[Lightknight]

While yes, it does seem that the man does have authority over the wife (as Christ does over the church, as scripture says), man's authority is bound by the requirement of loving his wife just as Christ loved the church. Therefore, it must be understood that if submission is the most loving action, it must be taken. Submission seems to be the most loving response the majority of the times. Most situations where it is not loving to submit are the types of situations that it would be wrong to submit anyways.

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

While yes, it does seem that the man does have authority over the wife (as Christ does over the church, as scripture says), man's authority is bound by the requirement of loving his wife just as Christ loved the church. Therefore, it must be understood that if submission is the most loving action, it must be taken. Submission seems to be the most loving response the majority of the times. Most situations where it is not loving to submit are the types of situations that it would be wrong to submit anyways.

Exactly. I don't disagree with you at all.

I don't argue this point for prides sake or to demand obedience from my wife in the future; I'm pursuing this argument only because it is in the Bible and how God designed it.

as to the overall topic at hand:

I practice chivalry in my relations with women, but I do not demand they comply with it and submit to my wishes. (That is purely in the context of marriage, where they are called to submit; however, they are the 'weaker vessel' and that is partly why they should be treated politely)

I don't have a problem with women not accepting my attempts at chivalry. Why should I? Maybe I won't get my kick out being 'a man' but if they choose not to accept it, they have that right.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

Eph. 5:22-32
"22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word,

YES ALL CHRISTIANS ARE COMMANDED TO SUBMIT TO ONE ANOTHER, but could it not be that this is describing a separate case? Maybe this is a special relationship where husband and wife are not positioned as equals? Yes the husband serves the wive and loves her by even lowering himself beneath her, but that verse is clearly saying he is her head and she is ordered to submit to him.

Given the grammar, NO! It is the same sentence. The commands are inseparably linked by the same verb. It cannot be how you describe. No, its not even remotely possible.

By leaving out a command to the husbands to submit, the Bible is outlining the roles in the marriage.

No, the same sentence includes that command. What you are saying here is impossible. The husband does not get that pass. The English here could fool you. You are claiming it leaves out the command to submit, but it includes that. I guarantee you if we replaced this structure with love instead of submit, nobody would ague that the case was

We are called to submit to:

1. God (Rom. 6:13)
2. One Another (Eph. 5:21)
3. Earthly Authorities (1 Pet. 2:18-21)
4. Masters (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1)
5. Parents (Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20, 21)
6. Husbands (Eph. 5:22, 23; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7)

Do you find it odd, that the same sentence, Eph 5:21-22 is the same sentence and shares a verb, that verb being the word submit. Separating the 2 is actually false. Hence you are providing a false dichotomy. In an interlinear translation of 5:22, you can see that no verb is in 22.

I don't see how much clearer it could be. Marriage should not be a power struggle, and the husband should be such a servant and so loving that his authority is not constantly exercised, but he is the head and has the authority. Here I have provided scripture to justify my statement.

Where the Bible preaches 'Christlikeness', IMO, it is more closely related to Godliness unless saying specifically (as it does above) that husbands are the head of the woman as Christ is of the church, and therefore pertaining to authority and leadership.

And if you believe this, you are divorcing life from leadership. In the passage I quoted from Matthew, Jesus obviously disagrees with your opinion. He specifically states that Godliness and Christlikeness are key to leadership.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

Exactly. I don't disagree with you at all.

I don't argue this point for prides sake or to demand obedience from my wife in the future; I'm pursuing this argument only because it is in the Bible and how God designed it.

haven't you noticed that you have not been able to support your assertions?

[Lightknight]

Bill, what do you have against what I said. I'm having difficulty finding the crux of your argument amongst these posts and I am very interested on this topic as well as your view of things.

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Given the grammar, NO! It is the same sentence. The commands are inseparably linked by the same verb. It cannot be how you describe. No, its not even remotely possible.

No, the same sentence includes that command. What you are saying here is impossible. The husband does not get that pass. The English here could fool you. You are claiming it leaves out the command to submit, but it includes that. I guarantee you if we replaced this structure with love instead of submit, nobody would ague that the case was

Do you find it odd, that the same sentence, Eph 5:21-22 is the same sentence and shares a verb, that verb being the word submit. Separating the 2 is actually false. Hence you are providing a false dichotomy. In an interlinear translation of 5:22, you can see that no verb is in 22.

..why did the translators translate it that way?[/honest wonder

Ok, so even within the marriage relationship, they are both called to submit to one another. Your evidence wins that argument; still, it does not say that the woman is head of the man as Christ is head of the Church. That is where the true 'granted authority' is, IMO.

And...:

What about Genesis 3:16?

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

That seems like a decent outline of roles in marriage. (The male curse does not mention marriage)

Originally Posted by Bill

And if you believe this, you are divorcing life from leadership. In the passage I quoted from Matthew, Jesus obviously disagrees with your opinion. He specifically states that Godliness and Christlikeness are key to leadership.

Yes, but Godliness and Christlikeness do not = leadership. They should be employed in leading, but being called to Godliness ≠ being commanded to lead.

You seem to think the command to submit one to another vetoes any God given positions of authority.

[wjarmusch]

This is a very interesting discussion. I really haven't gotten into it, because I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you guys are saying. I've got to say though, I agree most with Gavin:

Originally Posted by Lightknight

While yes, it does seem that the man does have authority over the wife (as Christ does over the church, as scripture says), man's authority is bound by the requirement of loving his wife just as Christ loved the church. Therefore, it must be understood that if submission is the most loving action, it must be taken. Submission seems to be the most loving response the majority of the times. Most situations where it is not loving to submit are the types of situations that it would be wrong to submit anyways.

BSPE, do you disagree with the above statement?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

..why did the translators translate it that way?[/honest wonder

I would guess cultural bias.

Ok, so even within the marriage relationship, they are both called to submit to one another. Your evidence wins that argument; still, it does not say that the woman is head of the man as Christ is head of the Church. That is where the true 'granted authority' is, IMO.

How far is that prescriptive?

What about Genesis 3:16?

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

That seems like a decent outline of roles in marriage. (The male curse does not mention marriage)

You are taking the curse as prescriptive? Its a curse!!!! Need I say more?

Yes, but Godliness and Christlikeness do not = leadership. They should be employed in leading, but being called to Godliness ≠ being commanded to lead.

Actually, the Matthew passage I quoted which is repeated, says leadership is christlike submission and humility.

You seem to think the command to submit one to another vetoes any God given positions of authority.

No, I am saying that a command to submit has to be taken into account, and the command for husbands should be taken from the section to husbands, extrapolating it from a command to the wife is rather strange.

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by Bill

No, I am saying that a command to submit has to be taken into account, and the command for husbands should be taken from the section to husbands, extrapolating it from a command to the wife is rather strange.

I am not saying we should chill in the ladies' verse, but I'm just saying God is clearly calling the man the head of the wive. No matter who he is talking to, it is written in the Bible, and therefore I believe it is true. That's all. God has called us the head, and therefore placed us in a position of authority.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

You are taking the curse as prescriptive? Its a curse!!!! Need I say more?

I'm not saying 'because of the curse, I will now rule my wive'; I'm saying that the curse is iterating the way God has marriage set up now.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

How far is that prescriptive?
You are taking the curse as prescriptive? Its a curse!!!! Need I say more?

It'd be the only curse against mankind that is no longer in effect, wouldn't it?

Not that it is prescriptive, cause you're right that it isn't. But is that curse no longer in effect? (earnest question)

[cngp90]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Christlikeness. Thats the other way. That way is servanthood, humility, and submission, just how Christ lead his church.

But how do you lead without having authority? And how do you lead if the one you are leading does not follow? Jesus leads the church as a servant just as the man is to lead as a servant with God-given authority. + Jesus is glorified in power now-- his servant-hood and giving up his equality with God was for his time on earth only.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

I am not saying we should chill in the ladies' verse, but I'm just saying God is clearly calling the man the head of the wive. No matter who he is talking to, it is written in the Bible, and therefore I believe it is true. That's all. God has called us the head, and therefore placed us in a position of authority.

But it is the fact that you are taking it out of its context. Again I point out that biblical authority is very different than you are claiming.

I'm not saying 'because of the curse, I will now rule my wive'; I'm saying that the curse is iterating the way God has marriage set up now.[/QUOTE]

I really doubt that you can see his ideal in the curse. In fact, in the curse we see the very thing which we long to see removed in the new heavens and new earth.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by cngp90

But how do you lead without having authority? And how do you lead if the one you are leading does not follow? Jesus leads the church as a servant just as the man is to lead as a servant with God-given authority. + Jesus is glorified in power now-- his servant-hood and giving up his equality with God was for his time on earth only.

Was it? Or is it an example of what leadership actually is.

[beanbag]

I know I am jumping in here, but I just have something really quick. I had to read Manfred Brauch's Hard Sayings of Paul for a course over the summer, and one of the things he discusses is the "headship" of Christ to the Church and husband to wife.

Brauch defines headship as "being the source of", meaning that Christ is the source of the Church's life, and that man is the source of woman's life. when Paul wrote that to the Corinthians (although it may not be applicable to the other passages; then again, maybe it is) it was because the Corinthian women were rejecting marriage and some were divorcing their husbands for the sake of attaining "true spirituality", and because they felt so liberated by Christianity that they sought to throw off the oppressive bonds of the society by going to far as to reject marriage. he wrote that to show them that marriage is an institution sanctified by God and that their reasons for throwing marriage away were bad. therefore, since Adam was the source of Eve's life (through God, of course) woman belongs with man, and the women were wrong in completely rejecting that.


just a thought.

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by beanbag

Brauch defines headship as "being the source of"..

I'm failing to make that association in my mind. Seems like a bit of a stretch.

Originally Posted by Bill

Again I point out that biblical authority is very different than you are claiming.

No, I really do agree with you that authority should be acted out with love and submission, however, you seem to disagree with my belief that the man even has authority in the relationship. That is the point of contention.

Originally Posted by Bill

I really doubt that you can see his ideal in the curse. In fact, in the curse we see the very thing which we long to see removed in the new heavens and new earth.

The curse was not how God intended, but it is the way it is. The rest of the curse is still in effect, and I don't see how this part should be avoided. (Meaning I don't see how we should try to live outside of what he stated: that man will rule over her)