into a privileged position (as a male) or in the miserable position of perpetual slavery that is female? (or Master vs Slave etc) At least Eastern religions explain it by karmic punishment. A soul is born as a female for past karmic punishment and so that is why she is born into subjugation while being born human male means you did good in past life. But since Christianity does not believe in reincarnation, then what gives one soul privilege over another, to be in authority over the other?? Simply because they were lucky enough to be born as an XY?
If I had two students and said okay the one with the blue shirt gets to be in charge and the one with the red shirt has to ‘obey’ simply because of something transient like the colour of their shirts. Anyone sane would think that was unfair. Especially if both students this was their first outing. Neither one has any experience. Since God considers all souls equal then I find it hard to imagine our Creator (neither male or female) would intentionally relegate some to the misery of subjugation to others. This leads me to believe that these positions of authority are MAN MADE. Maybe God puts us here but doesn’t interfere as much as we think. Maybe this article is correct, that back in the day when women were seen as chattles, the Bible gave instructions how to live harmoniously within this restrictive life and this is no more applicable. (sorry guys, but WANTING someone to obey you is just creepy and shows nothing but Ego).
Also, ANY relationship involving sex, can not have a power dynamic where one is in power over the other. When we see a boss sleeping with an employee… we automatically think one of two things: The employee is doing it for gains (promotions etc) OR the boss is taking advantage of the employee (if you don’t do this I wont give you that promotion etc). Either way it’s using sex as a means of manipulation. Thats why as humans we automatically think this is wrong!! In a marriage it’s no different!! I knew a woman trapped in this restrictive Christian extremism version of marriage and her husband wanted to ejaculate in her mouth. The thought made her almost puke and when she tried it once, she did. But he kept demanding and holding that obey me thing over her. She finally started using that as a bargaining chip : Okay I’ll submit and do this if you take the family to this theme park that you’ve been denying us that the kids really want to go to and they both passed with high grades. Sex became something for her to use to get what she wanted. It’s not her fault. She was forced into the subjugated role. What other means did she have? Is the marriage only for the benefit of the men to enjoy?? The fault is the power dynamic system. You can’t use it in a relationship that is supposed to be based on mutual love. It will ALWAYS come to this because it’s human nature.
Women were not wired to be the submissive robots that men would like them to be. If it that were truly Gods plan, then women would have been born without a brain or consciousness or free will.
In any case I am so glad I left Christianity!!!
What you are teaching here is a doctrine of devils! You are undermining the Word of God and teaching rebellion against God!!!
You are a Bible-ignorant Commie Liberal. Go live in the all-one-level society in North Korea.
Very interesting discussion! I am of the opinion that the Bible does not teach egalitarianism. I think the Bible provides a clear social structure, but which seems to have been more applicable then than now. The modern society clearly is headed towards equal rights and opportunities for both sexes, which hardly can co-exist with the structure given in the Bible. It must be a dilemma for many believers. Clearly, many modern empowered women do not subscribe to the dictates of the codes advocated for in the Scriptures! Just that it is difficult for the Church to admit so!
That was a very liberal misuse of the text.
In other words you put modern culture is above God’s will. That’s plainly wrong. The God is what should define the culture, doing it the other way around is the mockery of Christianity.
The Bible gives two very concrete examples – Sodom and Gomorrah. Their culture was modern for their time for the place.
There is nothing to misunderstand about “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
“In everything” has very clear meaning.
Wow must be nice to be born male then huh? Thank goodness I want born in a female body! That would be hell! Forget hell after death! Biblical hierarchies marriage is hell on earth for women! Seriously can you imagine having to be subject to your spouse in everything? Thank goodness I’m a man and I can be the one in charge! I feel for my poor wife though not being able to have a will of her own once I marry her! Poor Christian women are essentially slaves! How does God choose who gets to be born in the more desired and privileged position as a male? Does he just throw dice or something and then laugh when a soul gets consigned to subjugation as a female? lol
Finally I read something that makes sense to me and does not make women feel like second class citizens. There are other parts of the bible where it is important to understand the context at the time in order to make sense of the passage. Why has this one area about male patriarchy continued and context ignored? It leaves me question some of the intentions of the male preachers. Many men like control and power. This can be a good thing in certain situations – but not in marriages.
Romans 8:7
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
You cannot submit to God’s word because you love self more than Jesus. You walk in the flesh and not in the Spirit. The Bible is very clear about the roles of husband and wife. A lost world wants to tell God how marriage best functions, really? God’s words are eternal. These are NT instructions for the Church. They are not suggestions. God who is all knowing, created the institution of marriage and only He can define it.
John that is an incredibly judgemental comment that completely ignores the history of believers grappling with how we faithfully apply the teaching of Scripture to life today.
Then I guess it is a good thing women have a choice now, and do not have to get (or stay, when there is abuse) married anymore. Cause, again, in the 21st Century, I am not seeing the upside for women of this kind of “relationship.” Can you tell me what that would be?
I read your posting with interest as I am seeking relevance and guidance with my own marriage, one where I did follow the black and white rules of the bible. I moved to the US, gave up all I had and became “one” with my husband’s life and his daughters.. He called all the shots, he was the sole decision maker, I was not allowed children by him, and I lost a part of myself because he lived without recreation or time off. After 16 years he had an affair that went on and off for 2 years, and I stuck by him believing God wanted and expected me to as a Christian wife. However I now find myself void of feeling for anything and struggling to remember my love for him. Is God requiring me to just stay the obedient wife, submissive to his daily need for sex, and never having a say in retirement or how life will be in the future. Now there’s some practical application that may challenge both your theories!
Hi Sally,
Thanks for your comment. I am very sorry to hear of your situation. I am not able to tell you what God requires nor to counsel you on what you should do, but would suggest that you do not need to accept your husband’s behaviour nor to submit to his every desire. I would encourage you to seek counselling from a qualified therapist as to the best way forward for you.
Prayers and blessings
Scott
[The last sentence of this reply was altered 30/11/2022 and two comments following it deleted.]
Great post! Have nice day ! 🙂 zuqit
It takes a lot of verbal gymnastics to challenge the New Testament and still call the teaching Christian. To suggest that God taught one thing 2000 years ago but today he has changed his mind to conform with human trends sounds like heresy to me.
There is no point drawing comparisons between monarchy and slavery with “patriarchy”. The former are human-made institutions whereas marriage and parenthood are God-made institutions. Whereas the divine teachings within the human-made institutions seek to alleviate oppression, the divine teachings within the divine-made institutions seek to perfect those institutions.
Just as the serpent deceived Eve who went on to trick her husband, today feminism deceives women who go on to trick their husbands. Feminism is the enemy of the the Family. The enemy of the Family is the enemy of Christianity, which teaches that God himself is a Family – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Hi Don,
1. I am not challenging the New Testament but a common and, I believe,, flawed interpretation/application of it.
2. If you think feminism is the enemy of the family you should spend some time studying history and travelling to traditional societies. The history of marriage includes the sad story of men who dominate, beat and abuse their wives and of women being excluded from public life. It was not the church that changed this. It was feminism.
Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,[b] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths….Eve did not trick Adam, she handed him the fruit and he ate it…when GOD confronted Adam about this he replied with ” The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Adam blamed GOD!!!!
I don’t believe that Eve “tricked” Adam. I believe Adam willingly took a bite of that apple. I think there must have been something about that tree and/or its fruit that distinguished it from all others — so there was no excuse for Adam or Eve.
As far as feminism being the enemy of the family, I’ll say this: Whomever you marginalize in a society and treat with anything other than respect or goodwill, will eventually turn on you in order to remove themselves from under your foot. I don’t understand why people don’t get that. Ephesians 5:28: “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” The way the marriage relationship appears to be taught in many churches, you’d think that the only scripture in the New Testament is “wives submit to your husbands in everything.”
I also do not agree with the author of this article if I understand it correctly. If I’m not mistaken, someone commented that we should take everything in the bible literally. I don’t think that everything is literal; some things are metaphorical. But the passages that imply instruction, should be taken literally — but with understanding — it doesn’t change to fit the times. To me that means one should determine if they should marry.
Love seems to be what is lacking in some Christian marriages — some men appear only interested in exercising authority over their wives — it feeds their flesh, and becomes a relationship that has nothing to do with the love of Christ for His Church. Some of the responses here have the “letter of the law” feel to it and their marriages probably reflect that.
Nobody flourishes under a dictatorship but the dictator.
It follows from your cultural argument that we would change our tune if we lived in a society that was not egaltitarian. If, for example, we lived in a society in which women or men were treated as animals by their spouses your train of thought would cause us to follow that societal norm rather than the Bibliccal model of Christ and his Church. In fact the bible says clearly “DO NOT be conformed to the standards of this world’ . Neither western egalitarianism so called nor Greek or First century Jewish Culure should inform Christian thinking, Rather we are to put on Christ. Human marriage and relationships in the church are to point to a union of divine and human love so wonderful that Paul calls it a profound mystery. What a calling for Husband and wife. ‘If I could love my wife the way that christ loves me no happier couple their would be. ‘
Hi David, my argument is not that we do whatever our society demands, but rather the opposite, that we seek to infuse our relationships with love, grace and generosity and that we also allow the shape of our institutions to move towards the just trajectory of the gospel.
I was previously Christian, and left because I had difficulty comprehending how people could believe a text written so long ago while analysing the specific verbage and rejecting the contextual nuances. You’re all free to believe whatever of course, I don’t necessarily condemn Christianity, but a little understanding of the context would be very much appreciated.
I really enjoyed this. Thank you very much for writing it.
Hello!
While I don’t know whether or not to agree with you concerning this, it has been a step in my walk to figure out this situation.
I am young, and I have been a Christian my entire life. God made me a strong woman- a bold woman, even.
And then I fell on this part of the scripture, and I can’t help but feel worthless and horrible. Constantly.
Because I was born a certain gender. Because of things outside of my control.
I have read many of the comments, and many men have been defending the idea that women are lesser than men. Some even put it in the cultural context they say it shouldn’t be in.
They say it’s that the husband has the last say. But that’s not what submit meant when Paul wrote it.
The church doesn’t have any say in what the rules are, so that would mean neither does the wife have say in her household.
Does a loving God really want women to be in pain? No. No I can’t believe that and it’s the love of God that keeps me from feeling like that is correct.
There has to be something wrong with how we interpret this verse.
Hi Samantha, the bible is full of stories of bold and strong women – Deborah, Esther, Naomi, Mary, the female disciples of Jesus, the publicly prominent women and female leaders we get just a glimpse of in the closing chapters of some of Paul’s letters. I agree with you that readings of Scripture that fall short of this and disempower women ought to be found wanting.
Jesus believes in (and quotes frequently) a Genesis-derived model of marriage where the wife submits to her husband. See Matthew 19:8 and Genesis 3:16. Jesus believes that the “old testament” is the word of god. See Matthew 4:4. Additionally, Jesus’s description of his own origin contradicts the idea that “biblical” marriage or submission was merely cultural: Jesus claims that he and his teaching existed even before Abraham was created. See John 8:58.
It is incorrect to say that Paul’s concept of “submission” is purely cultural when in fact his concept is simply borrowed from Jesus. Paul’s ideas for marriage are also rooted in Genesis, much like Jesus’s teaching. This is in fact the main goal of the Paul’s epistles: to explicate the teaching’s of Jesus as closely as possible.
If you are a Christian, there is no escaping this “genesis model” of marriage: husbands and wives are called to spiritual roles of leadership and submission in order to glorify god. This is a reiterated message in the bible which requires study, analysis, and context.
Hi Nelson, thanks for taking time to comment. Jesus certainly appeals to Genesis to show that marriage is instituted by God but I can see nothing in the Gospels that suggests Jesus interpreted the creation stories to say that husbands were to lead and wives to follow.
Then read Matthew 18:9. When Jesus says “it was not this way in the beginning” he is not merely “interpreting creation stories” he is saying genesis is the word of God. (Including genesis 3:16)
Hi David, In Matthew 18 Jesus is speaking about divorce and remarriage. The text has nothing to say to the roles wives and husbands might or might not fulfil in marriage.
You are ignoring the specific verse that I quoted.
Hi David, apologies if I have misunderstood you. Let me try again.
As I read your comment you are saying that because Jesu endorses the creation accounts as the word of God that everything in them must be considered the word of the Lord and therefore binding on every generation, including the Lord’s statement that a husband will rule over a wife.
I heartily agree that Jesus considered the creation stories to be the word of God but I think it is impossible to claim that this means we simply obey everything the text says. We can’t escape the fact that every text in the Bible requires us to engage in an act of interpretation. For example the “curses” of Genesis 3 are not pronounced on every woman and every man, but on Eve and Adam. Genesis 12:1-3 is the word of the Lord to Abram to leave his country and go to another, yet I doubt you argue this is God’s command to every man today. God told Moses to confront Pharaoh but I doubt you understand this as a command to every man to follow.
To get to the conclusion that the curses in Genesis 3 are on humankind, not simply the characters in the Garden story, you have to make arguments that are not inherent in the text. You have to interpret the text.
This means you make imaginative leaps, you weigh up what this text says in light of what is said elsewhere in the Bible, and that you place this verse in the context of the larger story that unfolds within Scripture and the overarching themes it develops.
Hi Scott – hope you are well, and thank you for continuing this discussion with me and for maintaining respectfulness, which is a rarity these days.
Regarding “the curses of Genesis 3,” from what I read: pain in labor, toil in farming, God is describing the “fallen nature” of our bodies and planet, so I would see these as universal curses, not just for Adam and Eve. I don’t think one needs to “interpret” this particular text because it is obvious to anyone that women suffer greatly during childbirth and that great labor goes into agriculture.
Would I regard God’s command to Abram as universal? Why would I when it is directed at Abram?
I wouldn’t say that our goal, or my goal, is to universally “obey the bible.” My concern is with obeying Jesus because his commands lead to eternal life. Jesus makes two statements in particular which concern knowledge of the old testament:
In Matthew 5:17: “Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Most interestingly, Jesus also teaches that certain laws in the old testament are no longer necessary such as “food laws” or “cleanliness laws.”
Another statement concerning interpretation is in John 14 & 16: “But I tell you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And when He comes, He will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:” “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
In other words, the process of determining what laws stay and go, according to Jesus, rests with 3 things: Jesus’s own words, the Holy Spirit, and the Apostles.
I say apostles because of Matthew 16: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
I feel this verse is also significant and often ignored; in it Jesus is giving incredible authority to Peter and the other apostles to build and direct the Church (along with its rules and ordinances).
Based upon Jesus’s words in the four gospels, he expects his disciples to continue to study the comprehensive word of God, that the Holy Spirit will continue to reveal it’s meaning, remind followers of the word, and convict the world according to Sin (which also presumes a knowledge of what Sin is). Jesus addresses the specifics of what stays and what goes (cleanliness/food laws) and sets a precedence for what is to come.
Hey Nelson,
Since you are so keen on telling wives what their awesome duty is to their husbands, let me inject Ephesians 5:25.
So if the Scripture really is there fir the wives to obey the word to the letter, then how about you and other men, follow you roles. Do what you are told to do. But you all don’t do you??
So go and spread the word of Ephesians 5:25. That’s powerful Scripture. So are you still following the word? Because you men are so bold and brazen and so bent on throwing words at wives, well just don’t forget to read all of the word.
See, You husbands are told to give your life up for your wife. But men in all their filth and sin, just like women, ignore the word that is given to them.
Think about all the times, you don’t love your wife as Christ loves the church, think about all the times, you husbands, lust after other women and try dominate her like you are not supposed to. And so you not covet your neighbor’s wife. See Nelson, the Scripture is for the husband too. But you men ignore it and only write articles and posts to scold wives. So convenient for you isn’t it?
You men have women so frustrated, but I know that God, has told men what they are supposed to do, but in all their sexual sun, and abusive behaviors, still twist the word to fit husbands/men.
4-3-2019
Thanks for sharing Ephesians 5:25! It’s a great verse and you are right there are a lot of hypocritical men. I would caution you about lumping all men in the same boat, or suggesting that mans sinfulness is an excuse to ignore the word of god, it makes your argument less persuasive. Bless you and all the best.
The word says god never changes or his word. It’s interesting that people’s opinions rather then revelation from god is more important. This sounds Very compromising. When eve sinned god said nothing until Adam joined in the sin. The male is responsible for the direction of the relationship. When God called Abram to leave he didn’t talk to Sarah. God was instructing Abram.
Hi Cody,
Mmmm, if every bible text applies to believers today in precisely the ways it did to the original audience, when will you start:
* forbidding banks to charge interest and insisting that any debt unpaid after 7 years be forgiven;
* requiring a widow who has no male child to marry her brother-in-law and have a child by him in her deceased brother’s name;
* inviting only those who are poor, disabled, and marginalised to your home for meals and not inviting friends and family;
* removing body parts that cause you to sin;
* calling for the reintroduction of slavery;
* permitting polygamy;
* executing rebellious teenagers;
* insisting younger widows marry;
* making time for prophets, tonguespeakers and interpreters to share whenever the church gathers;
* etc, etc.
God didn’t give us a bible filled with timeless rules, but rather gave us a document that is historically particular and therefore requires thoughtful consideration as to how it applies to us today.
God gave us a bible to get to know his Son, Jesus. Neither Cody or myself, have to obey cleanliness laws, lending laws, widow laws, slavery laws, engage in polygamy, engage in execution/judgement, because Jesus did a fantastic job of explaining in the four gospels that higher laws exist such as forgiveness, monogamy, debt forgiveness, etc etc.
Despite this Jesus also taught that certain rules such as “Honor your mother and father” were expected to be obeyed. He also explains the significance of Genesis when he says “it was not this way in the beginning” and proceeds to describe the true nature of marriage.
https://medium.com/@jesuslovesusall111/should-we-follow-jesus-or-paul-how-about-paul-and-women-c03282eab428?sk=b9d1203509afc47167697bcf17472765
God bless you. husband and wife should love each other and beleive they are one, both are rowing a boat together, one of each side, so the boat will advance in the right direction. I beleive this is the christian marriage
For all men who want headship and authority, learn the christianity from jesus.
Jesus said about authority
“It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant”
Also jesus never used the word submit but love. the marriage will not be Godly by the wife submitting and the man leading. It will be Godly if they both love each other as God loved us
Jesus wants our love not submission. so if God asked me to love him and not to submit to him, would he ask me to sumit or love my husband?
Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?” 37Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind
This for me, has been the central issue that has kept me from Christianity. I have for decades, longed in my heart to return to the church, but the passages you speak of insult my Soul to such a degree, I have’t been able to bring myself to return. I believe in the strength and beauty of masculinity, I love masculine men, I don’t think men are “toxic”, I believe there are differences between the genders, but those ugly words that you quote are so abhorrent to me, that I’ve repeatedly thrown aside the church, then returned, lather, rinse, repeat. Your words here are like a breath of fresh, sane, beautiful air. Thank you.
Hi Juliet,
I’m glad the post was helpful and I hope you are able to find a church where you continue to find belonging to be a breath of fresh, sane, beautiful air!
I have been a Pastor’s wife for the past 32 years. I have allowed my husband to lead the home and church. We are not perfect, but have given each other equal amounts of freedom to go do new things. I am an Aux. Sgt. in the Ohio State Highway Patrol and also work a full time job at an Engineering company. He has Pastored and started a Recovery House for men out of Prison in the lower half of the building we live in. While I have seen scripture greatly abused in church and christian home settings, I do find when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden for sin, God set some things in motion regarding what their gender would and would not do in the future, and also how they would carry separate roles relating to home, family, and marriage. I believe Paul was trying to re-instate God’s family design for the purpose of strengthening marriage. In my 36 years of marriage I have found when we both are functioning in our roles, our home is balanced, happy, and able to help our children navigate through their own life difficulties. Both male and female roles in the home are needed and a very powerful tool. Love and respect are crucial.
Hi Jami, thanks for taking time to comment. Our lived experience is important and I am pleased that your embrace of distinctive gender roles has been positive. As would be clear from my post I don’t share the conviction that there is a universally God ordained design for gender roles in marriage, but neither do I want to suggest that those who choose to live by such an understanding cannot enjoy delightful, God-filled, grace-filled marriages.
Seminary educated and studied this for 30+ years from all angles. I believe you have hit the meaning spot on. Interpreting the word meanings in Greek/Aramaic/etc… is all well and good to determine the intent of the text. However- That is not what is being discussed here. Word meanings have no correlation as to WHY it was written and the relevance of today. If you believe this is relevant, then you must also contend that slavery is relevant. Neither analogies were meant to be eternally prescriptive. All you have to do is look at how Jesus treated women to know how we should behave what we should believe. And also, how we should respond to each other and to God in marriage. Jesus himself is the example to follow. He gives wisdom in all areas. That is not to say that there aren’t natural male/female qualities in both sexes that tend to come forth in a relationship and marriage. Males, for the most part, do have a tendency to want to earn and protect, while females, in many situations, are great nurturers and managers. However, the scriptures about husbands and wives for that day (in addition to the slavery scriptures) are not to be confused with a prescribed way to live for all time. In all things- we are to submit to each other and God to define our relationships.
This is an old post. I came across this after reading another post on another site that was advocating for complementary gender roles but in the comments section they also advocated for : not educating women past middle school and women who marry early and are completely dependent on their husbands (like have no property of their own). I have also seen posts that describe abused women not divorcing, but separating to protect themselves while their husbands are counseled by the church. The problem that I see in this thinking is reality. I am currently going through a divorce with a selfish husband and have been reading a lot about divorce law. A women who completely submits in this way opens herself and her children into a dangerous situation. Some thoughts: 1. people (men and women) are inherently sinful. To give over this much of your autonomy to a sinful person is dangerous. A man who is a provider to a very dependent wife can outspend in divorce court and leave his wife penniless and homeless. 2. Alimony laws are changing..women who submit to their husbands should receive lifetime alimony as they gave up their financial security to serve their families…that is not happening and many men’s rights groups–who want traditional wives–are fighting this. 3. There is not enough infrastructure to provide for all abused wives. It is best that wives try to obtain property of their own before marrying and becoming pregnant and do not comingle this money so they have something in case their husband is not the loving man he should be 4. Satan is the entity of deception. Many of these husbands (wives do this also but this comment is on the dangerousness of the complementary arrangement to a dependent spouse) do not show their evil side until their wife is trapped…and unable to escape. 5. Complementary Christians bemoan no fault divorce but at fault divorce is incredibly hard to prove in court and much more expensive..especially for the victim 6. Sometimes women have no option other than to file for a non-fault divorce…there is no fault for non supporting your family financially. These complementary Christians want women to stay in the home, but if their husband decides to not support her, she has no choice but to file divorce to get support. I am happy that many complementary couples are enjoying happiness but that is not the truth for many women in these types of relationships.
Frankly, he filed for divorce. It is not something I wanted to put my children through. But he will not make good financial decisions and now he want my property that I worked for. I do all the unpaid labor and never really ask him to do much of it. It may work better for us if he holds up to his obligation to pay child support. If not, I hope to protect my property from him so I can support my children.
Hi Victoria,
Thanks for your comment and your observations. Many years ago a psychologist who specialised in areas of marriage and divorce was asked to speak at the church I grew up in. She spoke a sentence that was the beginning of a transformation in my way of thinking about marriage and divorce. She said that “we in the church sacrifice the good of the individuals in a marriage to protect the institution of marriage.” The speaker called for a reversal in our thought and practise, that we should prioritise the wellbeing of the people rather than the institution. In the years since then I have become convinced that counselor was correct. A focus on “saving the marriage at all costs” often comes at terrible cost. I have seen too many cases in which saving the marriage means destroying one of the spouses and/or their children. Thanks for sharing your story and wisdom.