Biblical Headship

[yoderfamily]

According to Ephesians 5:23 - 24 What is the relationship between Christ and His church if the church decides to walk according to their own interpretation.?

Or what is a husband's role where the wife is convinced that her (head) is so out of order ( such lascivious beliefs as polygany being the qualifier) that he is no longer her head?

 

[Wesley]

Before I start this I want to point out that the word 'submit', as it is used in the New Testament, is a verb not a noun. It is something that woman does rather than something that is done to her. If a man wants to be forgiven for his failures to submit to Christ then he must forgive his wives for any failures to submit to him. (Matthew 6:15) With that said...

Disclaimer: I'm basing this on what the Bible actually says. If anyone has a problem with what the Bible says then take it up with the author not with me.

Ephesians 5:22-24 is a controversial passage. The feminists want us to believe that verse 21 is somehow relevant and thus marriage is supposed to be mutual submission. Many churches have been infected by this attitude. There are two ways that we can see the nonsense of that position. I will examine each of them in later paragraphs but right now in order to relate this to the OP I want to examine verses 32 and 33 of Ephesians 5.

Ephesians 5:32 NIV
32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

Here Paul repeats the comparison from verse 23 between the marriage covenant and the Christ/church covenant. This is a recurring theme throughout the Bible occurring in the Old Testament in such places as Ezekiel 23 and in the New Testament in such places as Matthew 25:1-12 and 1 Corinthians 11:3.

Ephesians 5:33 NIV
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

But Paul is also talking about marriage, not just the Christ church covenant. This presents a problem. The problem is that the comparison does exist. So when feminists challenge the submission of a wife to her husband they are also challenging the submission of the church to Christ and vice versa.

1 Corinthians 11:3 & 9 NIV (bold emphasis is mine)
3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

From this we know that women were literally created for men rather than with men. We also know that the husband is the "head" of the wife because she was created for him. These two verses, even standing alone, would put an effective end to the feminist argument about mutual submission. The Greek word that is translated here as "head" is "κεφαλή" (kephalē). In its literal sense it is a medical or veterinary term that refers to the head of a patient or animal. In its metaphorical sense in regard to human relations, which the sense that is applicable here, it is better translated as either "master or "lord". The metaphorical context is equivalent to the English metaphorical usage, "head of state" (i.e. 'king' or 'lord') or "head of the company" (i.e. the CEO, called 'master' in biblical times). In other words it is a metaphor for the boss.

The same phraseology is used for the relationship between Christ and men however so challenging the headship of the husband is effectively challenging the headship of Christ. This is one of the biggest problems we face today as more and more churches fall away from the teachings of Christ and the understanding that Christ is their leader and thus His word is law.

So that brings us to the feminist question "Does Ephesians 5:21 make the concept of marital 'headship' refer to some kind of mutual submission?"

As I said above, there are two answers to that. They stand alone in that disproving one would not disprove the other but they also support each other in that they both come to the same result. The two answers are...

• Find me the word 'submit' in verse 23. It isn't there. It does not exist in that verse. Paul isn't talking about submission, mutual or otherwise, in verse 23. Paul has changed topics. The only thing left is to determine whether verses 22 and 24 go with the topic verse 23 or the topic in verse 21. The phraseology of both verses and the positioning of verse 24 (after verse 23) makes the answer rather obvious in my opinion.
• The concept of a wife submitting to her husband occurs in several places in the New Testament. The concept of mutual submission is only discussed near one of them. If mutual submission were an important issue in marriage then it would occur near each reference to marriage. It does not. Thus it is not relevant to marriage and is only incidentally discussed in the same letter to the Ephesians.

Examining both of those in detail, let's look at the first one.

Ephesians 5:23 SBLGNT
23 ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος.

Here we see the exact same phraseology that we see in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The ἀνήρ (man/husband) is the κεφαλὴ (head/lord/master) of the γυναικὸς (plural women) as Χριστὸς (Christ) is the κεφαλὴ (head/lord/master) of the ἐκκλησίας (church).

Should the word κεφαλὴ be translated as lord, master or king rather than as 'head'?

Well first off, Paul says that Christ is the κύριος (kyrios), or "lord and master", of the church (Colossians 4:1) and Paul compares the husband/wife relationship to the Christ/church relationship. Secondly, Peter uses the same term, κύριος, for how a wife should address her husband in 1 Peter 3:6. The Greek word κύριος only has two possible English translations, "master" or "lord". So it would appear that Peter and Paul believe that a wife should address her husband as "master" or "lord".

Incidentally, if the husband is the lord and king of the wife then 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 would make Christ the "Lord of lords and King of kings" (Revelation 17:14 NIV)

Thus the above statement is true. Ephesians 5:23 is not speaking of submission mutual or otherwise. Ephesians 5:23 is echoing 1 Corinthians 11:3 in declaring the husband to be the head/lord/master of the wife. So Paul actually has changed subjects away from the mutual submission of Christian brothers.

Verse 24 comes after verse 23 so it obviously refers to the subject of verse 23 not the subject of verse 21. I will let the reader draw their own conclusions about verse 22. I know what I believe.

Now let's look at the second point.

How many places in the New Testament does it say that a wife should submit herself to her husband?

We have the infamous Ephesians 5:22-24

Ephesians 5:22-24 NIV
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 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 Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything

But we also have...

Colossians 3:18 NIV
18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

And...

Titus 2:3-5 NIV (bold emphasis mine)
3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

And let's not forget The Apostle Peter...

1 Peter 3:1-6 NIV
3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

The list goes on and on.

If mutual submission is relevant and important to marriage then why is not mentioned in regard to any of these passage. If we're going to look at what is written around these passages as the feminists seem to want to do with Ephesians 5:22-24 then we need to remember that 1 Peter 1:1 uses the words "in the same way which seems to refer back to the reference to slaves submitting to masters in 1 Peter 2:18. That would seem to mean that wives are to submit to their husbands as slaves submit to masters.

So I'm really not sure how they come up with the idea that mutual submission is a relevant idea when we are discussing marriage.

It certainly isn't a relevant idea when we are discussing the Christ/church covenant. Christ does not submit to either the Pope or the Episcopalians.

That is a key point that we need to remember when discussing church doctrine.

• Christ isn't going to change the rules on homosexuality just because some churches want to include gays and lesbians in order to get more tithes. (gays: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10; lesbians 1 Corinthians 11:9)
• He isn't going to change the rules on marriage just because the Pope and the Baptist Theological Seminary want to redefine marriage as solely monogamous. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
• He isn't going to change the rules on legalism just so the Pope can prevent priests from marrying. (Matthew 15:7-9 and Mark 7:6-7)

And Christ isn't going to change any of the other rules just because we want them changed either.

The whole concept of watering down the submission of a wife to a husband then waters down the submission of the church to Christ due to the correlations between the two in the Bible.

 

[FollowingHim]

Well argued Wesley. But I'd take another step back even further. You assume that verse 21 is talking about "mutual submission", and that verses 22 on are not related to it.

But where does Ephesians 5:21 EVER mention "mutual submission", in any translation?

KJV Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
ESV submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
NIV Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

It's all "to one another" or "one to another". To parapharase, this simply says "Some of you need to submit to others of you".

It doesn't say who is to submit to who. It certainly doesn't say "Everyone must submit to everyone else", or "husbands and wives must both submit to each other". There isn't a single hint of "mutual" submission. That's a completely human-invented idea that is read into the verse, not read from it. The verse itself just says that somewhere somebody will be submitting to somebody else.

Then, verses 22-24 describe the detail of what Paul is talking about - wives are to submit to their husbands.

So I'd just say that there is no such thing as "mutual submission", the whole notion is fabricated. The entire passage as read contains a single consistent message.

 

[FollowingHim]

By the way, it's fascinating to see how different translations keep the text in Ephesians 5 essentially the same yet artificially break the text and add a subheading in different places to give the reader a completely different impression. Compare the conservative ESV to the liberal NIV:

15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives and Husbands
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

The ESV puts verse 21 in with the previous verses, as a general description of all the things that will happen within the church - songs, thanksgiving, submission, all in their proper places. Verses 18 - 21 are a single sentence in the KJV too.

15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Instructions for Christian Households
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 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 Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

While the NIV removes it from that, makes it it's own standalone statement, and puts it as the first point in their "Instructions for Christian Households". The verse itself is worded almost identically to the ESV, but the subheading placement and sentence structure completely changes the message the casual reader might take from it.

 

[Wesley]

Hello Samuel,
I agree with you that the idea of mutual submission is a human creation that was never intended by either the Holy Spirit or the Apostle Paul. It is an argument that is frequently presented with regard to the issue of biblical headship therefore when someone raised the issue of biblical headship I addressed that argument.

Your points are also well argued. That's one reason that I pretty much ignore the subheadings in whatever English translation I happen to be reading. I'm currently working on learning how to ignore the English translations altogether and read the Koine Greek. I always cross reference the English with the Koine Greek. The sentence structure is different and so is the punctuation and those differences are sometimes relevant, as is the case with 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12 and Titus 1:6. I'm good at researching the Greek but I'm still at the level of researching it rather than actually reading it. I'm working on changing that.

Looking at the Koine Greek version of Ephesians 5, I see two basic sections. The first section, verses 1-21, speak of how people are to conduct themselves in the larger gathering of the church. The second section, verses 22-33, address family life and the comparison between the husband/wife covenant and the Christ/church covenant.

We need to remember that neither Paul nor any of the other disciples, even separated their epistles into chapters or verses. The chapter and verse divisions were added hundreds of years later. Further the differences in sentence structure between the English language and the Koine dialect of Greek force differing punctuation, sentence separations, and even additional words in some cases to effectively convey the meaning.

You are correct in stating that the translators of the NIV were grinding a different ax than the translators of the ESV. That ax grinding did not start with the ESV or the NIV however. It started when the Koine Greek was translated into the Latin Vulgate and was continued when King James commissioned an English translation from the original languages and it still continues today.

Realistically that's why the current English translations 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12 and Titus 1:6 claim that church leaders must be the husband of "one wife" instead of the more accurate "a wife" (requiring church leaders to be married), "their first wife" (prohibiting divorce among church leaders) or a more recent possibility that I've discovered "one or more wives" (again requiring church leaders to be married). [FWIW I've recently run across the possibility that the Greek word γυναικὸς which is used in those passages may actually be the plural form of the Koine Greek word for wife.]

 

[HOHofwives]

Before I start this I want to point out that the word 'submit', as it is used in the New Testament, is a verb not a noun. It is something that woman does rather than something that is done to her. If a man wants to be forgiven for his failures to submit to Christ then he must forgive his wives for any failures to submit to him. (Matthew 6:15) With that said...

Disclaimer: I'm basing this on what the Bible actually says. If anyone has a problem with what the Bible says then take it up with the author not with me.

Ephesians 5:22-24 is a controversial passage. The feminists want us to believe that verse 21 is somehow relevant and thus marriage is supposed to be mutual submission. Many churches have been infected by this attitude. There are two ways that we can see the nonsense of that position. I will examine each of them in later paragraphs but right now in order to relate this to the OP I want to examine verses 32 and 33 of Ephesians 5.


Here Paul repeats the comparison from verse 23 between the marriage covenant and the Christ/church covenant. This is a recurring theme throughout the Bible occurring in the Old Testament in such places as Ezekiel 23 and in the New Testament in such places as Matthew 25:1-12 and 1 Corinthians 11:3.


But Paul is also talking about marriage, not just the Christ church covenant. This presents a problem. The problem is that the comparison does exist. So when feminists challenge the submission of a wife to her husband they are also challenging the submission of the church to Christ and vice versa.



From this we know that women were literally created for men rather than with men. We also know that the husband is the "head" of the wife because she was created for him. These two verses, even standing alone, would put an effective end to the feminist argument about mutual submission. The Greek word that is translated here as "head" is "κεφαλή" (kephalē). In its literal sense it is a medical or veterinary term that refers to the head of a patient or animal. In its metaphorical sense in regard to human relations, which the sense that is applicable here, it is better translated as either "master or "lord". The metaphorical context is equivalent to the English metaphorical usage, "head of state" (i.e. 'king' or 'lord') or "head of the company" (i.e. the CEO, called 'master' in biblical times). In other words it is a metaphor for the boss.

The same phraseology is used for the relationship between Christ and men however so challenging the headship of the husband is effectively challenging the headship of Christ. This is one of the biggest problems we face today as more and more churches fall away from the teachings of Christ and the understanding that Christ is their leader and thus His word is law.

So that brings us to the feminist question "Does Ephesians 5:21 make the concept of marital 'headship' refer to some kind of mutual submission?"

As I said above, there are two answers to that. They stand alone in that disproving one would not disprove the other but they also support each other in that they both come to the same result. The two answers are...

• Find me the word 'submit' in verse 23. It isn't there. It does not exist in that verse. Paul isn't talking about submission, mutual or otherwise, in verse 23. Paul has changed topics. The only thing left is to determine whether verses 22 and 24 go with the topic verse 23 or the topic in verse 21. The phraseology of both verses and the positioning of verse 24 (after verse 23) makes the answer rather obvious in my opinion.
• The concept of a wife submitting to her husband occurs in several places in the New Testament. The concept of mutual submission is only discussed near one of them. If mutual submission were an important issue in marriage then it would occur near each reference to marriage. It does not. Thus it is not relevant to marriage and is only incidentally discussed in the same letter to the Ephesians.

Examining both of those in detail, let's look at the first one.



Here we see the exact same phraseology that we see in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The ἀνήρ (man/husband) is the κεφαλὴ (head/lord/master) of the γυναικὸς (plural women) as Χριστὸς (Christ) is the κεφαλὴ (head/lord/master) of the ἐκκλησίας (church).

Should the word κεφαλὴ be translated as lord, master or king rather than as 'head'?

Well first off, Paul says that Christ is the κύριος (kyrios), or "lord and master", of the church (Colossians 4:1) and Paul compares the husband/wife relationship to the Christ/church relationship. Secondly, Peter uses the same term, κύριος, for how a wife should address her husband in 1 Peter 3:6. The Greek word κύριος only has two possible English translations, "master" or "lord". So it would appear that Peter and Paul believe that a wife should address her husband as "master" or "lord".

Incidentally, if the husband is the lord and king of the wife then 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 would make Christ the "Lord of lords and King of kings" (Revelation 17:14 NIV)

Thus the above statement is true. Ephesians 5:23 is not speaking of submission mutual or otherwise. Ephesians 5:23 is echoing 1 Corinthians 11:3 in declaring the husband to be the head/lord/master of the wife. So Paul actually has changed subjects away from the mutual submission of Christian brothers.

Verse 24 comes after verse 23 so it obviously refers to the subject of verse 23 not the subject of verse 21. I will let the reader draw their own conclusions about verse 22. I know what I believe.

Now let's look at the second point.

How many places in the New Testament does it say that a wife should submit herself to her husband?

We have the infamous Ephesians 5:22-24


But we also have...


And...


And let's not forget The Apostle Peter...


The list goes on and on.

If mutual submission is relevant and important to marriage then why is not mentioned in regard to any of these passage. If we're going to look at what is written around these passages as the feminists seem to want to do with Ephesians 5:22-24 then we need to remember that 1 Peter 1:1 uses the words "in the same way which seems to refer back to the reference to slaves submitting to masters in 1 Peter 2:18. That would seem to mean that wives are to submit to their husbands as slaves submit to masters.

So I'm really not sure how they come up with the idea that mutual submission is a relevant idea when we are discussing marriage.

It certainly isn't a relevant idea when we are discussing the Christ/church covenant. Christ does not submit to either the Pope or the Episcopalians.

That is a key point that we need to remember when discussing church doctrine.

• Christ isn't going to change the rules on homosexuality just because some churches want to include gays and lesbians in order to get more tithes. (gays: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10; lesbians 1 Corinthians 11:9)
• He isn't going to change the rules on marriage just because the Pope and the Baptist Theological Seminary want to redefine marriage as solely monogamous. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
• He isn't going to change the rules on legalism just so the Pope can prevent priests from marrying. (Matthew 15:7-9 and Mark 7:6-7)

And Christ isn't going to change any of the other rules just because we want them changed either.

The whole concept of watering down the submission of a wife to a husband then waters down the submission of the church to Christ due to the correlations between the two in the Bible.

Amen Wesley it's just great to finally see more action happening on this site

Before I start this I want to point out that the word 'submit', as it is used in the New Testament, is a verb not a noun. It is something that woman does rather than something that is done to her. If a man wants to be forgiven for his failures to submit to Christ then he must forgive his wives for any failures to submit to him. (Matthew 6:15) With that said...

Disclaimer: I'm basing this on what the Bible actually says. If anyone has a problem with what the Bible says then take it up with the author not with me.

Ephesians 5:22-24 is a controversial passage. The feminists want us to believe that verse 21 is somehow relevant and thus marriage is supposed to be mutual submission. Many churches have been infected by this attitude. There are two ways that we can see the nonsense of that position. I will examine each of them in later paragraphs but right now in order to relate this to the OP I want to examine verses 32 and 33 of Ephesians 5.


Here Paul repeats the comparison from verse 23 between the marriage covenant and the Christ/church covenant. This is a recurring theme throughout the Bible occurring in the Old Testament in such places as Ezekiel 23 and in the New Testament in such places as Matthew 25:1-12 and 1 Corinthians 11:3.


But Paul is also talking about marriage, not just the Christ church covenant. This presents a problem. The problem is that the comparison does exist. So when feminists challenge the submission of a wife to her husband they are also challenging the submission of the church to Christ and vice versa.



From this we know that women were literally created for men rather than with men. We also know that the husband is the "head" of the wife because she was created for him. These two verses, even standing alone, would put an effective end to the feminist argument about mutual submission. The Greek word that is translated here as "head" is "κεφαλή" (kephalē). In its literal sense it is a medical or veterinary term that refers to the head of a patient or animal. In its metaphorical sense in regard to human relations, which the sense that is applicable here, it is better translated as either "master or "lord". The metaphorical context is equivalent to the English metaphorical usage, "head of state" (i.e. 'king' or 'lord') or "head of the company" (i.e. the CEO, called 'master' in biblical times). In other words it is a metaphor for the boss.

The same phraseology is used for the relationship between Christ and men however so challenging the headship of the husband is effectively challenging the headship of Christ. This is one of the biggest problems we face today as more and more churches fall away from the teachings of Christ and the understanding that Christ is their leader and thus His word is law.

So that brings us to the feminist question "Does Ephesians 5:21 make the concept of marital 'headship' refer to some kind of mutual submission?"

As I said above, there are two answers to that. They stand alone in that disproving one would not disprove the other but they also support each other in that they both come to the same result. The two answers are...

• Find me the word 'submit' in verse 23. It isn't there. It does not exist in that verse. Paul isn't talking about submission, mutual or otherwise, in verse 23. Paul has changed topics. The only thing left is to determine whether verses 22 and 24 go with the topic verse 23 or the topic in verse 21. The phraseology of both verses and the positioning of verse 24 (after verse 23) makes the answer rather obvious in my opinion.
• The concept of a wife submitting to her husband occurs in several places in the New Testament. The concept of mutual submission is only discussed near one of them. If mutual submission were an important issue in marriage then it would occur near each reference to marriage. It does not. Thus it is not relevant to marriage and is only incidentally discussed in the same letter to the Ephesians.

Examining both of those in detail, let's look at the first one.



Here we see the exact same phraseology that we see in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The ἀνήρ (man/husband) is the κεφαλὴ (head/lord/master) of the γυναικὸς (plural women) as Χριστὸς (Christ) is the κεφαλὴ (head/lord/master) of the ἐκκλησίας (church).

Should the word κεφαλὴ be translated as lord, master or king rather than as 'head'?

Well first off, Paul says that Christ is the κύριος (kyrios), or "lord and master", of the church (Colossians 4:1) and Paul compares the husband/wife relationship to the Christ/church relationship. Secondly, Peter uses the same term, κύριος, for how a wife should address her husband in 1 Peter 3:6. The Greek word κύριος only has two possible English translations, "master" or "lord". So it would appear that Peter and Paul believe that a wife should address her husband as "master" or "lord".

Incidentally, if the husband is the lord and king of the wife then 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 would make Christ the "Lord of lords and King of kings" (Revelation 17:14 NIV)

Thus the above statement is true. Ephesians 5:23 is not speaking of submission mutual or otherwise. Ephesians 5:23 is echoing 1 Corinthians 11:3 in declaring the husband to be the head/lord/master of the wife. So Paul actually has changed subjects away from the mutual submission of Christian brothers.

Verse 24 comes after verse 23 so it obviously refers to the subject of verse 23 not the subject of verse 21. I will let the reader draw their own conclusions about verse 22. I know what I believe.

Now let's look at the second point.

How many places in the New Testament does it say that a wife should submit herself to her husband?

We have the infamous Ephesians 5:22-24


But we also have...


And...


And let's not forget The Apostle Peter...


The list goes on and on.

If mutual submission is relevant and important to marriage then why is not mentioned in regard to any of these passage. If we're going to look at what is written around these passages as the feminists seem to want to do with Ephesians 5:22-24 then we need to remember that 1 Peter 1:1 uses the words "in the same way which seems to refer back to the reference to slaves submitting to masters in 1 Peter 2:18. That would seem to mean that wives are to submit to their husbands as slaves submit to masters.

So I'm really not sure how they come up with the idea that mutual submission is a relevant idea when we are discussing marriage.

It certainly isn't a relevant idea when we are discussing the Christ/church covenant. Christ does not submit to either the Pope or the Episcopalians.

That is a key point that we need to remember when discussing church doctrine.

• Christ isn't going to change the rules on homosexuality just because some churches want to include gays and lesbians in order to get more tithes. (gays: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10; lesbians 1 Corinthians 11:9)
• He isn't going to change the rules on marriage just because the Pope and the Baptist Theological Seminary want to redefine marriage as solely monogamous. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
• He isn't going to change the rules on legalism just so the Pope can prevent priests from marrying. (Matthew 15:7-9 and Mark 7:6-7)

And Christ isn't going to change any of the other rules just because we want them changed either.

The whole concept of watering down the submission of a wife to a husband then waters down the submission of the church to Christ due to the correlations between the two in the Bible.

 

[HOHofwives]

Hello Samuel,
I agree with you that the idea of mutual submission is a human creation that was never intended by either the Holy Spirit or the Apostle Paul. It is an argument that is frequently presented with regard to the issue of biblical headship therefore when someone raised the issue of biblical headship I addressed that argument.

Your points are also well argued. That's one reason that I pretty much ignore the subheadings in whatever English translation I happen to be reading. I'm currently working on learning how to ignore the English translations altogether and read the Koine Greek. I always cross reference the English with the Koine Greek. The sentence structure is different and so is the punctuation and those differences are sometimes relevant, as is the case with 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12 and Titus 1:6. I'm good at researching the Greek but I'm still at the level of researching it rather than actually reading it. I'm working on changing that.

Looking at the Koine Greek version of Ephesians 5, I see two basic sections. The first section, verses 1-21, speak of how people are to conduct themselves in the larger gathering of the church. The second section, verses 22-33, address family life and the comparison between the husband/wife covenant and the Christ/church covenant.

We need to remember that neither Paul nor any of the other disciples, even separated their epistles into chapters or verses. The chapter and verse divisions were added hundreds of years later. Further the differences in sentence structure between the English language and the Koine dialect of Greek force differing punctuation, sentence separations, and even additional words in some cases to effectively convey the meaning.

You are correct in stating that the translators of the NIV were grinding a different ax than the translators of the ESV. That ax grinding did not start with the ESV or the NIV however. It started when the Koine Greek was translated into the Latin Vulgate and was continued when King James commissioned an English translation from the original languages and it still continues today.

Realistically that's why the current English translations 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12 and Titus 1:6 claim that church leaders must be the husband of "one wife" instead of the more accurate "a wife" (requiring church leaders to be married), "their first wife" (prohibiting divorce among church leaders) or a more recent possibility that I've discovered "one or more wives" (again requiring church leaders to be married). [FWIW I've recently run across the possibility that the Greek word γυναικὸς which is used in those passages may actually be the plural form of the Koine Greek word for wife.]

I think the real problem is we live in a society where women or girls are not being raised to be submissive and boys are not being raised to be real man that a race to take care on her support their families with hard work and protect their families . You look in the school systems girls are being taught to act more like boys and boys are being taught to act more like girls. You look in the school systems girls are being taught to act more like boys and boys are being taught to act more like girls anytime boys in schools act the way normal boys are little fights it happen while there immediately given detention heck when I was in school back in the 70s every day there's always little fight happened that was part of being a boy what's the big deal when in the principal gave you talking to and that was it it went on nowadays they're trying to dictate every aspect of behavior to the point were boys are not being raised the way boy should be raised and that's why boys when you turn into men many times are lazy don't work as hard as it all to to they're trying to dictate every aspect of behavior to the point were boys are not being raised the way boys should be raised and that's why boys when you turn into men many times are lazy don't work as hard as they are two and women grow up thinking that they are responsible for raising the family financially and I'm not saying that the family can I have two people working but it's a order of the family with the husband being the head and the wife being cherished by the husband and the wife submitting to her husband . I know my first wife we married in 1986 we don't argue at all we don't fight every day for all of our lives I have her warmth of her body next to me when I'm in bed and that is very cherishing to me. Also boys are being raised by women you don't have enough fathers in the picture and so women in those situations have to act more like man because I don't have a man there so the child grows up seeing not the way things ought to be so of course they're going to grow up doing the same thing . And then you have churches that are liberalizing all across the country that makes it hard also .