Wives' submission to husbands

[_Steve]

Well, I thought I was going to add nothing more to this thread, because I thought everything had been said by both sides, and that we were just repeating ourselves. I was not mistaken in this assessment, only in my prediction.

When John posted the anonymous and unreferenced article against "patriarchy," he did not add anything to the discussion except a more articulate voice making the same points he had earlier made (and which were already unanswerably refuted--judging from the absence of responses to the refutations). Instead of a simple repetition of the same debunked points by a new spokesman, I would like to have seen some attempt to interact with the challenges that I have posted to the egalitarian arguments.

The article posted by John (above) has almost as many errors (stated or implied) as it has sentences. It would be unnecessary to comment on its every point, and would be superfluous, since this has already been done earlier in this thread. The article's opening paragraph presents the premise from which the rest of the piece grows. The unnamed author writes:

We know that God does not approve of discrimination. Yet discrimination against women is inherent in patriarchy. The system that I encountered was patriarchal to the core. “Any espousal of patriarchy is an espousal of male domination. The very definition of patriarchy presents a male-dominated and male-controlled society and therefore means a philosophy of male supremacy.” (1)

If the first sentence is true, then the whole article has merit. However, I am curious to know what (or whose) version of Christianity "does not approve of discrimination"? The primary meaning of this misunderstood word is to "distinguish" between unlike things. It has its closest equivalents in the New Testament in the Greek words "Krino" (separate, select, choose) and "diakrino" (discriminate, discern, decide or judge). There is nothing about this word that places it at odds with what Christianity approves or advocates.

In its purest expression, there is nothing degrading or unkind in the act of discriminating. The author muddies the term by speaking about discrimination "against" women. Yet, discrimination needn't be interpreted as being "against" anyone. To say that a round peg should not be forced into a square hole, and that you must place a square peg in the square hole, is to require discrimination between round and square pegs. To say that this is discriminating "against" round pegs would be absurd. There is no implication that square pegs are superior to round ones. They are only superior for the desired end of filling a square hole. In any effort to fill a round hole, a round peg would be superior.

If a man chooses to marry one woman and not to marry another, he has discriminated, but he has done nothing contrary to Christianity. If a woman chooses to buy one dress and not another, according to her tastes, she is showing discrimination, but there is no reason to think that such a decision is un-christian. If a church places a qualified man in leadership of the church or of a project, passing over others, this too is discrimination, but none of these are examples of anything of which Christianity disapproves.

We are expected to "judge" (that is, discriminate) in many situations (e.g., 1 Cor.2:14-15; 6:5; 11:13, 31; 14:29). Most importantly, God has made certain choices, judgments and distinctions, and our duty of discriminating is to agree with His judgments and decisions. In some respects, as in the matter of inclusion in His kingdom, God does not discriminate between ages, social classes, races or genders (Gal.3:28), though even in this realm, He does "discriminate" between believers and non-believers.

In functional organization, God certainly does show discrimination and categorization (as does every organized mind), allowing only qualified Christians to be elders (1 Tim.3 & Tit.1); allowing only women the privilege of motherhood (1 Tim.2:15; 5:14/ Tit.2:4-5); allowing parents to disciplne children, but not vice-versa (Eph.6:1-3); etc. That He has made the husband the head of the wife, and made her, thus, subordinate to him in the home (1 Cor.11:3/ Eph.5:23-24) is no different, in principle, from these other distinctions that God has made. It is simply the one distinction that the modern world's penchant for political-correctness will not allow God to make.

The only type of "discrimination" that would be contrary to Christianity would be when it is unloving. The assumption of the anonymous article, and of feminism generally, is that the assigning of men and women to separate functions is an unloving form of discrimination. However, since it is the all-loving God, and not man, who has made these respective assignments, it can hardly be sustained that such "discriminating" is unloving. Nor is it unloving to say that children should be subordinate to their parents, nor that a servant ought to submit to his master, or a citizen to his king, etc. All of these things are advocated in scripture equally, and each represents an instance of God exercising His sovereign right to "discriminate." But there is nothing unloving in any of this.

The article assumes that "patriarchy," when present, must take an oppressive form--and outside of the norms of Christ, it often has taken such a form. But, then, outside the norms of Christ, feminism also has taken very objectionable forms. It makes no sense to point to examples of attitudes that are contrary to the norms of Christ as a basis for critiquing biblical Christian norms. When people walk according to the teachings of Christ and scripture, they neither oppress, persecute, nor abuse others, leaving nothing to object to in a hierarchical arrangement of parts in an organization or an organism.

In my article, "What is Marriage?" (at my website: www.thenarrowpath.com), I presented the biblical norms for both husbands and wives. In case you have not read it, I wrote (the numbers in brackets represent footnotes, giving the biblical references):

Both husband and wife: As Christians, both parties must deny themselves, take up their crosses and follow Christ. [41] Both should be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. [42] Each should esteem the other better than him/herself, looking out not for his/her own interests, but for the interests of the other. [43] They should not seek to please themselves, but should seek to please one another for their good, leading to edification. [44] They should be kindly affectionate to one another, in honor giving preference to one another. [45] They should not repay one another evil for evil, [46] but should patiently bear with one another, [47] being kind and tenderhearted, forgiving one another as God in Christ has forgiven them. [48]

I don't know how any of this can be described as oppressive, or in any sense objectionable to either party. The Christian husbands that I know have always advocated the above norms for the marriage relationship. Feminism can't stand these norms, because such ideals exclude the female's domination and oppression of the male, which is clearly feminism's true agenda.

The article that John posted apparently cannot make a convincing case to readers without employing disingenuous, inflammatory words, which are known to be intolerable to the politically-correct mood of most modern readers. He must use words like "discrimination," "domination,' "control" and "supremacy" in referring to the role of the husband. In fact, most of these words conjure negative images in the minds of modern readers--images that have no essential place in the biblical teaching of patriarchy. They are cheap shots aimed at stirring an emotional reaction in the reader, since the propagandist is unable to sustain a rational argument or win his case on the basis of evidence.

The writer's treatment of scripture is so irresponsible as to be ludicrous. An example is his use of Luke 11:27-28 to prove that women are to be regarded as more than mere "baby machines." This expression is calculated to arouse an emotional reaction, and the scripture he cites has nothing to do with addressing the role of women as mothers. To take his argument apart piece-by-piece would be an errand an intelligent twelve-year-old could perfom (I was refuting better arguments than this before I was twelve), and has been essentially done in advance in the earlier posts in this thread. I don't mean to sound unkind to the author, but those who publish opinion pieces about volatile issues ought either to present arguments that are sound, or else expect to receive negative criticism of their work. I expect my arguments to be critiqued, and do not object to anyone doing so.

I am ready to hear a biblical and evidential rebuttal of the points I have raised in my earlier posts. I know that egalitarians are incapable of fielding such a battle, but I suggest that they not further burden this forum with mere repetitions of what has been said (and refuted) previously. Let the egalitarians deal with the actual evidence, or let them admit defeat. We have apparently heard all that they have to say.

Bringing the matter closer to home, God's word discriminates against me ever being an elder of a church (since my family is broken, through no decision of mine). Should I start a campaign against this kind of discrimination, or should I recognise that God loves me even more than I love myself, and is much wiser than I am? If He has said that it is not good for people in my condition (which I did not choose any more than a woman chooses to be female) to be elders, then this should not bother me at all, unless, of course, I have an agenda of my own, and think that my way should be followed, rather than God's. It is not "discrimination" that Christianity disapproves of, but it certainly disapproves of that rebellious spirit that refuses to accept God's right to discriminate as He chooses.

[Guest]

This is worth reading if you want a balanced veiw

DISCOVERING BIBLICAL EQUALITY
Complementarity Without Hierarchy
General Editor Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis
Contributing Editor Gordon D. Fee


RETAIL PRICE: $25.00
ONLINE DISCOUNT: 20% off retail
LENGTH: 528 pages
SIZE: 6 x 9 inches
BINDING: paper
PUBLISHED: October 2004
ISBN: 0-8308-2729-3
IVP ORDER CODE: 2729

Related Subjects
Biblical Studies--Topical
Church Administration
Current Issues
Gender Issues



Table of Contents
Abbreviations
Preface
Introduction - Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Ronald W. Pierce

I. Setting the Stage (The Historical Backdrop)
1. The Changing Roles of Women in Ministry: The Early Church Through the 18th Century - Ruth A. Tucker
2. Evangelical Women in Ministry a Century Ago: The 19th and Early 20th Centuries - Janette Hassey
3. Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality - Ronald W. Pierce

II. Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)
4. Equality With and Without Innocence: Genesis 1--3 - Richard S. Hess
5. From Old Testament Law to New Testament Gospel - Ronald W. Pierce
6. Women Leaders in the Bible - Linda L. Belleville
7. Jesus' Treatment of Women in the Gospels - Aída Besançon Spencer
8. Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 - Gordon D. Fee
9. Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 - Craig S. Keener
10. Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29 - Gordon D. Fee
11. Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33 - I. Howard Marshall
12. Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 - Linda L. Belleville
13. A Silent Witness in Marriage: 1 Peter 3:1-7 - Peter H. Davids

III. Thinking It Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)
14. The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry - Gordon D. Fee
15. The Nature of Authority in the New Testament - Walter L. Liefeld
16. Biblical Priesthood and Women in Ministry - Stanley J. Grenz
17. God, Gender and Biblical Metaphor - Judy L. Brown
18. "Equal in Being, Unequal in Role": Exploring the Logic of Woman's Subordination - Rebecca Merrill Groothuis
19. The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women - Kevin Giles

IV: Addressing the Issues (Hermeneutical and Cultural Perspectives)
20. Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic Principles and Questions of Gender - Roger Nicole
21. Hermeneutics and the Gender Debate - Gordon D. Fee
22. A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: The Slavery Analogy - William J. Webb
23. Gender Equality and Homosexuality - William J. Webb
24. Feminism and Abortion - Sulia Mason and Karne Mason

V. Living It Out (Practical Applications)
25. In Search of Holy Joy: Women and Self-Esteem - Joan Burgess Winfrey
26. Marriage as a Partnership of Equals -
27. Nature, Culture and Gender Complementarity - Cynthia Neal Kimball
28. Helping the Church Understand Biblical Equality - Mimi Haddad and Alvera Mickelsen
29. Toward Reconcilation: Healing the Schism - Alice P. Mathews

About the Contributors
Name Index
Subject Index
Scripture Index



Book Excerpts
Preface
Introduction - Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Ronald W. Pierce
3. Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality - Ronald W. Pierce
About the Contributors

[Guest]

There are two Greek words which are translated as "submit", and they have distinct meanings.

The first is "hupeikO", a word that means "give way" or "yield". This word is NEVER used in the New Testament concerning a wife's submission to her husband.

It IS used in Heb 13:17 concerning our submission to the overseers of the church. By way of explanation, the author states that "they have the care of your souls" and implies that they are therefore responsible for what they require of you, and not you yourself.

The second word is "huptassO". This is the one that is used concerning wives submitting to their husbands. It is a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader.

Idiomatically, with regard to a wife, it means "to volutarily place herself under her husband's leadership."

[Guest]

Steve, I wonder if you wouldn’t mind clarifying something you said earlier in this thread? You stated, “What was added after the fall was the element of the woman's innate desire to overthrow the authority of the husband. This is the meaning of the Hebraism, "Your desire shall be to your husband" (comp. Gen.3:16 w/ 4:7). This new inward drive to rule her husband—not her subordinate role under him—was what constituted the "curse."

I’m not calling your scholarship into question at all, but if we substitute your definition within that verse, the verse states, “Your desire shall be to rule your husband, and he shall rule over you.” That doesn’t seem to make sense to me, unless I’m missing the proper translation of the last part of that verse.

Can you explain the significance of, “[your husband] shall rule over you” as part of this curse that God leveled at Eve, and what we are to understand that to mean?

My teaching up to this point (and I acknowledge my teaching could be insufficient or inaccurate) has been that the Hebrew word “turning” was translated “desire” in verse 16, meaning that a woman’s desire would turn from God onto her husband. Then, the phrase, “and he shall rule over you” refers to the fact that either 1) A woman’s desire for her husband would rule her; or 2) man’s general treatment of women would not be what God intended for either of them, expressed by the general treatment of and attitude towards women in certain cultures and specific patches of history, a) viewing them as a weak vessel (as opposed to weaker); b) as property to be owned, bought and sold (as seen in the current enslavement and trafficking of thousands of women in East Europe as well as in the Roman Empire when women were viewed as chattel); c) as not being seen as desirable as male offspring (as seen in Indian and Chinese cultures); and d) as temptresses who have to be covered in burkhas and banned from public life less they seduce men who are helpless to resist (as seen in fundamentalist Islamic cultures), etc.

Could it be possible that the curse God leveled at Eve in this scripture was simply the "battle of the sexes" that has raged ever since, where neither gender inherently desires to fulfill their God-ordained roles and can only obtain that desire through being born again and filled with the Holy Spirit?

I would be interested in your comments on this, if you get the time. Thank you.

Oh, and one more question, if I may? My friend and I were discussing this thread yesterday, and I suggested perhaps submission could be considered synonymous with respect. Not, per say, just a feeling of respect, but also the fruit and the actions that demonstrated a woman's respect for her husband. Was I accurate in this, and if not, could you explain why?

(BTW, just because men have, through history, misused the scriptures on submission to abuse and oppress women does not, in my opinion, negate the proper understanding and application of those verses at all. I am a woman, and the idea of submission to a husband as God's ordained order for a household does not offend me in the slightest. In fact, my father was quite hen-pecked, so I have great sympathy for men with unsubmissive wives.)

[_Steve]

Hi R.O. 2:9,

I think we might be misled if we try to find too much of the element of a "curse" in what is said to the man and the woman. The serpent was cursed, and so was the gound that the man would be obliged to toil. I am not sure whether God intended His comments to the man and to the woman to be construed as a curse, or as merely as a consequence, explaining in what ways the introduction of sin (i.e., the fall) will have changed nature.

Because of the fall of Adam, the creation has been made "subject to vanity." Nature is no longer in harmony with God's pristine design, nor with the well-being of humans. Thus, the ground will not so freely produce the variety of foods that sustain human life, and man will have to toil and fight against natural conditions that are now intrinsic in the soil. The process of child-bearing and of deferring to the husband's leadership will now be made more difficult, due to changes in the woman's body and in her disposition.

The new difficulty in the woman's fulfilling this role of submission to her husband springs not only from changes that sin has brought about in her own nature, but also from what sin has done to the nature of men. It is hard for any human being to submit cheerfully to any other human being, when they have doubts that that person in authority really cares as much for the subordinate person as he cares for himself.

The corrupt egos of sinful man and sinful woman both want to protect their own rights and their own interests. If a woman feels that the husband is committed to maintain, to protect, and even to die for his wife's well-being, then she will not find it so difficult to entrust family decisions to him. On the other hand, if a husband is self-serving (as sinful men are, by default), he will often trample upon the interests of his wife in order to have what he wants for himself.

It goes against nature, and is a result of divine grace in the life, when a man chooses to lay down his life (his rights, his preferences, his personal prerogatives) for his spouse. Yet this is what Christian men are commanded to do. This is no more natural or easy for a man to do (and is not more commonly observed) than for a woman to yield and make herself vulnerable to the decisions of her husband.

This arrangement is, by fallen nature, inconvenient for both the man and the woman, but needn't be seen as direct punitive action taken against them by a God wishing to curse them. People are not supposed to succumb to the self-serving drives of their sinful natures (Christians do so, nowadays, so consistently that we have almost come to accept it as the norm). Christians are required to walk in the Spirit, so that the Christian relational norms become a new pattern springing from that humility, meekness, love and self-sacrifice that come from being changed into the image of Christ.

For this reason, I have never seen the declaration that the husband will be the leader of his wife to be a curse inflicted upon the woman. I believe that the husband was already designed, before the fall, to provide this guidance to his wife--just as Christ was destined, from before the creation of the world, to provide such leadership for the church. A wife will only consider this arrangement to be a "curse" if she wishes for it to be otherwise.

I don't think it is leaving very much to speculation to interpret "your desire shall be to your husband" as having essentially the same force as "sin's desire will be for you," in the following chapter (4:7). In that context, it seems to be speaking of sin's desire to gain mastery over Cain. And just as God told Cain, "and you must rule over it," so he tells Eve "[your husband] shall rule over you." I think you are right in seeing the "battle of the sexes" here being portrayed. However, I don't think it is merely predicting that men will tend to disrespect or abuse women, but it is prescribing that men and women must respect God's order for the family.

Just as the Bible tells the wife to submit to her husband, it also commands the husband never to take advantage of her vulnerability. Therefore, the conditions decreed in Genesis 3 are reaffirmed in the New Testament, but the historic abuse of women is forbidden.

As for the word "submit" having the meaning of "respect," I don't know how likely it is that that word was used to convey that concept. Reverence (lit. fear) toward the husband is enjoined in the last verse of Ephesians 5, but I take it to be a corrollary of what has been said in the previous verses, rather than a paraphrase of it.

The simplest way to understand how Paul sees a married woman's role toward her husband would be to ask, "What is the Church's role toward Christ?"--since this is the analogy, from which Paul so heavily draws, in the passage.

I hope this clarifies the matters about which you inquired.

Blessings!

[Guest]

So far we’ve we have wanted to do the right thing- read the right books- focused on the others wrong behavior- had great expectations but BECOME TIRED. DISCOURAGED, and feel like FAILURES
We’ve also discovered: - few of us are equipped to do the right job
What we need is to learn the difference between God’s job and ours.
GODS JOB IS to do The CHANGEING OUR JOB IS TO DEPEND, SERVE AND EQUIPING

God's Plan = One flesh Genesis 1:20-28
God's creation of humankind in His own likeness was both male and female, to represent the likeness of God.
Man (male and female) were to:
(a) be fruitful
(b) increase in number
(c) fill the earth
(d) subdue it
(e) rule over everything
God's original plan for marriage:
Man and woman as co-rulers, co-subdues.
Genesis 2:18 - "I will make a helper suitable for him. Suitable = correspond to
to be in partnership (Remember the Holy spirit is also called Helper and is not less then but total oneness with the Father and Son)
Genesis 2:22 - The Lord God made a woman from the rib"
made = fashioned = something carefully and intentionally arranged (by God)
Note: Adam was formed but Eve was fashioned. Genesis 2:23 - Adam did not say" Here's someone to do things for me; to cater to my needs; someone for me to boss around!"
So God's plan is for male and female to enter into the process of becoming one flesh
-By a dependence upon God
- Two becoming one flesh and co-ruling
- A relationship in the image of God. The Trine God co rules
It is not to subdue or to 'rule over each other.
Satan's Detour in Genesis 3:1-5
(a) Being like God
(b) Dependence upon themselves instead of God as their source
(c) Being in control
Gen 3:6-9
(a) Disobedience
(b) Shame
(c) Broken relationship
Shame leads to hiding, fear, blame and condemnation All motivated by their self-centered core
"Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you".
This is the curse" - man and woman trying to draw life from each other when they were never meant to. The source of their life was to be God. -
Your desire will be for your husband" Genesis 4:7 Sin is crouching at your door, it desires to have you
Desire = dominating and usurping.
Hence the woman, in her own way. is trying to dominate and usurp power.
man is ruling" either aggressively or passively.
The resulting relationship is one where we see two people, who, because of their struggle are both over someone and under someone, each seeking control however mastered in spiritualized terms, whether passive and subtle or aggressive and obvious.
WHAT IS THE ANSWER
IT IS NOT OUR JOB AS CHRISTJANS TO CARRY OUT THE CURSE
GOD HAS GIVEN US A NEW PLAN A PLAN POWERED BY GRACE
THE POWER TO BE TRANSFORMED FROM THE INSIDE OUT

Gen 1:26-28Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
(NKJ)
God’s creation of humankind in His own likeness was both male and female, to represent the likeness of God.
Man (male and female) were to:
(a) be fruitful
(b) increase in number
(c) fill the earth
(d) subdue it
(e) rule over everything
God’s original plan for marriage:
Man and woman as co-rulers, co-subdues.
Genesis 2:18 - “I will make a helper suitable for him. Suitable = correspond to
to be in partnership (Remember the Holy spirit is also called Helper and is not less then but total oneness with the Father and Son)
Genesis 2:22 - The Lord God made a woman from the rib”
made = fashioned = something carefully and intentionally arranged (by God)
Note: Adam was formed but Eve was fashioned. Genesis 2:23 - Adam did not say” Here’s someone to do things for me; to cater to my needs; someone for me to boss around!”
So God’s plan is for male and female to enter into the process of becoming one flesh
-By a dependence upon God
- Two becoming one flesh and co-ruling
- A relationship in the image of God. The Trine God co rules
It is not to subdue or to ‘rule over each other.
Satan’s Detour in Genesis 3:1-5

Gen 3:1-5 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden;"but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'"Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
(NKJ)
(a) Being like God
(b) Dependence upon themselves instead of God as their source
(c) Being in control
Gen 3:6-9 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?"
(NKJ)
(a) Disobedience
(b) Shame
(c) Broken relationship
Shame leads to hiding, fear, blame and condemnation All motivated by their self-centered core
“Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you”.
This is the curse” - man and woman trying to draw life from each other when they were never meant to. The source of their life was to be God. -
Your desire will be for your husband” Genesis 4:7 Sin is crouching at your door, it desires to have you
Desire = dominating and usurping.
Hence the woman, in her own way. is trying to dominate and usurp power.
man is ruling” either aggressively or passively.
The resulting relationship is one where we see two people, who, because of their struggle are both over someone and under someone, each seeking control however mastered in spiritualized terms, whether passive and subtle or aggressive and obvious.
WHAT IS THE ANSWER
IT IS NOT OUR JOB AS CHRISTJANS TO CARRY OUT THE CURSE
GOD HAS GIVEN US A NEW PLAN A PLAN POWERED BY GRACE
THE POWER TO BE TRANSFORMED FROM THE INSIDE OUT
in
John 17:20-25"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:"I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world."O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me.
(NKJ)
Blessings
Lover of God's plan and Jesus prayer
Oneness

[Guest]

This is the curse” - man and woman trying to draw life from each other when they were never meant to. The source of their life was to be God. -

What does that mean?

[Guest]

If a woman's submission to her husband is a "curse" then why did Paul teach that a woman ought to voluntarily submit to her husband? Why would Paul deliberately promote the conditions of the curse?

No, God designed man to lead his family and woman to place herself under her husband's protection and authority. When men love their wives with a sacrificial love as Paul urged them to do, then their wives will be glad to fulfill their God-given role.

The Father's relationship to His Son is the supreme example of what the husband-wife relationship OUGHT to be in terms of leadership. The Son of God, while on earth said, "I do nothing of myself. The Father does the works", and "Not my will, but yours be done". The Son obeyed the Father, not only while He was on earth, but in His pre-incarnate state (He was "the Messenger of Yahweh") and also in His post-resurrection state.
After all things have been put under the feet of Jesus, He will turn the Kingdom over to His Father "that God may be all in all" I Cor 15.

[Guest]

Drs. Alan Booth and Paul Amato, sociologists and demographers agree that egalitarian marriages are happier

.

Anyone who trusts psychologist, psychiatrists and the like is open to the kind of deception the above statement illustrates. Psychobabble is not the place to look to, unless your intention is to contradcit the Bible, for that is what it is all about.

The "study" is a lie, plain and simple, and the egalitarian position is simply rebellion to God's Word and His revelaed order in creation. When all the dust settles from all the arguments, its as simple as that.

[Guest]

Wow! what a lengthy discussion in this topic.