If a Christian marriage is to reflect Christ and the church - if a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church...and if the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church...
what does that mean? What are the Biblical references for Christ (and God the Father in the Old Testament) as husband?
How do Christ the Son and God the Father relate to the church and to Israel?
Husbands, love your wives,
as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
that he might sanctify her,
having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
so that he might present the church to himself in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one ever hated his own flesh,
but nourishes and cherishes it,
just as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
"Therefore a man shall leave his father
and mother and hold fast to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh."
This mystery is profound, and
I am saying that it refers to Christ
and the church. (Eph 5:25-32)
Can wives be "sanctified" by their husbands? Maybe not, but they can be saturated with Scripture. She can be loved and cherished and nourished, with Christ as his model.
For your Maker is your husband,
the LORD of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
For the LORD has called you like a wife
deserted and grieved in spirit, (Isa. 54:5-6)
For a short time, the Husband had turned His face from His bride. She had been faithless, yet He redeemed her.
"Hallelujah!For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen,
bright and pure"— (Rev. 6-8)
The bride of the Lamb...
You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the LORD delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your sons marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you. (Isa. 62:3-5)
You shall be called "My Delight Is In Her..."
In the New Testament, it was John the Baptist who recognized the Bridegroom:
You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ,
but I have been sent before him.'
The one who has the bride is the bridegroom.
The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him,
rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.
Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.
He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:28-30)
God presented Israel with a graphic picture when He told Hosea to marry Gomer, a prostitute - knowing that she will act as prostitutes will act...and that he will bring her back.
"Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.
And there I will give her her vineyards
and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
"And in that day, declares the LORD,
you will call me 'My Husband,' and no longer will you call me 'My Baal.'
For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth,
and they shall be remembered by name no more.
And I will make for them a covenant on that day
with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens,
and the creeping things of the ground.
And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land,
and I will make you lie down in safety.
And I will betroth you to me forever.
I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice,
in steadfast love and in mercy.
I will betroth you to me in faithfulness.
And you shall know the LORD. (Hosea 2:14-20)
There is a Biblical reason to see a Christian marriage as a reflection of God the Father with Israel and of Christ the Son with His bride, the church.
For I feel a divine jealousy for you,
since I betrothed you to one husband,
to present you as a pure virgin to Christ."
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning,
your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere
and pure devotion to Christ. (1 Cor. 11:2-3)
How can the church expect to be treated by her Bridegroom?
...He is her refuge, (Psa 61)
...He stands up for her (Psa 94)
...He nourishes and cherishes her (Eph 5)
...She trust in His steadfast love (Psa 52)
...He speaks tenderly to her (Hos 2)
...He is merciful and full of loving kindness (Tit 2)
...He will wipe away tears (Isa 25)
...He makes her beautiful (Isa 60)
...He carries her sorrows (Isa 53)
...He came to serve (Matt 20)
...He restores her soul, He leads her in paths of righteousness (Psa 23)
Sue
Israel is God's son, so I am having some difficulty with the way you use the feminine pronoun in your citations.
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, Ex. 4:22
But Zion is God's daughter, the daughter of God's womb,
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. Is. 49
God is father, mother and husband to the people. Not wife, but always the "help" and that is Eve.
Puzzling somehow, the use of gender in the Bible. I think the role of the Hebrew wife in Prov. 31 is to be the provider so her husband can sit in the gates full time and not have to earn money. That is the proper role of the Jewish wife, metaphorically speaking.
Ellen
One the gates...more happened there concerning commerce than just sitting and letting your wife support you. That's quite a straw man.
On gender in Scripture: God has two wives, Israel and Judah. It is very clear that the metaphor of God as husband is Scriptural.
Sue
Yes, the metaphor is scriptural. But it is metaphor. Israel is also the "son." You cannot just take metaphor and say that all interaction between people and God is female to male. That is not true. The use of masculine and feminine is just metaphor.
For example, water is life-giving and also destructive. Fire is life-giving and destructive.
We cannot say that water is life and fire is death. These are not universal assignments of reality. God is husband and mother.
So, yes, the metaphors are scriptural but they are metaphor. The woman who protects others, as Rahab, Deborah and Ruth, these women are "mother" or they are the "helper" as God is the "helper."
Men are not God, nor have they any characteristics that make them more like God than women. This is all metaphor and not reality.
In Proverbs 31 I think that the commentary agrees that the husband does not earn a living but acts as judge and student of the Torah. His wife supports him. The role of husband as protector and provider is not in the scritpures that I know of.
Ellen
Great straw man...that's not what I said.
HOWEVER...Christ and the church ARE given to a husband and wife as an example to follow. The church IS referred to as the bride of Christ. These are not avoidable, regardless of your fear. The church as the bride of Christ IS Scriptural reality.
There is a lot that when on at the city gates and you know that well. It is not clear in Proverbs what the husband was doing there, only that his wife honored him.
More rabbit trails...more fear. Does that not get wearying?
Sue
Ellen,
At least admit that my fear is real. Don't mock me! I am just sick at the thought of what might happen to someone who needed help. I will tell you right out that an abused wife will not say, "I am being abuse, I need help with the abuse." She will simply say "I need help getting out of my husband's authority."
If people don't respond to that, then she may stay a lifetime. Women do not say that they are abused, when they are in the situation. So if a woman expresses any fear at all ever, this ought to be taken very seriously and not be made a matter of mockery.
Ellen
It is unfortunate that you need to build straw men and misrepresent the good.
If I had ever written of your fear, you might have a point. But ALL along, I have stated that you have been horribly abused and that abuse is a sin.
We agree that abuse is a problem. I disagree with your solution.
Sue
When you write,
More rabbit trails…more fear make it clear that you are not talking to any woman who actually is running the risk of abuse. The problem is that no one knows who these people are.
Ellen
Let me add...you have two avenues that you can take. You could face up to the fact that there are people who believe that godly men make godly leaders and that God has ordained an order in the home and church. We COULD work together within that framework to teach about the dangers of abuse in BOTH camps.
But you set yourself up as an adversary of the FRAMEWORK...not as the adversary of the abuse.
That makes you a perceived enemy of the framework, not a real enemy of the abuse.
You undermine yourself.
Ellen
"you are not talking to any woman who actually is running the risk of abuse. The problem is that no one knows who these people are.
Again, it is unfortunate that you must resort to that which you do not know in order to attempt to make a point.
Sue
I think it is pretty standard commentary that "sitting in the gates judging" was not a monetary position. The husband was supported by his wife in this chapter.
I don't know what straw man you are referring to.
Ellen
Of course you don't.
Ellen
Have you ever played six degrees of separation?
Sue
Unfortunately many women need to understand that their husband's does not have a position of authority over them in order to get help. If the wife is ordered not to ever tell anyone about the abuse, then she has to deeply resist all the teachings of male authority.
A woman who wants to escape abuse must
- believe that she should do things behind her husbands back
- accept that the marriage may be over
-accept that people don't change all that much
- accept that she will have to earn her own living and raise the children on her own
- plan her own life
- accept being divorced
- make decisions independently of her husband
It is very difficult for a woman who only receives C teaching to do all this, because her situation in no way resembles anything she ever hears in C teaching. The male is in no way like Christ or God. There is no connection to reality. The wife is given no recourse, no way of expressing what is happening.
I am not going to support a position that offers many women no help whatsoever. The experience of real life abused women should not be dismissed in favour of the teaching of C men who have not been abused. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Have you seen the World Vision statement here?
Ellen
we disagree that a husband has no authority. Where I believe that young should be taught to love and lead on godly ways, you set yourself up as the enemy of a wife submitting to her husband as the church submits to Christ. We could work together but you set yourrself up as the adversary.
Sue
I was presented with the model of a submissive wife by a woman I knew who controlled her family in subtle ways but was the model wife. This was a huge contribution to the experience of abuse. I don't know if I will ever recover from the tremendous damage done by women who "modeled" that they were being submissive, and then recommended this. Somehow some women get control this way, and then they have to defend this as "the right way." They don't understand that the silent of protesting women is not a rabid feminist but a person in very deep trouble.
I advocate for the silent victims.
Besides, all those feminine pronouns in your post are jarring. Yes, God is the God of the woman as well as of the man. So, if that is what you are representing, fine. But, no, the people of God are not always feminine in relation to God. That is one of many metahpors.
There is no God-like masculinity and people-like femininity. Men are not stronger and better than women. Sad, but true. Make authority gender-based and you contradict everything World Vision stands for. And what the church ought to stand for.
Sue
I am trying to share some real life experience and talk about what was most dangerous and damaging to me. Most damaging were women who said "It works for me."
And most helpful were egal women who were advocates and protectors for me. Women who finally acted as my protectors when men would not.
Ellen
it ses that wordpress does not like comments from my iPod.
Sue, we agree that abuse Is sin. We disagree that there is God ordained order in church and home. You are not a woman who I can stand shoulder to shoulder with against abuse because you have set yourself up as an adversary. Not by my choice but yours
We could teach young men to lead in love. To see the scriptures posted as a lesson in how to love as Christ loves the church.
It can be done.
Sue
I just want to protect other women from teaching that could really hurt them, that's all. You cannot support me and I cannot support your teaching.
Just think that every women you ever tell to obey her husband could be one of the unlucky women. Just take care of others. That is the most important.
All I see is a sacrifice of morality to maleness. We cannot worship two Gods. God is not the God of gender, God is the God of righteousness. Unless it can be proven that men uniquely reflect God's righteousness, we should just backpedal male authority and step out for justice.
Sue
I lost a comment. Look at the World Vision statement some time. When people's safety is at stake it is no time to be ideological.
Sue
Oops there it is. PS If you could eliminate abuse by teaching men to love, that would be a first.
Ellen
I have looked at the comment. I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
That was what this post was about.
You may choose to argue Scripture, I prefer not.
Until you can show me the specific teaching to husbands to submit to their wives specifically as the church submits to Christ I cannot and will not accept that submission to the other is identical.
If you could eliminate abuse by teaching men to love, that would be a first.
One at a time. Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church...
I choose not to see you as the enemy, regardless of how you wish to set yourself up.
When dealing with the sin of abuse it is no time to ignore Biblical teaching.
Sue
I cannot and will not accept that submission to the other is identical.
Of course it is not identical. That is not the issue.
Very clearly I state my case,
1. The wife should not vow to obey her husband.
2. The husband does not have authority over the wife.
You may choose to argue Scripture, I prefer not.
Why do you say things like this to me? On what basis? They are very hurtful and not in any way true.
I have no idea why anyone would think I am arguing against scripture. These things are not stated in scripture, they are antithetical to scripture.
I do believe that in a situation where a husband believes that he has authority over the wife, then the submission of the wife will reinforce that attitude and lead to deeper abuse. So submission could be dangerous and we agree on that.
But I believe that in any situation where two people intend to remain married they both have to submit, both wife and husband. Of course, it may look different, but it does not look like "authority and submission." The Bible simply does not teach that.
The Bible does not teach that the fundamental male female relationship is ruler and subject.
I wrote,
If you could eliminate abuse by teaching men to love, that would be a first.
You wrote,
One at a time.
That is why organizations like World Vision exist. But people choose to ignore the truth.
Ellen
The false accusations that you have made are just as hurtful.
Until you can show me the specific teaching to husbands to submit to their wives specifically as the church submits to Christ I cannot and will not accept that submission to the other is identical.
Can you do that?
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Sue
Okay, I hear you. I guess I would want to ask what that looks like to you. Not "in all things" I would guess.
However, for the husband to actually physically die for his wife - not offer to - but actually do it - that would have to be on the table as well. That comes first. So I take it you do accept this as metaphor. I do also. I think we can agree on that. It is metaphor and we can only describe it in terms that are derived from scripture but are not exact. We know it means respect, but surely we believe that the husband must respect the wife also. I don't know how scripture separates what the wife does from what the husband does. It can only be deduced to the best of our ability.
But I understand that you agree that the scriptures do not give the husband "authority over" nor do they tell the wife that she is to make a vow to "obey." These are not scriptural.
Of course, a successful marriage can only be built by both sides submitting in ways that make the marriage work. Since males and females are different it will look different. Maybe the husband buys flowers and the wife buys herself a new negligee. I guess that would look different. 🙂
Ellen
Sue, you will continue to read into what I say whatever you want to believe that I am saying. Reality does not appear to come into play.
However, for the husband to actually physically die for his wife - not offer to - but actually do it - that would have to be on the table as well.
Yes. Agreed.
But I understand that you agree that the scriptures do not give the husband “authority over”
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Of course, a successful marriage can only be built by both sides submitting in ways that make the marriage work.
Just as the submission of the church has to Christ is different than the way that Christ submitted to the needs of the church.
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Sue
Perfect. We agree.
So let's not give husbands the impression that they are to have "authority over" the wife as the king has authority over his subjects and God has authority over his people. That is, we don't want the ten commandments on the bedspread, do we?
We don't think that the function of the husband is in all ways, as God is to humans, but only that "as Christ sacrifices, so the husband sacrifices" and "as the church submits, so the wife submits."
This is a far cry from the submissive assistant that some teach. This teaches that the husband is for the wife and the wife is for the husband. But some C people teach that the wife is for the husband and the husband is for God, a one way street. But, of course, that is not what the Bible says.
Ellen
Sue, as I said, you will continue to read into what I say whatever you want to believe that I am saying. Reality does not appear to come into play.
Ellen
Perfect. We agree.
We agree that abuse is sin.
Complementarianism is not sin.
A husband has the authority given to him by his wife's submission - which is the same submission that the church owes to Christ.
You have yet to show me a Scripture that says otherwise.
Sue
A husband has the authority given to him by his wife’s submission
You know that there is no authority given by submission. A king can submit to his people and each of us can submit to the other. No authority given.
If you insist on adding to scripture what is not there you must be careful not to teach this to others. Once the wife thinks her husband is like Christ she has a problem. The husband only has the command to sacrifice as Christ does, the husband is in no other way like Christ.
Ellen
We disagree.
If you insist on adding to scripture what is not there you must be careful not to teach this to others.
Stop taking away from Scripture that which IS there.
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Ellen
Question: How much should the church submit to Christ?
Sue
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Yes, this is what scripture says. But the vow to obey is not scriptural and the authority of the husband is not in scripture.
How much should the church submit to Christ?
Rather rephrase it as how much should the wife submit to the husband. Does she question every decision from a moral point of view? Does she express her preferences but just live with it if the husband thinks he knows better than her what is for her own good? Does she submit to selfishness? Does she submit to wrong exegesis?
What does it look like and is the vow to obey really appropriate if the wife intends to be morally responsible in the way in which she responds to her husband's decision-making?
Ellen
Rather rephrase it as how much should the wife submit to the husband.
Sorry, I have that answer already. The wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
You just don't like the implications.
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Sue
You just don’t like the implications.
Well, I can't keep responding to some mysterious accusations of yours.
Obviously you yourself are not backwards about coming forward in terms of telling the husband where when and how he has to wash his wife's feet. So, I can only say that if the implications are that the wife tells the husband where when and how he is to be like Christ, that's the wife in authority over the husband. Just as off putting to me as the other way around.
But as long as the submissive wife understands this as part of her task of submission, I suppose ... strange to me.
On other matters, your post implying that "leading into paths of righteousness" is a male to female activity, seems pretty odd to me. Do you really think that men are, in general, more righteous, or do you only believe that the men who are more righteous than women should marry? Do you think a man has to deliberately choose a wife who is less righteous than himself?
I just can't associate "the Lord is my Shepherd" with what the man is to the woman, considering 50% of men will end up physically and perhaps cognitively dependent on their wives in old age.
The elevation of the male to God is a far cry from the metaphors of scripture. I am uneasy with the way you use scripture in this post. I guess since you don't plan to teach anyone its okay, but if you do teach women, um, the way you have used scripture in this post is not appropriate.
You can write me off in other ways, and disregard the solution that I have experienced but don't teach the feminization of the church and the psalmist this way. Israel is masculine. Sometimes feminine metaphors are also used. But be respectful of the text.
Ellen
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Charity
Hello Ellen
Do you think it is possible that there are other people who have as great a desire as you to put the teachings of the Bible into practice, but do not come to the same conclusions as you?
I too believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, but it would appear that we disagree on what the little word 'as' means in that sentence.
Firstly because when I see that word used elsewhere in the New Testament, it does not seem to me to mean "in an identical or imitated fashion" and secondly because I don't believe that the submission of the church as a whole is often such a fantastic example to follow.
Ellen
Hello Charity, of course it is possible.
One of my favorite female relatives serves her church in a capacity that we debate about.
Even if "as" does not mean "in an identical fashion", the church is still set up as a role model - the guide. So what does that mean to you?
Charity
Maybe it will be easier for me to explain what I mean if I ask a question.
When we pray "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us" do you think we are asking God to take us as role models for how to forgive us?
I do not believe that Jesus would have taught us to ask God to take us as role models. So I do not believe the word "as" when used in this way in Scripture, implies a role model.
To me it simply means that both are desirable.
Ellen
Charity, which Bible translation are you using?
Ellen
And are you taking the quote from Matthew or Luke?
Charity
The "as" is in the Matthew 6 version of the Lord's prayer. I've checked all my English translations and they all have "as" in them, though I did see in the Bible gateway that the message translation is the only one that doesn't. Most of my Bible reading is in French though, and all my French Bibles have "comme" which is the equivalent of "as".
I've also taken a closer look at the Greek and the word translated by "as" in Matthew 6:12 is the same as the one that is translated "as" in Ephesians 5:23: "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour" and in verse 24 "as the church submits to Christ".
It's the same word in the Greek text in the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6 and in Ephesians 5.
For the reasons I have already stated I do not think that the meaning can be that of a role model.
Ellen
I am clarifying...or asking for clarification...
you are saying (?) (regardless of the inclusion of the submission of the church to Christ - in relation to the submission of a wife to her husband), that the submission of the church is NOT a role model for a wife?
Charity
What I am saying is that the wording of the Ephesians 5 passage cannot be taken to mean that the submission of the church to Christ is to be taken as a role model for the submission of a wife to her husband...
in the same way that it does not make sense, to say the least, to suggest that God should take us as his role models for how to forgive.
The wording is the same in Greek (and indeed in all the translations I have found) in both passages.
Ellen
The Greek is subtly different, but no matter.
why do you think God put the comparison in Scripture, if we are not to put it to use?
Charity
So in what way is the small two letter word ('ws' - sorry I don't know how to type Greek in this format) subtly different?
That is the whole point I'm trying to make. I don't believe it is meant to be a comparison as I don't believe it is meant to be a comparison in the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6.
The way I understand it is: "as one thing is true/desirable... so is the other thing". It's a way of expressing both and, not a way of comparing two things. Peter has breakfast in the morning as Paul has breakfast in the morning. This does not mean that Peter and Paul both eat the same thing, or have breakfast at the same time, in the same position or whatever. It means both Peter and Paul have breakfast at the same time.
Ellen
Sorry, I was looking at the Lord's Prayer in Luke.
I do see a direct connection and comparison in the way that we forgive and the way that forgives us. If we do not forgive, then God will not forgive us. So in a way, God IS using our forgiveness as a "model" for the way that He will forgive us. (Read Jay Adams' "From Forgiving to Forgiveness")
The way that we forgive is the way that we can expect that God will forgive us.
The way that the church submits to Christ is the way that we can expect to submit to our husbands.
Looking at other ways the word (tranliterated hos) is used...do you think that when the Bible says that Joseph did AS the angel said...that was not what he actually did?
Or when Matthew says, "be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, that's not REALLY meant to be an instruction?
That the mention of the church and Christ is rather meaningless, since there is no comparison anyway?
Charity
Sorry, I was looking at the Lord’s Prayer in Luke.
I’m sorry I did say in two separate posts that it was the same wording as in Matthew. I’m afraid I disagree with you when you say that God uses us as a model for his forgiveness. I believe that our forgiveness comes from Christ’s finished work on the cross and that our salvation cannot be earned by our forgiving other people.
Looking at other ways the word (tranliterated hos) is used…do you think that when the Bible says that Joseph did AS the angel said…that was not what he actually did?
Or when Matthew says, “be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, that’s not REALLY meant to be an instruction?
That the mention of the church and Christ is rather meaningless, since there is no comparison anyway?
I really do not understand how you have managed to infer all this. Of course it is an instruction, I haven’t heard anyone here actually disputing that. Where I don’t agree with you is the way in which you take the relationship between the church and Christ and that between a wife and her husband to be absolutely identical in its structure.
Do you really believe that your wisdom should be identical to that of serpents?
I do not believe that is what is implied in the meaning of ‘ws’. The angel told Joseph not to repudiate Mary and he did not repudiate her. Serpents are wise (or crafty) and we are to be wise in situations that call for that, doves are harmless and we are to be harmless, the church submits to Christ and wives should submit to their husbands. I really do not see that the passage calls for us to read more into it than that.
God forgives us and we should forgive others.
Ellen
But not required.
Charity
What do you mean by "But not required"?
I take it that was addressed to me?
Sue
The way that we forgive is the way that we can expect that God will forgive us.
Ouch.
The Greek isn't any clearer than the English here. It can mean what either of you suggest linguistically, but pragmatically I think there is only one possibility.