A wife is compared to the bride of Christ - the church. A wife is instructed in Ephesians 5 to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. In that same parallel, the husband is to model the love for his wife after the love that Christ has for His bride, the church. We have a wonderful privilege and responsibility to reflect that to the world.
Our Christian marriages should point people straight to Christ! If people don't look at our marriages and see them reflect Christ and the church, we are failing.
If the world looks at our marriages and sees anything less than a sacrificial love, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees a husband putting himself before the needs of his wife, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees the wife with anything less than the willing and loving submission that the church has for Christ, we are failing.
And...we are failing.
That is why the gender debate matters. The statistics say that Christian marriages are as likely to fail as secular marriages (I have my doubts about the questions asked and think that more should have been asked that would "unskew" the numbers)...but the numbers are not good.
Why is the divorce rate so high? Just like in Jesus' time...hardness of hearts. On the part of both parties.
If the love/submission is modeled on Christ and the church...if the love is modeled after Christ and the submission is modeled after the church - it is the model of Scripture. Each puts the other first, in a way that reflects Christ and the church.
We are the shadow; the mirror. How do we reflect Christ to the world?
Sue
The thing is, one kind of marriage is not working better than another kind. Marriages do not fail because of lack of submission/authority. Marriages fail because of lack of kindness on both sides. Let's preach hesed.
Eloquorius
Sue: Is hesed mutually exclusive to headship and submission?
Ellen
Sue, are you speaking of the same "hesed" that Abraham appealed to right before he pimped Sarah out to Abimelech? That "hesed"?
I think I'll stick to preaching the whole counsel of Scripture, instead of picking out the parts that feel "comfy".
There is a difference between "agapao" and "hesed".
"Hesed" allowed Abraham to give his wife to another man for the sake of his own life. "Agapao" commands a man to give up his own life for the sake of his wife.
Are you going on record as saying that
- hesed and a man pimping out his wife is a better teaching than
-agapao and a man being told to sacrifice up his life for his wife?
We teach that "submit to your husband as the church submits to Christ" does not include submitting to sin or being sinned against.
Yes, I think I'll continue to teach the whole counsel of the Word. Not just the part that fits your political agenda.
Ellen
Yeah...on my quick trip to the basement to get my laundry...
"agapao" that tells a man to lay down his life - and hupotasso, that allows a woman to say "I'll submit to you as the church submits to Christ...and that means not into sin."...
seems just a little bit safer than...
"hesed" that allows a woman to be emotionally blackmailed into the bed of a man who is not her husband.
Sue
First, Abraham was a patriarch. He did practice headship over Sarah. Sadly he appealed to hesed to get her compliance. However, I don't think we can appeal to their marriage as a model of the ideal egalitarian marriage.
So the "pimping" out of Sarah and the disgusting treatment of women by David was all part of a culture of hierarchy and patriarchy. This is repulsive to egalitarians who do not appeal to the patriarchal narratives for a model of marriage.
I know many God-honouring egalitarian couples who are quite happy together, and to ask how they ever make a decision if the husband cannot trump the wife is ridiculous.
Look at the list of egalitarian scholars. To call these people and their marriages down is downright disgusting.
Regardless of Sarah, hesed is the foundation for God's covenant with his people. If you don't want hesed you cannot believe in the God of the Bible. You cannot separate the two.
The scriptures are about God's covenant love, that is hesed. If you don't want it, then you reject Christianity and Judaism at one fell swoop.
But you are right that a woman can be abused under hesed also, although Abraham was a patriarch, so we cannot divorce the two in this story.
Perhaps, Ruth and the Proverbs 31 wife are better examples of hesed. I cannot think of any woman in the Bible who benefited by submission. Sapphira?
Headship and submission can be misused and so can hesed. But the abuse is greater when the abuser has more power. Giving one person power over the other is a dangerous thing.
Ellen
It is written: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.:
thus sayeth Scripture
Sue
I realize that this passage is in the Bible. However, I cannot think of any one example in scripture of where the wife obeyed her husband's decision and that worked for her. There must be one. Can you think of one?
There are mixed results when the husband obeys his wife. I am not defending that.
So, the interpretation, that in important decisions, the wife should do what the husband wants is not borne out by scripture. Both people are responsible fully and totally to God at all times, for their children, for their finances, for their lifestyle.
I deplore calling God's covenant love "pimping out" and I deplore the notion that egalitarians are not able to make decisions.
Let me tell you about Gordon Fee's last lecture series. His wife came to be there with him because she was concerned about his health. As a couple these two have been a tremendous testimony of love and commitment. Fee has many special insights into married love and fidelity. It was an outstanding experience listening to him speak on the topic.
Just after that I attended the series of a well-known complementarian and listened to him lay all the blame for divorce on the rebelliousness of women. I asked him about it later, and he said that maybe this did not apply to EVERY woman. But this tender allowance that he had for one woman was not announced in public.
Far rather attend the lecture of a man who calls both husband and wife to married responsibility, than one who rails against women in public but has the same tender conscience in private.
Lydia
I've observed that many years ago women were not as confused about this issue as they are these days. They didn't seem to desire to hack the work "submission" to pieces and analyze it, fragment it and dispose of it.
I am not a historian and cannot say for sure what happened, but I do know that since the 1940's a lot more religious literature has been written. If women would read the Bible and let it speak to them, eventually some of the things they don't understand will come to them. A lot of it takes time and experience.
If one is married, it seems to me that loving your mate covers a lot of this controversy. It does not seem difficult to submit to someone you love and trust. Why not marry someone you could envision yourself submitting to?
Also, I think we had a different view of submission. We did not make a big deal out of it; we understood it and it did not need to have volumes written about it.
It seems to me that it would be a joy to submit to someone you were crazy about--crazy enough to marry. I've been married almost 40 years to a preacher who has performed a lot of weddings. These girls are so crazy about the guys they marry and inside of a year they don't like them.
For the most part, submission was viewed as a protection to women. She could submit to her own husband, and not be subjected to any other men.
We lost a lot of that when women got "equal rights" because now, it doesn't matter what the husband says; it is what the state says or what some other authority says, and the husband is over ruled.
Women were at home with their absorbing interests and duties, and when divorce became more accessible, more women divorced their husbands. In my opinion, this is not submission.
If they were to be in submission, they wouldn't be competing with their husbands. If they were in submission, they wouldn't be argumentative or contradictory or hard to get along with. They wouldn't be loud, brash, bossy, etc. In my opinion, submission has more than one function.
Several of these functions are well known, but one that may not have been considered is the difference it makes in the world.
While the worldly women are domineering and bossy and unfeminine, the Christian women are submissive and sweet and calm. While the worldly women compete for everything that a man needs to have, the submissive woman is content to let her husband look after her.
I learned when I was very young that the word "sub-mission" is like being 2nd in command on a mission, or journey in life. Often the 2nd in command has huge responsibilities, and the 1st in command takes all the responsibility, and the blame.
The husband has to love his wife as Christ loves the church, and that is a harder thing than submission: he has to be willing to sacrifice greatly for her.
I do not believe that submission means anyone is inferior or superior. We are in submission to all kinds of other things and understand that, but somehow, when it comes to being in submission to a husband, everyone gets all upset and throws dust in the air.
Lydia
Excuse me for straying from the paragraph I mentioned in my previous post, regarding religious literature. Since the writing of many books on marriage, people are either confused or up in arms over the submission issue. It was not so much an "issue" in past decades as it is today and in part I blame the vast amount of religious books written about it, designed to guide a person's mind into a certain way of thinking. Some of it is so extreme, that people would not want to become Christians if the definition of submission in these books is really true. For the most part, we are better off without the extensive studies done on the subject. Let people live together for awhile and the understanding will come. I realize young people especially want to discuss every detail to death, of every litle thing--they seem to get energy from it. But, some things are best understood when they experienced. Some things are better understood with age. Having grown up in an era when women did not think they had to work outside their home, and didn't have to prove anything, and didn't feel inferior if they hadn't been to college, I have some memory of their lives. They weren't concerned about submission and they didn't have a lot of books on the subject--just the Bible. The religious catechisms and books can be confusing. If people will just stick to the scriptures and not read everyone else's interpretation of them, eventually, they will find that the Bible interprets itself. Most of the confusion over the word submission comes from other people's publications, rather than from the bible itself.
Also to emphasize my other point: following God's word makes us different from the world. Submission is one of those difference. I watch the Mennonite women around me and notice they are so self assured and busy, almost businesslike, and yet, they believe in submission. They aren't confused about it but they take charge in their homes and their husbands are happy to be the breadwinners and come home to women who have things in control at home. There doesn't seem to be the conflict or the confusion there. When we get to where we can show the world what we believe, we are better off than if we write books about it. The many things written about submission seems to have done more harm than good and turned a lot of people off the idea.
Ellen
I deplore calling God’s covenant love “pimping out” and I deplore the notion that egalitarians are not able to make decisions.
I would also if I saw it being done. In fact, I find it deplorable that you need to resort to false accusations and lies.
Ellen
Look at the list of egalitarian scholars. To call these people and their marriages down is downright disgusting.
Look at the list of complementarian scholars. To call these people and their marriages down is downright disgusting.
Please answer Eloquorius'question:
Sue: Is hesed mutually exclusive to headship and submission?
Ellen
Sue: Name ONE egalitarian scholar whose marriage I have specifically called down.
I deplore calling God’s covenant love “pimping out”
Sue, I have continually explored the beauty of the love/submission of the covenantal love of Christ and the church. You are the one who continually finds problems with tht teaching of Scripture.
If that is an accusation toward me, please make it openly. With a quote.
Ellen
Lydia, thank you for dropping by.
While the worldly women are domineering and bossy and unfeminine, the Christian women are submissive and sweet and calm. While the worldly women compete for everything that a man needs to have, the submissive woman is content to let her husband look after her.
Right up until the point where worldly feminism poisons her attitude.
thanks again!
Ellen
Sue, please do a word search on this page for "obey". Other than this comment of mine, who has used it?
Lydia
Yes, the attitude is the problem. I can't remember in the 40's or 50's there being such a big deal made out of submission. The religiousity surrounding it today almost makes a religion out of it alone, and the feminists want to throw it completely out the door. There was a common sense, balanced view, taken in light of the rest of the Bible (including the command to love and serve others, to do unto others as you would like them to do to you, etc) and not so much messing about with words and wrangling and wresting meanings out of things regarding submission and obedience. Yet, the women I've known who are my age, do not suffer from any kind of feelings of inferiority, and they are tenderly devoted to their husbands. I think there was some poisonous feminist teachings going on in colleges that I was not aware of, that has somehow fostered some of the new religious attitudes about the concept of submission and obedience. We didn't look at it the way religious people do today. We didn't worry about every little thing. Husbands pretty much minded their own business and weren't too intent on bossing their wives, and women minded the home and they helped their husbands when they could but they weren't looking for fault in their men or trying to find ways to criticise and accuse them. Some men were "henpecked" which was having critical wives, and in church, such things were warned against. But today there is so much fear connected obey and submit, and so much questioning around it and women are so unhappy. I still "feel" the happiness surrounding women in "my day" as they seemed to love their husbands and want the best for them, and the idea of submission would not have daunted them a bit but they also kne their husbands would have given their lives for them. The mood is so different today; it is frightening.
Sue
Are you going on record as saying that
- hesed and a man pimping out his wife is a better teaching than
I am sorry, Ellen, no false accusations. I won't say any more.
Ellen
Thank you for understanding that your false accusations will no longer be tolerated here.
Sue
Lydia,
Husbands pretty much minded their own business and weren’t too intent on bossing their wives, and women minded the home and they helped their husbands when they could but they weren’t looking for fault in their men or trying to find ways to criticise and accuse them. .
I think that sounds just wonderful. Its too bad we don't see that more today.
Ellen
Sue, there are a few questions that I would like to have answered please.
Sue, please do a word search on this page for “obey”. Other than this comment of mine, who has used it?
Please answer Eloquorius’question:
Sue: Is hesed mutually exclusive to headship and submission?
If that [calling God’s covenant love “pimping out”] is an accusation toward me, please make it openly. With a quote.
Sue
I wrote,
I deplore calling God’s covenant love “pimping out” and I deplore the notion that egalitarians are not able to make decisions.
I also deplore the parking situation in my neighbourhood, but I don't think you can construe this as an accusation. Good-bye.
Ellen
The accusation I was speaking of was quoted.
I am surprised (or maybe not) that you were not able to give an answer.
Ellen
A simple, "no, that was not an accusation." would have been fine.
Sue: Is hesed mutually exclusive to headship and submission?
Sue, please do a word search on this page for “obey”. Other than this comment of mine, who has used it?
A couple of simple questions.
Ellen
Lydia, I was married (a difficult marriage) for 23 years. In that time, my understanding of submission deepened and a realization of the ability I had at that time to reflect the submission the church because real to me.
Ellen
E- I'll provide the answer.
On another post, Sue said, "Authority IN love must be a moral authority, not an authority based on gender...."
An a different post, Since all men are sinful, putting oneself under authority, is a sinful impulse to avoid adult responsibility for decision-making.
On another: However, I do think that the vows for a woman to obey, serve, seek to please, follow submissively, and put the husband as head of the home, without reciprocation are immoral(...)God created marriage. It is good. Binding the woman in obedience to the husband is bad(...)Yes, sexual love is important, but it also has a deeper meaning. It should make us think of God who created it and explicitly forbids that it be about authority and submission.
bethyada
Sue First, Abraham was a patriarch. He did practice headship over Sarah. Sadly he appealed to hesed to get her compliance. However, I don’t think we can appeal to their marriage as a model of the ideal egalitarian marriage.
Maybe not egalatarian but Peter thinks Sarah is a good model for wives: 1 Peter 3.
Lydia
Ellen, she was evidently referring to Abraham not revealing that Sarah was his wife, because he was afraid of a king. On two different occasions, Abraham did not say she was his wife, because Abimilech and Pharoah both tried to woo her and then when they found out she was his wife, both got extremely upset with Abraham. While there was actually no violation that took place, Abraham failed to say something. He did not "pimp her out," as some writers say. One of the occasions was in Genesis 20.
Ellen
He knowingly allowed his wife to be sent to the bed of another man - telling her "this is the way you will show your [hesed} toward me..."
whether you call it "pimping" or not, I'd rather live with "agapao" than the sort of "hesed" that Abraham appealed to.
😉
Lydia
I sometimes wonder why people don't accuse Sarah of making a harlot out of Abraham. It was her idea for him to get another wife, then her idea for him to get rid of her. She had a great influence on him.
I peter 3 talks about Sarah obeying Abraham, calling him Lord, but goes on to say that Christian are like Sarah if they don't have fear (terror). Calling him lord was in reference to Gen. 18:12 when she was told she was going to have a baby. "Shall I have pleasure, my Lord being old, also?" The word "lord" was a sign of respect. Abigail called David "my lord," and throughout the ages, women were called in turn, "my lady," as a sign of respect, like the word "sir" or ma'am, which is fast leaving our own culture. Note this word lord in this instance was not the capital Lord of our Lord Jesus Christ. Lords were, in Europe, owners of land, and often referred to as "my lord.".
Ellen
I sometimes wonder why people don’t accuse Sarah of making a harlot out of Abraham.
Most likely because it wasn't possible.
It was her idea for him to get another wife, then her idea for him to get rid of her.
Not really. Given what the custom was, the idea that Hagar would be a "wife" was most likely not on the radar screen. Hagar might be more accurately described as a proto-type rent-a-womb.
She had a great influence on him.
Just so. As a wife rightly should (as most complementarians teach. 😉
Lydia
Gen 16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
Ellen
Well...right.
Hagar had roughly zero rights as a wife. Including the rights to her own son.
She was "given" to Abraham so that Sarah could have sons.
Lydia
Obviously I am talking about a different subject than you are. You claimed it was not really Sarai who gave the maid to her husband...I'm saying she gave Hagar to him, and later she caused Hagar to be sent away. Whatever she said, was done. That was in response to the idea that some people have that women had no say in anything. In the case of Abraham, Sarah had her own way.
Ellen
No, I'm saying that Sarah didn't give Hagar to Abraham as a wife. Sarah gave Abraham her handmaid in order for Sarah to get a son. Hagar as a "wife" never entered into the equation. Hagar was (as I said in my first comment on the topic) no more than a "rent-a-womb", with no rights or protection that she would have had as a second wife.
I repeat. Hagar was not given to Abraham as a "wife". Was she given to him? Yes. As a wife? No.
Lydia
I never argued that. All I said was that Sarai was not without "rights"--and she called the shots in some cases, particuarly since it was her idea to take Hagar and later get rid of her.
Ellen
Right...that's why Sue's "let's teach hesed" doesn't work well, because that's what Abraham appealed to when he asked her to tell people that she was his sister.
Rights? yes...so Abraham did the "If you love me...you'll [fill in the blank]" thing.
It is (I believe you'll agree) a mistake to teach that complementarian women have no rights in a marriage.