• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Submitting

windblown said:
There is Titus 2:5: "to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." (note: blasphemy!)

I would also point out 1 Pet. 3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands..." What is the 'likewise' referring to? Who was last addressed in chapter 2? "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward..."
Click to expand...

This is the confusing part about English translations, although Titus says obedient- the word is hypotasso, not hyperkouo. In addition, the command to wives in 1 Peter 3:1 AND the command it is referencing in 2:18 are both hypotasso, and not hyperkouo.

I'm still not saying that a woman shouldn't obey in the hyperkouo sense... nor am I saying that I have a firm grasp on the difference, but I don't see a command and I am always suspicious when I see an omission like that.
 
windblown, I'd heard a similar thing in a church group: That when Psalm 37 says "the meek shall inherit the earth," it means those who put God's will above their own — which can imply being a badass just as easily as holding one's tongue.
 
Slumberfreeze, can you cite a reference for this hyperkuou? I'm not having any luck finding it.
 
Probably because I keep writing hyperkouo instead of hypakouo like a mongrel. This is what I'm referring to when I say I'm a hack.

Please excuse me.

Now that I'm awake, the verses that I'm looking at are Ephesians 6:1 and 6:5, where children are called to obey (hypakouo) their parents, and servants are called to obey (hypakouo) their masters. Their companion instruction in 5:22 calls on wives to submit (hypotasso) their husbands.
 
ZecAustin said:
So we're not called to obey Christ?
Click to expand...

We are indeed to obey Christ. But we don't need to try to shoehorn more obedience into marriage to make the image of marriage prove it. Christ is already our master, and slaves are to obey their masters. There are multiple pictures of our relationship with Christ, because one image won't quite cover it all. There's no special theological need to make the attempt to make one particular image fit the whole mold.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
I'm looking at are Ephesians 6:1 and 6:5, where children are called to obey (hypakouo) their parents, and servants are called to obey (hypakouo) their masters. Their companion instruction in 5:22 calls on wives to submit (hypotasso) their husbands.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think I'm up to speed with your word lesson now, although I don't understand why you feel that this is an important distinction to make. Submission, or being in subjection to, is all about rank, authority, the natural order of creation. Children, demons, spirits, people to governing bodies, rulers, elders, the church, wives, and slaves are all included in these "hypotasso" verses. Why wouldn't obedience be a logical consequence of this order?

Slumberfreeze said:
There's no special theological need to make the attempt to make one particular image fit the whole mold.
Click to expand...
Correct. There is no need to make an attempt. Because it already fits the mold. Because God created it. Then wrote about it. It's interwoven throughout His entire Word. It is His metaphor, His imagery, His figures of speech, His microcosm for His macrocosm.
 
Windblown, my word lesson was in response to GloryGirls's request to know the difference between submission and obedience.

Aside from that, placing importance on the distinction between words is kinda my 'thing'. Placing importance on the distinction between heautos and idios is what led me to understand polygamy in the first place, and the difference between them is a normally swept under the carpet. So I'm motivated to understand the fine details of the differences between words, because a slight distinction can mean a huge difference.

windblown said:
Why wouldn't obedience be a logical consequence of this order?
Click to expand...

It might be! I'm just skeptical of relying on 'logical conclusions' to fill in the blanks. Especially when what we call logic is based on so many presuppositions. I would have presupposed that the Is 61:2 acceptable year and day of vengeance were back to back occurrences, but I would have been wrong and any logic chain proceeding from that would have been a misfire.

I could just as well ask why God decided to ordain hypakouo for servants and children, but did not see fit to mention that the same thing was commanded for wives. I think rather than trying to paint a little extra 'kouo over the 'tasso, I would like to understand why 'kouo is not already spirit breathed that far.
 
Y'all play it however works for you. Here's what works for me:

I expect my women to call it if I go off the rails, and I do not expect them to follow me into identifiable sin. If it makes you feel better you can picture me making it clear to the women in advance that it is my will that they do so, so now they are obeying and submitting to the well-considered and formally-expressed will of my past self in the act of defying the in-the-moment and temporarily-insane will of my present self, for which my future self will thank them profusely.

If any of you is uncomfortable with that latitude and expects your wife or wives to follow you into a dark place on the basis of a few pertinent verses no matter how identifiably immoral or insane, then that's between you, God, and your wife/ves. It's not my place (or anyone else's) to judge either way. It's a colorful world; we're not all going to see it the same way.

As a slight change of subject, I'd like to point out that submission comes easier to a leader you respect, and the convention of our culture to pair up same-age-cohort spouses isn't helping. Submitting to an 'older, wiser' male comes more naturally, and there are at least a couple of studies that indicate that men married to younger women live longer than others. Just FWIW. Doesn't mean partners close in age can't sort it out; just dealing in generalities here.
 
I want to also give a shout out to Abigail here, who I think did very much choose not to submit to her husband.

I used to see this sort of thing all the time when I was a teenager--mothers who would sneak around behind their husband's back to do things the husband wouldn't do and had made a point of saying shouldn't happen. I do not see the point (strikes me as extreme hair splitting) to say that Nabal did not forbid Abigail from taking David food. Nabal made it crystal clear that his intention, his will, was to keep his substance to himself and deny any to David (basic retarded selfishness). Abigail knew what she was doing and did it any way. Go her.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
Obedience -hypokouo - to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by implication, to heed or conform to a command or authority:—hearken, be obedient to, obey.
Submit - hypotasso - to subordinate; reflexively, to obey:—be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
Click to expand...
Lol, you have obedience in the definition of submit.
 
Yes ma'am. My opinion of Strong's definitions is on record, but it is the most commonly used and I do try not to change texts to suit my argument or suspicions.

I will reproduce my opinion here: The Strong's is a good serviceable tool that is nonetheless inferior to the Thayer's. The Thayer's is a better resource, but is ultimately inferior to a thorough personal study of the actual biblical usage of words, rightly divided using precepts evidenced in the Word, and guided by the Spirit who breathed those words.

Why use the Strong's at all? Because I don't always have the time or leading for a thorough study, and the Strong's is always at hand in my usual resources.

I do not believe in synonyms in the bible. Or rather, I believe that in every pair of words that are nearly the same, there is an important truth to be found in the distinction. My special love is finding them, and dragging them out from under the rugs that they've been swept under by our clumsy language.

To belabor my previous example: heauto and idios

ídios, pertaining to self, i.e. one's own; by implication, private or separate:—X his acquaintance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, proper, several), home, (her, our, thine, your) own (business), private(-ly), proper, severally, their (own).

heautoû, - him- (her-, it-, them-, also (in conjunction with the personal pronoun of the other persons) my-, thy-, our-, your-) self (selves), etc.:—alone, her (own, -self), (he) himself, his (own), itself, one (to) another, our (thine) own(-selves), + that she had, their (own, own selves), (of) them(-selves), they, thyself, you, your (own, own conceits, own selves, -selves).

You will notice that there are words reproduced in both defintions; you would certainly notice them if you were a monogamy apologist. You might even lol about it.

And furthermore, if you were to go through the maddening process of of observing every occurrence of these words, you would find their usage to be practically identical; but eventually you would see that there is an important distinction between the two that is relied upon once in 1cor7:2 and again in Jude6 concerning poly and nephilim, respectively.

'tasso and 'kouo are related terms, no doubt about it. And the english word 'obedience' IS used in the definition of both words. But is that reaaaaaally where we want to declare ourselves knowledgeable on the subject?

edited to try to sound like less of a jer. I probably failed.
 
The point is that obedience is contained inside submission. Submission is a broader category that is more comprehensive than just obedience. Wives are called to a higher standard than just mere obedience.

That is the distinction in these two words that you are looking for Slumber.
 
WifeOfHisYouth said:
In Ephesians 5:24, it states "Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."

As the church is to submit to Christ, wives are to submit to their husband in "everything."
Does this mean that no matter what the wife thinks her husband is asking her to do (appropriate or not, sinful or not) she has to submit and follow along with, as he will be the one that is held responsible?
Click to expand...

The word submit is interesting. It's "ὑποτάσσω," or hypotassō, and it's... "a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

Many may not like this, but it places the responsibility of submitting firmly on the woman's shoulders. Keep in mind, this is not like enlisted soldier in the military, but more of a captain, with his own skills, qualifications, talents, and in olden times, he was expected to provide his weapons and kit. It implies that the woman have skills, talents, and those things that can be used by the general.

It also implies that the man be a leader, delegate responsibilities and place trust in her. In a military setting, the commander has authority only over what the soldier has given him authority over. In a marriage, it means that the man has authority over whatever the woman has placed in his hands. It's a partnership of equals, equally talented, and both of high value, one leading, one supporting. After all, who wants a slave? A slave is never going to value what a free man with a vested interest will value... and a free woman, there of her own free will, submitting to her husband as if to a general in all areas she has given him authority over, acting as a captain would, making decisions, leading in her own right but within the groundwork he's laid out... that free woman will be a benefit to you, your family, and herself, for a lifetime.

Do you have a Ketubah? If you don't, then you should look into it.
 
Zec, YHWH is absolutely our complete authority in all things. He made us, He owns us, He can do what he likes with us.
Yet He asks us to willingly choose to submit our lives to Him. He does not force us, He gives us free choice. We can run off and do whatever we please with our lives, and He allows us to - one day there will be a judgement of course, but in the meantime He gives us complete freedom.
So in practice, YHWH is not the leader of Richard Dawkins (for example), and He does not force Dawkins to do what He says. He simply offers submission and obedience as an option, and Dawkins chooses not to accept that offer, just as Adam and Eve also chose not to obey.
YHWH's appointed king Yeshua is the head of the church, NOT the head of all humanity. Who are the church? Those who willingly choose to submit to Yeshua and accept Him as their lord and master. Who is outside the church? Those who choose not to submit. Despite having the right to be the head of all, in practice even He is only the head of some.

In the same way, a wife has the free choice to submit to her husband, or to disobey him. Yes, she is commanded in scripture to submit to him, and if she does not she is sinning. Nevertheless she has the freedom to choose to sin. And her husband will only truly have authority over her if she chooses to actually give him that authority. For example, if her husband tells her to keep her hair long, and she goes and chops it off short, he can claim all he likes to be in authority over her but the reality is that he does not control her. She does what she pleases, and everyone can see that. He has no authority over her because she ignores him. His "authority" is all in his own head.

In the same way, a general can claim all he likes to have authority over the army, but if another officer starts a mutiny, everyone follows the new officer, and they lock the original general in prison, he is no longer in authority over them. He can say whatever he likes and they'll ignore it, so he has no authority any more. A new man now has authority. Sure his authority was gained by illegitimate means, sure the original general SHOULD be in authority - but that doesn't change the facts. The army obeys their new general and the old has no authority any more.

A husband SHOULD be in authority over his wife.
A husband IS in authority over his wife when his wife chooses to willingly submit to him.
If a wife chooses to submit to him in some areas but not in others, he is only partially in authority over her, because she won't obey him in all matters despite being instructed to in scripture.

Submission is voluntary, to either man or God.
 
Sorry Samuel but the husband is in authority. A disobedient wife is just in rebellion. It doesn't diminish the husband's authority. It diminishes the wife. What you are talking about is the way in which a husband chooses to exercise his authority.

Again I point out that the husband represents Christ. Is this how you want Christ represented? Is this how you would teach your children to submit to Christ? "Well children you should obey your savior but if you don't want to He really doesn't have any authority you don't give Him so it's no big deal."

I don't think you'd say that. But then again that's exactly what you're saying.

On a completely related note, I think we've gone back to the dark place. Zoiks!
 
I do get how you feel I am diminishing things. I think we're closer to each other's views than it may seem. Let's put aside wives for a second and just consider the church.

Our Father has given us to Yeshua, He has placed Yeshua in authority over us.
At the same time, He has also given us a choice, whether to freely submit to that authority, or to be in rebellion. Yeshua does not force us to obey Him, but only requests it. This means that, in practice, only those who choose to obey Him will obey Him. So in practice, if He says jump, only a small number of people do. And it is this small number who are His Church, the ones who He is truly the head of. Even though He has been given authority over everyone, this authority is only truly effective over a few.

We teach our children that they are being offered the free gift of salvation. They can freely choose to accept this gift, or to walk away. There are very severe consequences for walking away, it IS a "big deal". It's the biggest choice they will ever make. But it is still their choice. (Of course the Calvinist in me must point out that they won't actually make that choice unless they have been chosen and predestined to make it, but that's a side-issue...). I am NOT saying "it's no big deal". I'm saying it's the biggest deal in the entire world - but they still get to decide for themselves.

Now, if the husband represents Christ, then this is how he also relates to his wife. He has been given the right and responsibility to have authority over her. But he does not truly have any ability to exercise that authority unless his wife chooses of her own free will to submit to him. If his wife chooses to disobey, then I agree that she is in rebellion - but while in rebellion, and not submitting to him, he has no real practical authority over her. He can say whatever he likes, she'll ignore him. So he is, in real practical terms, no more her "head" than Christ is the "head" of Richard Dawkins.

Just as Christ's focus is on getting us to freely choose to submit to Him of our own free will, our focus must be (in the area of authority / submission in marriage) helping wives to choose of their own free will to submit to their husbands. Because it is right, it is important, there are eventually consequences for choosing not to - but they still have to make the choice between right and wrong themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top