Submitting

[FollowingHim]

OTOH, ya can't help but notice that much attention is giving to the "yeah, but..." side of female submission, while virtually no attention is given to any limits on the obligation of a man to love his wife. You can't even mention Eph 5:22 in passing without kicking off a "where do you draw the line?" kind of conversation or argument, but when's the last time you heard anyone discussing the point at which a guy is released from his obligations? "Over the past ten years under the influence of some worldly friends (or those nasty gossips at church) my wife has become an insufferable b*tch, so I have decided I am no longer required to love her at all."

I'm not saying we need to ramp up that convo for the sake of equality. I'm saying it's weird that most of the discussion around Eph 5:22 that I've heard over the past 40 years has been around where it stops, instead of how to implement it in one's day-to-day walk.

This is absolutely key. We end up jumping to arguing about extreme situations that virtually never occur (e.g. skulls on windowsills!). As windblown pointed out, this is very much like how whenever someone points out that abortion is wrong, the first response is "what about if the woman was raped", and then a big debate ensues about whether a raped woman should be "forced" to keep the child. Which is equally ridiculous, because an absolutely miniscule number of abortions are the result of rape - if you banned abortion for all other reasons but allowed it for rape alone, you'd almost completely eliminate abortion overnight. So the debate is pointless. And we're getting into the same territory in this discussion.

In almost every conceivable real-world situation, a woman is to submit to the will of her husband. The only situations that are potential exceptions are so extreme that they are not worth even worrying about unless you happen to find yourself in them - and then the answer may depend somewhat on the details so any speculations we made here may be irrelevant anyway.

If I can't lead anywhere until my follower understands exactly what I'm doing and why and agrees with everything I explain, then who's really leading?...

Another excellent point. It is extremely valuable to discuss issues in detail with a wife, she can offer enormous additional perspectives, knowledge and wisdom on it - but this discussion is helping to inform her husband's decision, not to come to a democratic consensus, and such discussions need not occur on every issue (there may not even be time for that).

 

[NetWatchR]

Another excellent point. It is extremely valuable to discuss issues in detail with a wife, she can offer enormous additional perspectives, knowledge and wisdom on it - but this discussion is helping to inform her husband's decision, not to come to a democratic consensus, and such discussions need not occur on every issue (there may not even be time for that).

This actually reminds me of a scene in the movie "Blast from the Past". Adam tells to his father, Calvin, that he needs him to close the vault and set the timer again after being locked up for 30(?) years and doesn't say why. His father says, "but, son, I don't understand." Adam returns, "I know, but I'm asking you to trust me anyways." Without missing a beat, Calvin replies, "oh, well of course, son." and goes to set the timer. Not a perfect analogy because, you know, son to father versus husband to wife.... you get the gist.

 

[aineo]

Reading the latest comments on this reminds me of a discussion I had some time ago about the roles of husbands and wives.

The gist of it was this: the husband is like the CEO (Chief Executive Officer), and the wives are perhaps the COO (Chief Operations Officer), CFO (Chief Financial Officer) or whatever it may be. The Chairman of the Board is God.

Despite the roles the other officers have in a company, the CEO is responsible to the Board of Directors, most specifically the Chairman of the Board, and the other officers are responsible to the CEO. The COO, CFO, or any other role is to serve at the command of the CEO, but they also do this knowing he is supposed to be serving at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. As such, the CEO is responsible to the Chairman. While the CFO, COO, or any other officer can go around the CEO directly to the Chairman of the Board, this should be a very rare occasion, as they are under the authority of the CEO.

The CEO is responsible to deal with the mistakes of his officer team, even taking extreme actions to rectify any problems they cause, but in the end, he owns their issue when it is addressed at the Board level. That isn't to say a CFO cannot be fired by the Board for financial fraud - he/she can, but you can bet the CEO will be on the hot seat too.

It's not a perfect analogy, but I feel as if it captures my general thoughts.

 

[aineo]

I just noticed my comment and NetWatchR's both used "gist" and "not a perfect analogy". Sheesh.

 

[UntoldGlory]

Skulls on the window sill might be an extreme and rare case, but I disagree that submission leading to sin is rare. I don't make a habit of talking to women about sexual matters, even more so married women, but even I know at least two women (not connected to BF in any way or even on my FB friends list) whose husbands wanted them to have sex with other men/engage in threesomes with other men. There are also huge numbers of cases where a woman has had to take her and her children away from an abusive husband to protect them, and sadly plenty of news stories that highlight the aftermath of what happens when no preventative action is taken.

It's true that some people talk about loving wives and ignore submitting to husbands, but plenty talk about submitting to husbands without the loving your wives part too. It has not been my personal experience that the wife of a good husband is just itching to find a place to rebel. I know GG isn't, it would surprise me to find that say, FH2 or Ginny were either. It has been my experience that when a husband is both loving and a good leader, submission is a natural response, not an enforced action.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well Untold Glory brings up one valid point. If a man orders his wife to have sex with another man he would be ordering the breaking of the marriage, it could probably be considered a divorce on his part.

So would I be wrong in saying that you could make an argument that she would no longer be his wife at the point he has ordered her to lie with another man and she owes him no obedience?

 

[andrew]

This actually reminds me of a scene in the movie "Blast from the Past". Adam tells to his father, Calvin, that he needs him to close the vault and set the timer again after being locked up for 30(?) years and doesn't say why. His father says, "but, son, I don't understand." Adam returns, "I know, but I'm asking you to trust me anyways." Without missing a beat, Calvin replies, "oh, well of course, son." and goes to set the timer. Not a perfect analogy because, you know, son to father versus husband to wife.... you get the gist.

Re movies: There's an old Kurt Russell movie called Executive Decision wherein one of Kurt's subordinate soldiers lays out an objection to a plan, Kurt hears him out, then makes a different call, and the soldier unquestioningly steps up to the mission. That has stuck with me for 15-20 years (probably because of whatever I was going through at the time...) as an exemplar for 'having a voice but ultimately submitting to authority' but more so as an example for leadership to always be open to input but ultimately take complete responsibility for making the final call.

 

[UntoldGlory]

Cherie and I were having a discussion about God and submission and wives a couple of months ago that I finally just remembered it. She was basically taking the "submit without question" side at one point and said something to the effect of: "We don't explain every instruction to the kids right?". I thought about it a moment and said "Not always in the moment, but we are trying to raise people who know right from wrong and buy into it for themselves." Basically, I want my kids to understand the why behind the situation, not just memorize the rule for a specific situation. The law of Moses was a specific rules set, with no real explanation as to the "why", whereas the covenant of Christ and his teachings focused on the heart. Rich men giving out of their plenty or praying loudly for an audience were scorned, despite the fact that they were breaking no "rules", and sinners who could have been stoned were shown grace despite the punishment that they "earned".

I think this may be a similar thing here. Andrew pretty much said this earlier, but this is a slightly different take. I think if a wife has a *spirit* of submission, she's covered, but if she has a *spirit* of rebellion she'll be judged for that.

For instance, a wife (believer) might never go *against* the specific instructions of her husband, but might have such a bad or nit picky attitude about it that she causes him more work than she "helps" (does more damage to the kingdom). This is often the case with our kids, sometimes we have to specifically tell them every little thing to get them to do it, and it would have been easier to just do it ourselves. That kind of attitude in my house is given very little grace, and consequences for poor work are quick.

However a wife (believer) might seek the heart of her beloved (Christ), seeking to please him in all things. Her attitude might be to anticipate his needs or desires and go out of her way to fulfill them. If it's not exactly what would have been requested, grace abounds. Like when my kids volunteer to help around the house, I don't get nit picky about the results, I praise them and perhaps offer some constructive advice for next time.

So with that in mind, here's a scenario. Not to get bogged into specifics, but to illustrate an idea:
A husband has recently been fired, his parents have died, his "equipment" isn't working right, and he's in a dark depression. He begins a pattern of ungodly behavior trying to numb the pain. He gets moody, angry, maybe even aggressive. One night, frustrated by his inability to perform, blinded by anger and despair, he tells his wife he's taking her to a bar and they're going to pick up some guy to have sex with her, and he's going to watch.

A wife could respond by aquiessing. Maybe she's frustrated and angry herself and just says "screw it, at least I'll get my needs met for once and he *iiiiissss* telling me to so he can't even get mad!", or maybe she's just doing what he says like always without really thinking about it.

Or she might refuse. She might think to herself "He's acting out of pain, and once we get through this and he gets back to a good place, he'll hate his decision tonight and might even hate me for it.", or maybe she just thinks it's a sin against God and won't do it for that reason.

Which wife here is submitting, and which is rebelling? I don't think the "caveats" here are about second guessing her husband, or looking for "wiggle room" or to take a mile when given an inch. I think submission has more to do with the heart towards the beloved. Usually that would mean "following orders", but sometimes not.

 

[FollowingHim]

Well Untold Glory brings up one valid point. If a man orders his wife to have sex with another man he would be ordering the breaking of the marriage, it could probably be considered a divorce on his part.

So would I be wrong in saying that you could make an argument that she would no longer be his wife at the point he has ordered her to lie with another man and she owes him no obedience?

I don't think he is necessarily ordering the breaking of the marriage. The reason being that divorce is allowable in the case of adultery, not mandatory in the case of adultery. Take the prophet Amos for instance - he kept taking his wife back even when she was adulterous, illustrating the faithfulness of YHWH to take back his people even after they had committed idolatry against him. A wife committing adultery is an act that certainly starts the breaking of a marriage, and breaks it if the husband confirms that with a divorce. But I don't think it's entirely clear-cut to say that in this case he has actually chosen to divorce her. It's a very fuzzy area, an argument could be made in both directions.

Which is where UntoldGlory is correct that it must come back to the heart. I don't think this is unique to the new covenant, as the Old Testament condemns physical obedience without correct motivation just as strongly, for instance Isaiah 29:13-14. Incidentally key New Testament passages generally cited to show that the new testament is about the heart are often actually quotations of the Old Testament (e.g. in Matthew 15:8-9, Yeshua quotes / paraphrases Isaiah 29:13). YHWH is the same yesterday, today and forever. He has always looked at the heart rather than the outward appearance (as He did with David). So I expect this really is the key to understanding submission also.

And the Lord said:
“Because this people draw near with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
therefore, behold, I will again
do wonderful things with this people,
with wonder upon wonder;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.”

 

[The Revolting Man]

Again with extreme exceptions, I don't get this. Why is it so important for every one to put limits on submission? What is this fascination with finding loopholes, inconsistencies and apparent contradictions?

Why is this so scary?

Everyone take a deep breath and exhale. What exceptions and limitations did God put on a wife's submission to her husband? None. Neither then can you.

A woman does have a recourse. She can leave and remain celibate. This is an option she has. If the situation is so bad that it necessitates rebellion then the lesser evil is lifelong celibacy.

So factor that into your equation. Is it bad enough that she is willing to live her life without a husband? Because that is the option God gives her to submission.

 

[UntoldGlory]

Which is where UntoldGlory is correct that it must come back to the heart. I don't think this is unique to the new covenant, as the Old Testament condemns physical obedience without correct motivation just as strongly, for instance Isaiah 29:13-14. Incidentally key New Testament passages generally cited to show that the new testament is about the heart are often actually quotations of the Old Testament (e.g. in Matthew 15:8-9, Yeshua quotes / paraphrases Isaiah 29:13). YHWH is the same yesterday, today and forever. He has always looked at the heart rather than the outward appearance (as He did with David). So I expect this really is the key to understanding submission also.

Great point! I think it's more that God was always the same, but the people weren't. To me it is very much like the parent/child relationship again. The law being by nature *imposed*, as are the rules we set our young children before they mature. Whereas the ministry of Jesus had full authority, but was more mentoring in nature. He sought to change people's hearts and motivations more than their actions. That to me is more like the relationship we should move into with our teenage children. Making them more functional people and less, well, childlike.

Again with extreme exceptions, I don't get this. Why is it so important for every one to put limits on submission? What is this fascination with finding loopholes, inconsistencies and apparent contradictions?

Why is this so scary?

Everyone take a deep breath and exhale. What exceptions and limitations did God put on a wife's submission to her husband? None. Neither then can you.

I did specifically mention that it wasn't about getting bogged down with scenarios, but to illustrate a principal. Principals are most easily illustrated by extreme examples than subtle ones. In this area, the extreme really is the crux of the debate though. There's really nothing worth debating when the example is "Husband tells wife they will be studying out of Matthew for their next bible study", where's the quandary? There really isn't one. And actually, this exception isn't all that exceptional. I added some extra hardships onto the guy in the example just to give some extra reasons to feel empathy for him, but as I mentioned, I have known at least two women put into that situation. More recently we had a woman here on the forum dealing with a horribly ungodly husband who she'd been trying to submit to for years but was basically told to sin and accept sin on a regular basis.

I'm not even vaguely frightened by submission, I just think that it's given an unhealthy focus by many people. Like going to a job interview and the only thing you talk about the entire interview is how much you'll get paid. Yes, pay is obviously a key part of a job, but it's not the only part.

As to exceptions and limitations. 1 Samuel 25: 7-end. This highlights exactly what I was talking about when I talked about a wife going against her husbands wishes with a spirit of submission to secure his good. If Abigail had not gone against the *wishes* of her husband, David would have slaughtered him and all the males of his household. David praised her actions and blessed her for her good judgement that not only saved her husband but kept David from sinning. Yes, God then struck down Nabal, but that wasn't her doing or fault, but her righteous actions payed off for her, the household, and David and his household.

 

[GloryGirl]

Now here's something key to consider. What's the difference between submission and obedience? I ask because this conversation keeps saying submission when the examples look like everyone is talking about obedience.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

What's the difference between submission and obedience?

Obedience -hypokouo - to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by implication, to heed or conform to a command or authority:—hearken, be obedient to, obey.
Submit - hypotasso - to subordinate; reflexively, to obey:—be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

I will note that there is no direct command to for a wife to obey, in the hypokouo sense, like there is for servants to obey their master. But Sarah's hypokouo obedience to Abraham IS praised.

There is a distinction, maybe even a hierarchy. Straight off the cuff I would say that it looks to me like women are commanded to Submit to their husbands, and should aspire to Obey them. That is the result of 5 minutes of research and 30 seconds of thought... so I wouldn't put too much on it.

 

[FollowingHim]

They are different - but as far as I can see a wife who did not obey her husband would not be submitting to him. Just as faith without works is dead ("show me your faith without works and I'll show you my faith by my works"), surely obedience is the physical act that is the evidence of intellectual submission?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Okay, but if a woman finds she can't submit to her husband she has a recourse. She leaves him and remains single. This is the answer to all of your quibbles. If she finds that the thought of being single is more burdensome than whatever her husband is requiring of her then she needs to submit. Full stop. End of story. There are no personal situations or extenuating circumstances. Her husband represents Christ and she represents the church. That is inviolable. She becomes a false witness and a hypocrite when she fails to submit.

I am sure that if we look at the story of Abigail we will see that she was in submission, cleverly and creatively, but she was in submission.

 

[UntoldGlory]

I am sure that if we look at the story of Abigail we will see that she was in submission, cleverly and creatively, but she was in submission.

Submitting in creative, spirit-not-letter-of-the-law, non-obvious ways was kind of my whole point when I talked about a spirit of submission vs a spirit of rebellion. She very specifically went against the words he spoke and the instructions given to the household though, for the betterment of the household and the husband himself.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So just to be sure I went back and read the story over. Nabal is not recorded as having forbidden anyone to give David food or even saying he won't give David food. Abigail did not disobey.

 

[windblown]

So much to say! 'Tis my favorite topic indeed!

To reiterate: Eph. 5:24 "so let the wives be subject to their husbands in everything." God is clear. He does not write an exception clause, and we all know the result of adding to or subtracting from the Word, Rev. 22:18-19.

I just think that it's given an unhealthy focus by many people.

Who are these people? In my experiences the word submission is practically taboo.

I will note that there is no direct command to for a wife to obey, in the hypokouo sense, like there is for servants to obey their master.

There is Titus 2:5: "to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." (note: blasphemy!)

I would also point out 1 Pet. 3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands..." What is the 'likewise' referring to? Who was last addressed in chapter 2? "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward..."

It has been my experience that when a husband is both loving and a good leader, submission is a natural response, not an enforced action

This is a "chicken and the egg" conundrum, is it not? Which comes first? I think it is no accident that God told wives to submit first. Every time. And as shown in the 1 Pet. passages, it matters not if your husband is loving or a good leader or even a believer. This is why submission is vital; it points unbelievers to God. (Zec can describe this living object lesson much better than I.)

GloryGirl's observation couldn't have been more insightful. The word submission encompasses all the specific characteristics of a godly wife (chaste, meek, etc. found in Titus, 1 Pet., Proverbs, etc) plus all the general characteristics of a godly life. So when scripture tells us how we are to relate to God, we wives get a double portion of wisdom as how to relate to our husbands. Submission is so much bigger and deeper than we realize.

<<It never fails that I will be in church one grumpy morning and hear a song or sermon that will have nothing to do with marriage but will be convicted by the words to make amends with my husband. Pick any song/sermon and you can replace "God" with "husband." It works. I may be crazy. I don't know. I once heard a sermon about tithing and related it to sex. >>

One time in our church group, Zec taught on the word "meekness" in the NT. This word did not mean "quiet" in the usual way. It relates directly to submission. I won't be able to describe it sufficiently, but I can say that it's only used 3 times. Once in the beautitudes, once to describe Jesus, and once in 1 Pet. 3:4 to describe godly wives. Significant? I think so. Jesus is our ultimate role model. "If thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

 

[aineo]

One time in our church group, Zec taught on the word "meekness" in the NT. This word did not mean "quiet" in the usual way. It relates directly to submission.

It's interesting you bring up the word "meekness". I do a weekly YouTube Bible study video, and have been teaching on the fruit of the Spirit. Right now I am at "gentleness" or "meekness". It is the word prautēs, which has the root of praus, the word you are referring to. Mind = BLOWN.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I don't think anyone here has as much to live up to as I do. Being the head of a woman who is as passionate, intelligent and articulate as mine is an intimidating and exhilarating experience.

Wow. I am so proud. Moriah brings up so many good points but the one that is the most important is 1 Peter 3:1. Be submissive not only to the good husband but also the froward or blasphemy will be the result. Blasphemy.

This is because a woman's relationship to her husband is a living testimony of who God is. Is she to testify that God is weak? That she knows better? Is she to testify that God can be mocked or ignored?

I believe wholeheartedly that women are forbidden from teaching a man because their whole life is an object lesson and words would only get in the way.

Good post baby!