Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord

[aspen]

well i was married for close to two decades and we shared equal status in the home and both pursued higher degrees and careers. The marriage ended for different reasons, but we both submitted to each other and loved each other. My problem with reducing Paul's model of marriage to a word study - "love" and "submit" are different words in Greek, is that people often use different words to describe the same concept. Christ is married to the church - He loves us and He submitted His life unto death in order to save us. It all boils down to love. Serving is submitting and loving.

 

[River Jordan]

Why are you going back to the Old Testament? We're in a discussion about marriage conduct as prescribed to the early Christian Church who suffered no delusions that they were subject to the Levitical law. If you can't stay with the discussion, perhaps you can start another thread on legalism.

If you look at the OP, the OT is cited as providing insight into what God's plan for marriage is.

And my wife started out feminist because that's how she was raised, but then found out that practically it just doesn't work in a marriage. Feminism preaches equality, but behind the Oz curtain is hatred for men, and she doesn't hate men and doesn't want to treat me like her mother treats her father. Now she rejects feminism altogether.

Like I said, different arrangements work for different people.

And if you and your siblings weren't abandoned in daycare then that's fine. It's certainly not how things are done today where it's routine to neglect children by putting them into the hands of strangers everyday.

I see that as more of an economic issue than a gender one.

Thanks for responding. I think there is a difference between a narrative that describes a cultural event (many narratives in the Bible describe sinful behaviors... and do not always make moral reflections on them in the narrative) and explicit teaching and biblical commands.

The command to take the virgin women as spoils of war was a direct command from God. The 10th commandment puts a man's wife in the same category as his other possessions.

I think the idea that the Bible is "a book written exclusively by men" and therefore reflects the desire of men rather than God undermines the very notion of inspiration. Either God directed the writing of the Scriptures and so they reflect his desire (making them authoritative), or it is the product of men and their own personal agendas and desires. Obviously if the Bible is the latter, than no one should pay attention to it and so even discussing the matter is pointless. However, Christians throughout the ages have believed the former. In fact, I think it is an underlying principle that distinguishing Christian believers and non-Christian unbelievers.

Not everyone thinks in such black/white terms.

Again, authority and submission do not rule out the role of a "team." In fact, I think it enhances it. Most teams have captains or leaders. Children are part of the "team" but that does not mean they decide how the family finances are spent or where they should eat for dinner (mmmm...cotton candy for dinner!). No one is saying that everyone should not have a voice in the family. However, it is saying that everyone has a unique role. We should not allow abuses to authority determine that authority in the home is bad. There are bad police officers who abuse their authority, but that does not make the role of a police officer a bad thing. Jesus is Lord over the church, but that authority is not used to demean or belittle. Husbands are called to follow his model of leadership and authority in the home.

Different arrangements work for different people.

I am familiar with the Quiverfull Movement (somewhat). I agree that this movement appears to be disturbing.

IMO, it's very close to a cult.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

If you look at the OP, the OT is cited as providing insight into what God's plan for marriage is.

No it isn't. Maybe it's you that should be looking at the OP. However, the OT is a source of reference for gender roles. It can't be overstated that women were not in charge by God's design. The Aaronic priesthood was all men. The leaders, judges, and kings too were men, and when Jesus arrived and began his ministry, he chose all men. I've heard feminists repeatedly refer to a "male God" who institutes male dominated society for the subjugation of women. It's one of the many ways feminism is not compatible with Christianity, for they twist it into something that it's not, as evidenced by your posts. Men are created for leadership, especially in regards to religion. Women have very different, very unique, and very invaluable roles that are DIFFERENT then men's. It's the feminist lie that says because a woman can't do everything a man does, she's being oppressed. Stop listening to these lies from Satan.


I see that as more of an economic issue than a gender one.

That's nonsense. It's about lifestyle more than it is about economics. It's about people who enter into a marriage and then ultimately a family who have not learned to sacrifice for something greater than themselves. They continue to live immature, self focused lives and they want things, a bigger house, a newer car, and fancy clothes. They claim to "need" two incomes when the truth is they refuse to live on one and make it work. Families are very resourceful and, leading by example, my family does just fine on my modest salary as a truck driver. So yes, it can be done. The continued pursuit of self in a marriage and family ultimately exacts a toll on children, for they are made to pay the price because mommy and daddy want things more than they want a close relationship to them.


The command to take the virgin women as spoils of war was a direct command from God. The 10th commandment puts a man's wife in the same category as his other possessions.

The demonic philosophies of feminism have warped your mind so that you see oppression wherever you look. It's no different than those who see racial oppression everywhere and blame white domination for their own failures. Protestants have categorized the 9th and 10th together whereas Catholics have, appropriately separated them. Ye shall not covet thy neighbor's wife. That's 9. Then ye shall not covet thy neighbor's possessions. That's 10. So even your viewpoint is based on nothing more than how Protestants have chosen to conflate two very different commandments, lumping women in with oxen.

Not everyone thinks in such black/white terms.

Satan's favorite color is grey.

 

[River Jordan]

Um....yeah. Thanks for your input TVoT.

 

[Wormwood]

well i was married for close to two decades and we shared equal status in the home and both pursued higher degrees and careers. The marriage ended for different reasons, but we both submitted to each other and loved each other. My problem with reducing Paul's model of marriage to a word study - "love" and "submit" are different words in Greek, is that people often use different words to describe the same concept. Christ is married to the church - He loves us and He submitted His life unto death in order to save us. It all boils down to love. Serving is submitting and loving.

aspen,

This is like saying that if I love my children I will feed them so therefore loving and feeding are synonymous terms. This is now how language works. Yes, someone can submit out of love, but love and submission are not synonymous terms. Hupotasso is a word that implies hierarchy whether you like it or not. Jesus did not "submit" to us. He died for us out of love. This is not submission. We, at no point, became Jesus' "lords" because of his service. This is like saying that because Jesus washed Peter's feet, Peter became Jesus' Lord. Its a ridiculous notion. I can serve my children, but it doesn't mean I am in submission to them. I love my children, but this does not mean they have authority over me in the same manner as I have authority over them.

The command to take the virgin women as spoils of war was a direct command from God. The 10th commandment puts a man's wife in the same category as his other possessions.

Its likely the virgin women were spared because they were deemed to be innocent of the sexual immorality pertaining to Baal worship. The 10th commandment has to do with coveting what others have. Clearly, ancient writers displayed male hegemony as products of their cultures. Thus literature was generally directed at men. We see this in the NT as well. However, this does not mean that women were omitted from these commands (not coveting their neighbors husband (we see examples of this in the OT)) or viewed as property. Even a cursory reading of the OT and NT show that this was certainly not the case. See Deut. 10:18; Exodus 2:12; 1 Peter 3:7, Gal. 3:28.

 

[Madad21]

i am looking for partner, not a slave or a child
i also want a wife who will give her opinion and be willing to compromise - sharinf responsibility and victories. i do not want someone who suppresses her opinion and refuses to take responsibility

LOL your gonna be single forever! :lol:

 

[River Jordan]

Its likely the virgin women were spared because they were deemed to be innocent of the sexual immorality pertaining to Baal worship.

Not only is there nothing in the text to indicate that, the text specifically says God told the Israelites to take the virgins "for yourselves", again a reflection of women being thought of as property.

The 10th commandment has to do with coveting what others have. Clearly, ancient writers displayed male hegemony as products of their cultures. Thus literature was generally directed at men. We see this in the NT as well.

Yes, women were thought of as being something men own, which makes sense given the marriage traditions at the time.

However, this does not mean that women were omitted from these commands (not coveting their neighbors husband (we see examples of this in the OT)) or viewed as property. Even a cursory reading of the OT and NT show that this was certainly not the case. See Deut. 10:18; Exodus 2:12; 1 Peter 3:7, Gal. 3:28.

There's absolutely nothing in the Bible that reflects a concept of men being the property of women, but there is plenty that reflects the opposite.

 

[RANDOR]

Woman..bring me my dinner !

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Oh, hush, RANDOR

 

[Wormwood]

Not only is there nothing in the text to indicate that, the text specifically says God told the Israelites to take the virgins "for yourselves", again a reflection of women being thought of as property.

Yes, women were thought of as being something men own, which makes sense given the marriage traditions at the time.

There's absolutely nothing in the Bible that reflects a concept of men being the property of women, but there is plenty that reflects the opposite.

Well, we have established that the Bible explicitly says that women are of equal value with men and that you view the Bible as nothing more than the ramblings of fallible and sexist men. So I don't know why you even waste your time worrying about the texts being examined in the OP. Do you consider yourself to be a Christian at all? I have been under the impression that you do...am I mistaken?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Yet more proof that Leftist ideologies originate from hell and are utterly incompatible with Christianity. When even the Bible is not inspired by God, but rather written be misogynist men who oppress women, then we know we're dealing with the doctrine of demons. Feminism is a lie. It twists perceptions and teaches women to hate men, see oppression everywhere, and question even God the Father because of his male personage. I wish that Leftist Christians would come to understand the bonds of deception they are under.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, we have established that the Bible explicitly says that women are of equal value with men

Really? So what was the virginity test for men? What was the penalty if a man claimed to be a virgin, but the wife suspected he wasn't?

and that you view the Bible as nothing more than the ramblings of fallible and sexist men.

There's that black/white thinking again.

So I don't know why you even waste your time worrying about the texts being examined in the OP. Do you consider yourself to be a Christian at all? I have been under the impression that you do...am I mistaken?

And now the questioning of my faith. Fundies are soooooo predictable.

 

[KingJ]

Yet more proof that Leftist ideologies originate from hell and are utterly incompatible with Christianity. When even the Bible is not inspired by God, but rather written be misogynist men who oppress women, then we know we're dealing with the doctrine of demons. Feminism is a lie. It twists perceptions and teaches women to hate men, see oppression everywhere, and question even God the Father because of his male personage. I wish that Leftist Christians would come to understand the bonds of deception they are under.

Wow, amen sister!

I read the passages about gender roles about the same way I read the passages about how to treat one's slaves...as text reflecting the culture at the time it was written.

River, just curious...Don't you know slaves were treated very well OT? A lot like employment today.

You want to discuss slavery? I think when you grasp that their is much twisting and half truths on slavery you will better grasp the same happens with sexism. I used to also assume a lot.

 

[River Jordan]

So if it's such a benign thing, why don't we have slaves today?

 

[KingJ]

So if it's such a benign thing, why don't we have slaves today?

River, define slavery for me please. We can then compare your definition to what the Jews had / did.

 

[River Jordan]

Well the OT makes a significant distinction between Hebrew slaves, and non-Hebrew slaves.

Lev. 25: 39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors.

Ok, not so bad right?

Lev. 25: 4 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Is that what you think we should be doing today?

Exodus 21: 7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter. 10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Is that cool? Some guy buys a girl as a slave and then marries her, but can still marry another woman and have sex with both. And keep in mind, according to the OT, this is God talking. And again we see the "women as property" cultural norm reflected in the text.

Then of course we have...

Exodus 21: 20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. 21 But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.

Does that sound like an equivalent to "employment today"?

 

[Wormwood]

You're right River. God was horrible back then. Good thing we have you to teach us proper morality. What would God and Christians today do without you?

 

[Tex]

@River

It was a male run society. Men were the rabbis and intellectual class. And educated woman was taboo. Women were domestic, and anything else was a woman out of place. The bible talks about this. The bible even somewhat supports this. However, the support was given because it fueled the society. Because our culture is not bronze age, the role of women can be, and should be, expanded.

Basically, women were not less than men in the old testament. They simply had a domestic role within a male-dominated society. That isn't evil, and in fact is probably beneficial to a bronze age society. Males have no possible virginity test. Women do. That's why they had a virginity test for women only. Also, they didn't necessarily die when they turned up false. Those decisions had to be approved by dad/husband.

Slavery is also not evil. Abuse is evil. The Jews had restrictions on how they could treat slaves, Jew or not. They also had to have laws about people who wanted to be slaves because slavery was often preferred over economic freedom.

You gotta fully immerse yourself within the culture, then think about morality. You can't stay in today's mindset and apply it to 3000 years ago. It's not that morality changes, but it's that the circumstances have changed so dramatically that new rules apply and the old ones do not.

@Wormwood

That was your 777th post =)

 

[aspen]

i really wish christians would take the lead on the differences between sexual desire in men and women - in would go a long way in preserving and nuturing marriage - instead we model marriage after a 2000 Year old snapshot it is a real shame. we could save so many marriages

 

[RANDOR]

God restores marriage.....satan destroys marriages.