[Pennypacker11]

What exactly does it mean for a wife to be submissive to her husband? How does this look?

[shakeybill]

Practically speaking I have always taken it to mean that if a disagreement comes up between a husband and wife that cannot be resolved or a reasonable compromise reached, then the husband's decision rules.

In Christ, Bill

[JerryLove]

How would that make her any different from a slave? Who decides what a reasonable compramise is?

[Chico]

we all know that a wife submitting to her husband means that she does everything he says, and that he is always right!!!

chris

[rkbo]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

How would that make her any different from a slave? Who decides what a reasonable compramise is?

are you a slave to a police officer, or a Judge, or your teacher, etc....
To submit is not a bad thing.
Eph 5:21
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
(KJV)

One thing Jesus taught was to serve one another. Now let's look at the marriage relationship.
Eph 5:22-25
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
(KJV)

Wives are to submit to the husband and alow them to be head of the family. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. You see how the husband is to love the wife in a giving way. Like I said before Jesus taught us to serve one another as he served us......so I've said all that to say this: Husbands are to serve the wives and the wives are to give him honor as the head of the household. Each serving each other yet with a hierarchial system in place so as to minimize arguments.

[JerryLove]

are you a slave to a police officer, or a Judge, or your teacher, etc....

To a good extent "yes" (for a judge/policeman). The fundamental difference there is in the appeals process. To whom does a wife appeal to overrule her husband?

Wives are to submit to the husband and alow them to be head of the family. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. You see how the husband is to love the wife in a giving way. Like I said before Jesus taught us to serve one another as he served us......so I've said all that to say this: Husbands are to serve the wives and the wives are to give him honor as the head of the household. Each serving each other yet with a hierarchial system in place so as to minimize arguments.

And what happens when the husband does not? Does the wife get to decide that he's not doing his job and stop submitting?

[Singin4Him82]

Originally Posted by shakeybill

Practically speaking I have always taken it to mean that if a disagreement comes up between a husband and wife that cannot be resolved or a reasonable compromise reached, then the husband's decision rules.

In Christ, Bill

I have to disagree with that completely. Because we are to submit does not mean we are to be dominated. You are forgetting the Lord tells men to love their wives as Jesus loves the church. There should be a reasonable compromise made other wise if you believe the wife MUST go with the husbands decision that would be a domination. Submit does not mean to be dominated.

Wives are to submit to the husband and alow them to be head of the family. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. You see how the husband is to love the wife in a giving way. Like I said before Jesus taught us to serve one another as he served us......so I've said all that to say this: Husbands are to serve the wives and the wives are to give him honor as the head of the household. Each serving each other yet with a hierarchial system in place so as to minimize arguments.

I pretty much agree there, that is more of a biblical term of submission. We are to serve one another and that most certainly includes husband and wife, in fact in a Christian marriage the minister will say such things. A marriage un Christ is not the man dominating the woman while she sits back nods her head, smiles, and says "yes dear". A marriage under Christ is just as much a partnership as anything else. I completely believe wives should submit to their husbands to me to serve him, meet his needs, follow him as he is walking with Christ. Though IMO when God commands husbands to love their wives as Jesus loves the church that looks very much the same.

[JerryLove]

I have to disagree with that completely. Because we are to submit does not mean we are to be dominated. You are forgetting the Lord tells men to love their wives as Jesus loves the church. There should be a reasonable compromise made other wise if you believe the wife MUST go with the husbands decision that would be a domination. Submit does not mean to be dominated.

Does Jesus make compramises with the Church? Does the church have any ability to say "No, that's unreasonable" to Jesus? Your analogy does not appear to support your conclusion.

I pretty much agree there, that is more of a biblical term of submission. We are to serve one another and that most certainly includes husband and wife, in fact in a Christian marriage the minister will say such things. A marriage un Christ is not the man dominating the woman while she sits back nods her head, smiles, and says "yes dear". A marriage under Christ is just as much a partnership as anything else. I completely believe wives should submit to their husbands to me to serve him, meet his needs, follow him as he is walking with Christ. Though IMO when God commands husbands to love their wives as Jesus loves the church that looks very much the same.

But when the husband does not? What then? Christian women are told not to leave unbelievers who do not leave them.

[shakeybill]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

How would that make her any different from a slave? Who decides what a reasonable compramise is?

Well, I don't own my wife for a start.

In the case of my wife and I, we both decide. Maybe were blessed but we've yet to reach an unreconcilable impasse in 6 years of marriage. To take your argument the other way, if the wife had the tie breaking vote then the man becomes the slave by your reasoning. If no one has a tie breaking vote, then how do you resolve an impasse? In business, government, etc. there are always ways built into the system to resolve a conflict. I look at this biblical teaching as simply a way to resolve conflicts when compromise fails.

I think you are mischaracterizing this teaching as slavery.

In Christ, Bill

[shakeybill]

Originally Posted by Singin4Him82

I have to disagree with that completely. Because we are to submit does not mean we are to be dominated. You are forgetting the Lord tells men to love their wives as Jesus loves the church. There should be a reasonable compromise made other wise if you believe the wife MUST go with the husbands decision that would be a domination. Submit does not mean to be dominated.

Where did I ever say women should be dominated?

I am not forgetting to love my wife, where did I say I didn't?

I did say that all efforts to reach a compromise should be made.

Are you sure you're reading my post and not someone else's?

In Christ, Bill

[Singin4Him82]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Does Jesus make compramises with the Church? Does the church have any ability to say "No, that's unreasonable" to Jesus? Your analogy does not appear to support your conclusion.

Does compromise in a marriage not promote love? Can compromise be done in a loving way? Obviously Jesus does not compromise with that church but OBVIOUSLY my point was not that at all. The point was in an arguement with your partner or anyone you love for that matter you should always try to find some middle ground if there is middle ground to be found and usually there is. That is loving, that is showing love instead of saying "my way or the highway" with no room for discussion. BTW though, sure the church could say "no" to Jesus but that would be sinnful and they would have to pay for it. Play devils advocate if you must, seems you like to do that in most these threads.

Where did I ever say women should be dominated?

I am not forgetting to love my wife, where did I say I didn't?

I did say that all efforts to reach a compromise should be made.

Dominating comes when someone rules over another as you said when no compromise is made the husbands decision rules. You didn't say anything about how the husband is commanded to love the wife...that's kinda where I got that. Again you said effort should be made but where did you get the husband's decision rules?

[Luke]

I think it looks similar to the Son's submission to the Father in the Trinity. In fact, I think that is the model for how the spousal relationship should work. And there are two elements at work here, in which only one is really being discussed. Wives are to submit to their husbands, but husbands are to love and care for their wives also.

There is an equality of essence between the Son and the Father. They are both Divine, and the Son is in no way inferior to the Father. However, they take on different roles. The Father sends, the Son is sent. Nowhere in the Scriptures does the Son send the Father to do something. So, there we see a picture of essential equality but submission in roles/function.

Now, that doesn't mean that a wife can't ask her husband to go to the store for her if needed. That also doesn't mean that it is the perrogative of the husband to order his wife around. That is not the Biblical picture. The husband should have the needs and desires of his wife at the forefront of his mind, for that is required for him to fulfill his command to love his wife. When you think that way, then there is going to be unity in the relationship that will cause it to prosper.

Admittently, this is a difficult verse to address. What I would say first and foremost is that the entire passage needs to be taken as one, with commands for husbands and wives. Also, I feel it necessary to point out that 5:22 is a command for the wife to keep, not a command for the husband to quote at her. If a husband has to quote this passage at his wife, then he is not fulfilling his role properly. Husbands should make themselves people that honor their wives and honor their Lord, and by doing so make themselves leaders and make it easy and natural and desirable to submit to.

This passage requires much more of us (particularly men) than we often want to believe. 5:22 entails just as much work for us as it does for our wives, really. We should always be striving to live in a godly manner, and then passages like this naturally fall into place.

All that being said as prologue, I honestly am not sure I know what it means in practice for the husband to lead and the wife to follow. It's easy to imagine a governmental system, but that is not what is in view here. Nor is a "team captain" sort of idea in view here. What is in view, then--I'm not totally sure, but I know what it's not. I don't think I'll be able to rightfully understand this passage until after I'm married and realize, like Edison, that I've found 500 answers that aren't right, but move slowly toward the right one. I don't think I'll be able to truly tell you what this passage means, in other words, until I've had to follow it.

Grace & Peace
Luke

[shakeybill]

Originally Posted by Singin4Him82

Dominating comes when someone rules over another as you said when no compromise is made the husbands decision rules. You didn't say anything about how the husband is commanded to love the wife...that's kinda where I got that. Again you said effort should be made but where did you get the husband's decision rules?

My statement that the husband's decision rules is the practical application of the scripture verses that teach that a wife must be submissive to her husband. Again I stress that this is only in a situation where the couple can't resolve the situation or reach a compromise. I also want to stress that both husband and wife bear equal responsibility to reach a solution or compromise.

BTW be grateful that you are not an Israeli woman. The modern Hebrew word for husband is ba'al (literally 'master'). You can infer what you want about Israeli culture from that.

I was a little sarcastic in my last response to you. My humble apologies.

In Christ, Bill

[Luke]

Originally Posted by shakeybill

BTW be grateful that you are not an Israeli woman. The modern Hebrew word for husband is ba'al (literally 'master'). You can infer what you want about Israeli culture from that.

Is that relevant?

Grace & Peace
Luke

[Tony]

All that being said as prologue, I honestly am not sure I know what it means in practice for the husband to lead and the wife to follow. It's easy to imagine a governmental system, but that is not what is in view here. Nor is a "team captain" sort of idea in view here. What is in view, then--I'm not totally sure, but I know what it's not. I don't think I'll be able to rightfully understand this passage until after I'm married and realize, like Edison, that I've found 500 answers that aren't right, but move slowly toward the right one. I don't think I'll be able to truly tell you what this passage means, in other words, until I've had to follow it.

That may be the wisest "I don't know" I've read in a long time. Well said.