What does it mean to be submissive. I said i ask this question simply because i would like to hear opinions, and understand what it means to each person.
Submission according to the dictionary simply unresistingly or humbly obedient. I would like to define a conclusion i have come to.
I take my conclusion from Ephesians 5 21 -31 NLT. I read it over an over again, and i feel i got a clarity on this topic.
Verse 21 simply says Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Verse 22-24 tells the woman to submit to her husband in everything.
Verse 25 -29 For Husbands this means love your wives comparing it to how Christ loved the church.
There are some bible passage I would put in this context. 1 Corinthians 11 in some verses
like verse 8 emphasizing woman was made from the Man's Rib
Verse 9 Emphasizing the role of a woman as a helpmate and been made to assist the man
Before Men get arrogant
Verse 11 emphasizes that we are not independent of each other.
1 Peter 3 emphasizes Men to treat women with honor. This is plainly stated that she is an equal Partner emphasizing treating her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered.
I know most of this bible passages are clear to understand nothing confusing about it. It's just hard for men who want authority and don't want to be accountable to a woman. It is hard for a woman in this time of ours simply because the world has seen men as dictators and women need to win their rights back.
In the Kingdom of God we are all joint heirs no one is greater than the other.
Men are to submit to their wives and honor them. Ephesians 5:21 mentions us to submit ourselves to one another. It didn't emphasize just men but also women. Neither did it mention women submitting to women alone not men.
So the first step is submitting to each other.
1 peter 3 1-2 gives the advice to the woman simply you must accept the authority of the Man. Even if the man is not acting right you need to accept his authority. It very similar to having a boss. A good Boss listens to you and serve you as well gives clear directions. If the Good Boss becomes Bad You still have to obey him simply because he has given authority and it must be accepted. No talking of abusive spouses
Ephesians 5:25 Clearly talks to the man Love your wife. If we go by the attributes of love according to 1 Corinthians 13 we men would love their wives regardless of how they behave. Not dependent on how good they perform or satisfy our standard. We won't keep any record of ills we have to be patient, Kind, not be jealous of them even if they have more success. We cannot become irritable, We cannot demand our own way. We can never give up on them and we must endure in every circumstance when they look best and appealing and those days they become overweight or have stretch marks or become all wrinkled up or when they are ill and can't satisfy our desires.
IF we love our wives before making any decision we would consult them and put them ahead in our thoughts. think of how does it affect them.
1 Peter talks of the woman as a weaker vessel. If we have junior ones we teach them and tolerate them because we know they are young, possibly naive and have more to learn. We encourage them even when they make mistakes.
I believe as Men who would want to be authorities in their house. We have to first be a servant (not a slave) For Example Our President is our Servant simply because he serves our interest. he is not a slave who has no opinion of his own. Jesus was the perfect example of a servant. Knowing the authority he had chose to die for us, washing his disciples feet.....
When we become a servant that's when we can lead. When our wives see that we take decisions putting them into consideration, been able to handle situations and take charge and accept responsibilities. When our motives are clear as to whom we have allegiances to, when we shower them with affection. It helps a woman submit easily. If Men don't have their act together or take authority and responsibility it's hard for a woman to submit.
We may push them to having to fill in the gap we have created by differing authority to them automatically.
Women please don't marry a Man you don't trust his decisions or leadership in all areas, even though you love to be submissive you won't be submissive. Simply because you can't trust him with authority, your human mind works into overdrive you tend to take charge. The man sees you as controlling or not submissive.
Men Please don't marry a woman because she is beautiful. Don't use your money, charisma or any appealing characteristics to attract a woman. Those things wear off after living together for a year. If she doesn't believe in your leadership, decisions nor respect your occupation and financial capability. Please don't do it, you will end up regretting it. She would continually compare you & undermine your authority.
To all we can't fix ourselves talk less of fixing the other person. The only person with that Job Title is the Holy Spirit. Please lets depend on Him to change, mold, and refine our heart to continually trust in Jesus to lead us and our families. If we put God first in everything even though our marriages may not be perfect it would have peace, joy, and above all bring glory to the father.
Just to add to the previous post, the true Biblical view of leadership is servant driven.
Matt 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Just a fun example albeit crude:
I own a chihuahua. One could say that I am the owner/master, etc. She is to obey me. However, the day to day reality is that I feed her, I bathe her, I walk her, I pick up after her and so on. I serve her and hopefully she obeys me.
By the way, the relationship has been working pretty well for the past 6 years.
"the application of that verse disproportionately gets translated in the male mind that the male IS superior and that he has biblical backup for being a bully,"
Any abuse of scripture is wrong. However the submission command is in scripture. Notice that scripture doesn't tell me to demand that my wife submit. It tells the woman to submit herself. If I demand submission out of my wife, then I am sinning. It may seem like I am demanding it right now, because we are having a conversation on what the bible teaches about submission.
"The words in your earlier submission has an undertone of this very issue:"
If you had read where I explained submission, you would not say that I gave undertones of being a bully.
"The interpretation, if only subconsciously, is that the woman is property, not a trusted helpmeet."
It's not an interpretation. It's verses 5:22-6:9. They aren't my words.
"I�m saying it is probably the most delicate of instructions that is far too often separated from the rest of scripture"
Which is why I wrote that to understand a woman's role of submission, then we should look at every verse in scripture that teaches about how a wife should conduct herself. I agree with you.
Not that this is a strictly theological argument, but it's worth being aware of the time and place that this passage was written in. It was written when women were practically property of their husbands, when they couldn't freely divorce (while men could) and when they basically had zero rights. In this context, these passages are actually liberating to women, they deny a man's right to do with his wife as he pleases, and they command him to be to her as Christ is to the church. Considering the times, that was certainly a huge step forward for women.
Though I believe the Bible is written for all ages, it requires interpretation and context sensitivity for some passages. In an age when women were not educated and men may have been, it was probably better for women to submit to their husband's larger knowledge base. However, in modern western societies where there is little to no educational discrimination based on gender, this discrepancy is all but negligible. There is no practical reason for men to always be the head of the household. As evidenced by our society, there are numerous effective business women who are fiercely practical, efficient and intelligent. There are many men who are intensely artistic and unconcerned with making household decisions. In such a union, should the more practical and logical wife submit to the more emotional and unconcerned husband for no reason other than him having a 'Y' chromosome?
At this point, I simply feel that the 'better' leader ought to lead. If that's the man, great! If that's the woman, outstanding! We are all one in Christ anyway. There's nothing wrong with adhering to traditional gender roles, I just don't think the spirit of the Bible really dictates the enforcement of them. The vast, vast majority of everything in scripture applies to both genders, I seriously question the conception of the two genders having a mandate to behave so differently from each other. For both, the virtues and sins apply equally.
You can't argue that context plays a part in what a passage can mean. In the NT letters, for instance, it makes a difference as to whether they are addressing believers or non-believers in different passages.
I am not at all saying that you are a bully. I don't know you much at all. What I'm saying is the context in which you layer your arguement are the words that bullies have used.
"It's not an interpretation. It's verses 5:22-6:9. They aren't my words."
You just said, for instance, that women are property and/or slaves, and that they are not your words but in fact scripture. It is not that the words did not come out of the NT, it is how you strung them together which gave it a meaning that was not implied in the actual passage. You could be right that the emphasis is stronger because of the context of the discussion thread itself. Nevertheless, the presentation can inadvertantly disrespect an entire gender and influence a weaker brother to accept that as truth.
I have read all of your submissions and recognize an intelligent young man who desires to do what is right in God's eyes. I am just cautioning, as an older sister in Christ, to filter your enthusiasm for the letter of the law with tenderness of the heart of the law. Remember the woman "caught" in adultry. They were right that she should have been stoned, according to scripture. But two remarkable things happened: Christ reminded them that they had skipped their part in that scripture (to be without sin in order to cast the first stone) in order to seem more righteous than her, and then... though He had EVERY righteous right to stone her, Christ himself, the perfect one without sin, chose not to condemn her but forgave and lifted her instead. It is this humbleness that caused her, and thousands of others, to submit themselves to Him!
I have no issue with submission and recognize that God has ordained order and Godly accountability in all things in creation. My words, my brother, are to encourage you as a God-filled leader in your community, to look again at the way your careful interpretation of scripture can influence an entire generation of men towards Christlike humble/inspiring leadership.
"You just said, for instance, that women are property and/or slaves, and that they are not your words but in fact scripture."
I don't recall saying this. The order for the wife to submit is the same as the order for the children and the slaves to submit. I can certainly understand how on the surface this sounds harsh. I was not saying that the woman must be a slave to her husband.
You bring up some good points but we must remember that the woman who committed adultery was told to go and sin no more. So it's a question of now that we know the truth, how should we conduct ourselves. I don't condemn every failure. That's not my goal here. I've just been attempting to defend the word. I should probably stop responding because all of my responses seem to be read by others in a way that they were not intended. I do thank you for your well meaning reply.
"to filter your enthusiasm for the letter of the law with tenderness of the heart of the law."
I have seen this type of argument over and over. This shows a misunderstanding of the distinction. It's being applied as though some how the "heart of the law" softens the "letter of the law" when in fact, it always does the opposite. Thus often times, while a Pharisee was keeping the "letter of the law", it was only an outward show because he was still violating the law inwardly.
The letter of the law : thou shalt not commit adultery.
The spirit of the law: you should not only not commit adultery, but you should not think about doing it, look at a woman with lust, etc.
Notice that the spirit of the law, far from undoing the letter of the law, actually expands the letter.
In this case, the command is for a wife to submit to her husband.
That's the "letter of the law"
In spirit, she should not only do so outwardly, but inwardly as well.
You are actually well within reason to raise such an issue. By challenging one passage as needing context sensitivity, I challenge them all from a philosophical standpoint. However if we look at Jesus' sermons, we see him doing the exact same thing with old Jewish laws (the woman who committed adultery is great example). Jesus himself was constantly infuriated by the misuse of ancient laws in order for some to take advantage of others. More often than not, it was the most religious (but arguably least spiritual) who made these mistakes.
I feel that simply following a set of rules is insufficient and will always be. We need to strive after the spirit of God, not just the words given to us. Why does the Author (commonly attributed to Paul I believe) say what he does here? What prompts such a statement?
Considering that many of these New Testament letters were written for specific Christian communities, it would not surprise me if some of the more controversial segments of the bible might be less applicable in modern societies than in biblical ones. Does this mean that we can just cherry pick passages that we don't like? No, it doesn't. But it's worthwhile trying to get a deeper understanding of what the passage is addressing. I simply reject the idea that the spirit of the passage is that men should always be in authority over women. I think the passage was trying to improve the stability of families and the treatment of women. Since strictly adhering to this 'law' would actually go against the spirit of the law, I find this to be obsolete.
This is simply my views on the matter, and for what it's worth I don't think you were being particularly unreasonable. You just don't have the most popular views with women!
