by Don Veinot on May 8, 2014
When I posted Is Jesus a Sinner According to Bill Gothard’s Teachings? a few weeks back I could vividly recall Bill Gothard’s question to me the first time I went through the ramifications of his teaching with him. His response was, “Are you saying there is no authority over the wife and children?” In his mind rejection of his definitions equals rejecting biblical teaching. He seems unaware or is intentionally obtuse as to the idea that he is reading something into the text that simply doesn’t exist there. One of the comments in response to the blog posting was from a Pastor Ron Aldridge:
Having attended Gothard’s seminars in the early 90′s, I am familiar with these teachings. Although I don’t disallow everything you said (Jesus WAS sinless), I would take exception to your take on authority and what “you” left out. What about Paul’s writings in Ephesians where he stated in 5:22-24, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the [head of the wife], as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives [ought] to be to their husbands in everything.
Fortunately both Pastor Aldridge and Bill Gothard agree that Jesus was sinless, but that is in clear conflict with the definition of authority Gothard provides. I was a little confused on where Pastor Aldridge was taking exception to my “take on authority” since the point of the blog was to evaluate Gothard’s definition and out of context attempt to support his claims, and as far as I can tell, Ephesians 5:22-24 doesn’t really impact that question one way of the other.
But, Pastor Aldridge does raise an important question. How do we understand such passages? If authority is not some top down “chain of command,” “umbrella of protection” authoritarianism such as there is in the military, what is it? I think the context of the passage really helps us understand what the apostle is saying, and it is very relational rather than authoritarian. What follows verse 24 helps us to see a more color-filled picture of the marital relationship. The Apostle Paul writes in 5:25-32:
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.
Paul devotes much more time developing the attitudes, responsibilities, and behaviors of the husband than he does the wife. The reason is obvious. Christ could have exerted Himself as the boss to be feared and obeyed but instead, He served those who followed Him. Instead of being a cattle herder, shouting and commanding the herd, He was a shepherd Who was gentle, and the sheep followed. As a general statement men tend to be less relational and more task oriented. Keeping the little woman in line is just a task to be completed. Serving her, building into her and encouraging her is much more difficult and time consuming, but brings great benefits.
A biblical marriage that I think exemplifies this is, oddly enough, in Proverbs 31. Most of us have read books on or heard sermons about the Proverbs 31 woman. I don’t think I have ever really heard anyone discuss the Proverbs 31 man though, and there couldn’t have been a Proverbs 31 woman without him. He trusted her (Prov. 31:11), and he prospered. She did good by him and not evil. It seems there was complete trust and no rivalry between them. She was productive (v:13), was an importer (v:14), not only fed her family but served her servants (v:15), was a real estate investor and wine producer, and there is no indication she asked permission to make the purchase (v:16). We are not even told if he has a job!
I don’t want to read too much into this, but to point out that she respected him and he trusted and encouraged her. How all of that works out will vary from marriage to marriage because different people are involved with different personalities, strengths, and weaknesses. After developing his thoughts in Eph. 5:22-32, Paul says:
However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
“Love his wife as himself” is a profound and in too many cases an under-emphasized aspect of marriage. The responsibility to be a servant is greater on the husband. But there is another aspect within the context, and that is verse 21:
submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
As believers we are to be mutually submitted to one another and each working to out serve one another. For believers there is no top down authority structure but a bottom up servant leadership, and those who ascend higher in leadership, whether in a family, local church, or the wider church at large, the more accountable they are to a larger number of people. As a husband is it totally inappropriate, for example, for me to make a major life changing decision without my wife’s input and then ordering her to live with it but, that is how Gothard’s view of authority works. As I reflect on this I don’t think I left anything out, but rather that I find biblical servant, self-sacrificial leadership is the opposite and perhaps is diametrically opposed to the pagan, militaristic leadership which Gothard promotes.
Republished with permission.
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/2014/05/08/if-bill-gothard-is-wrong-then-whats-right/
Photo copyright: miszaqq / 123RF Stock Photo
A comment by Ron Henzel:
In a true chain of command, it is incumbent upon leaders to command to the same extent as it is incumbent upon subordinates to follow. If a military officer does not give actual commands to his soldiers, he is derelict of his duty. This is the expectation that the military has of its officers: they are commanded to give orders. That’s why it’s called a “chain of command.”
Likewise, if a boss does not give actual orders to his staff (or “instructions” that amount to orders), he is neglecting his obligation to the company. This is the expectation that the company has of its bosses: they are commanded to give orders. Again, that’s why it’s called a “chain of command.”
In a true chain of command, you see those put in charge being given orders by those above them, and they in turn pass on orders to their subordinates. In effect, you see the commanders being commanded to command. You see them commanded to “lord it over” (Greek: κυριεύω, kurieuō; cf. Luke 22:25) those set under them—and rewarded if they do it well.
So, then: if Scripture teaches that a chain of command exists in the church and in the home, where are the biblical instructions to pastors to give orders to their flocks? In a chain of command, this is the leader’s duty. So why does the Bible not tell pastors that? And why is it that Jesus instead says, “But it is not this way with you” (Luke 22:26)? Why is it that Peter instructs church leaders to avoid lording it over their people (1 Peter 5:3)? If pastors are part of a chain of command, why are they explicitly ordered to avoid exercising the type of leadership that is based on issuing commands?
And if the relationship between husband, wife, and children boils down to a chain of command, why are not husbands at least told to command their wives and children well? Why is it that immediately after telling wives to submit, Paul does not tell husbands to make sure to issue good commands in Ephesians 5:25ff. if, after all, they are to be good commanders of their families? And if we are protected from Satan’s temptations by the chain of command, why does Paul not emphasize how important it is that husbands instruct their wives on the importance of obeying them, but instead emphasizes loving and caring for their wives as they do their own bodies? And why does Peter do virtually the same thing in 1 Peter 3:1-7? If this chain of command idea really protects us, would it not be a good way to care for one’s wife by reminding her to stay in line? So then, why does not Paul tell husbands to do that? To neglect emphasizing something that is supposed to be so crucial for everyone’s protection is to be sinfully negligent, and yet, if the chain of command doctrine is correct, both Paul and Peter certainly failed to give it sufficient attention at key points in their epistles. How can this be?
The answer to all these questions is simple: the concept of divinely-appointed “chains of command” to which we must submit for our own spiritual protection in the home, in the church, and in the workplace is not to be found anywhere in the text of Scripture. It is nothing but an ill-conceived scare tactic, originally contrived by a control-oriented guru in order to relieve the fears of parents by instilling new fears into their potentially-rebellious children. In the hands of unstable or biblically-ignorant pastors it becomes a recipe for a Diotrephes style of leadership (3 John 9-10). And in the career of Bill Gothard and his Institute it has repeatedly served as a cloak for immorality and abuse over several decades.
Both Don V. and Ron H. offer excellent analysis of the relevant Scriptures. I believe, however, that the tendency toward "lording it over" is not primarily contrived by anyone, but a consequence of the alienation and curse we see in Genesis 3. "The Gentiles lord it over" because that is what fallen man does.
Jesus, however, pointed to Genesis 1 and 2 when teaching about marriage. There IS headship there (Adam names the animals and his wife, Adam was there first) but there is also equality of mission (both are given dominion, both are given the command to be fruitful; fruitfulness results from a one flesh communion of persons rather than a command and obedience: what man commands, "receive my seed and conceive"). But we may misconceive headship. I'm told that the ancients saw the head as the source of life rather than the locus of the mind and will. The Queen of England is Head of State but has no command authority. The head of a river has no power over its path. Headship, therefore, is not necessarily "lording it over". Jesus, our Head, said, "I no longer call you servants, but friends."
The Apostles taught about children and servants "obeying", but never wives. (In those times, under most civil legal codes, wives were under the legal authority of their husbands. The evangelizing counsel in I Peter 3:1, therefore, constitutes pragmatic advice under the topic of "be subject to legal authorities", I Peter 2:13.) The absence of instruction for wives to "obey" is corollary to Ron's point that husbands are never instructed in commanding their wives. Similarly, the Proverbs 31 woman displays no "obedience". Her respect is demonstrated by her trustworthiness and her loyalty to her family's welfare.
Finally, when considering the "Mystery" of Genesis 2 marriage that Ephesians 5 is primarily about, consider that God Himself, in His ultimate Spousal role, says in Hosea 2:16, "you will call Me 'Ishi', you will not longer call Me 'Baal'". "Baal" means "lord". "Ishi" is the name that Adam ACQUIRES upon entering into his union with Eve. That was the moment in Creation when "not good" became "very good", when the image of God was completed in "male and female": a mutual, other-centered, covenantal communion we call "marriage". A revelation of the Trinity. There is no authority to exercise within a relationship of mutual agape.
For these reasons I conclude that the "rule" of a husband is a Genesis 3 curse on mankind, Jesus has overcome the curse, and headship is about Union (the two speaking as one), rather than power, authority, control, rank, command or subservience.
Anytime I make an independent decision without her interests at heart and without her full counsel and consent, I violate the purpose of my headship.
Don R. I don't believe that Adam actually named his wife as much as he identified her when he recognized who she was. God told Adam to name the animals and he gave the humans dominion over them, but He did not tell Adam to name his wife.
Excuse me for overstating my case. He recited the first poem, which included this line:
"she shall be called Isha,
because she was taken out of Ish.”
So in the narration we discover her name by his words.
In this same statement, he is called "Ish" for the first time (instead of "Adom"), putting them on equal ground with new names. Interestingly, I'm told "Isha" does not come from the word "Ish" but is a poetic use of homonyms.
Nonetheless, the Scripture is silent on what she called him, or any conversation they may have had prior to the poem. She might have tossed her head and spoken first: "Hello, there, Ish, I'm Isha. Pleased to meet you." If that happened it would be consistent with my point that his headship was one of speaking (only his words are recorded for us) for the Communion, expressing their agreement; his headship was not one of lording it over her.
I heartily concur that whatever he did in relation to Eve must be contrasted with his (their) assigned dominion over the animals. His existence was "not good" until she was taken from him, then it was "very good". A goodness inspiring poetry, and shameless dance, and peace. Completing the works of creation and initiating Rest.
There have been times when I reasoned that Bill's teachings on authority are unBiblical. Every single time, the response is: 'You obviously don't want to be under God's authority/you obviously have a problem with authority'. Every time. Even if I explicitly said, "I am under God's authority, and I fully believe in it,' that is still the response. It only makes sense that Bill and his followers have the same thoughts, 'to reject Bill's teaching is to reject the truth/God, etc..'
Ron seems to miss the point a couple of times here. First of all, fathers ARE held responsible to rule their households well--if they don't, they can't qualify as leaders of the church (which furthermore would imply that these are to rule the congregation well)--1 Tim 3:4.
Secondly, it's a failure of exegesis to pull Eph 5:22 out of the context which follows. It doesn't mean that husbands have to submit to their wives, or bosses to their employees, or parents to their children: rather, the opposite.
But that doesn't let the husbands, bosses, or parents off the hook either: there are specific instructions for them as to how to treat those under them.
Being subject to one another in the fear of God (5:21) is then enjoined upon wives, to their husbands (5:22), children, to their parents (6:1), and employees to their bosses (6:5). The countering instructions immediately follow under each: husbands, love your wives (5:28), fathers, nurture your children (6:4), and bosses, treat your employees with goodwill (6:9).
A household included servants, you can't read into such passages wives as subservient to their husbands. If what follows Eph. 5:22 is about subservient submission to authorities, why the emphasis on husbands sacrificing their lives for their wives' benefit? If submitting "as unto Christ" means obedience to authority, why does Jesus say at the end: "I call you friends, no longer servants"?
The point Ron makes that you are missing is that such submission passages are not about obedience to authority, but loving voluntary service one to another. Even regarding children who are under paternal authority, the N.T. instructs fathers to not provoke to wrath but to be encouraging, bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (not the abusive power of mankind). The N.T. NEVER instructs wives to OBEY their husbands, nor husbands to rule, command or direct their wives. It does insatruct children, servants and slaves to obey.
This has always been one of the most troubling passages in the Bible to me. Patriarchy is one of the main reasons I left the church.
Lindsey, meditate on Hosea 2:16. God loves you in a wooing, winsome, serving way. Because He is Good and He chooses to do good to you.
I am sorry to hear that Lindsey and thanks for being honest. I hope that you will realize that scripture balances other scripture and the extreme patriarchy that you have been taught and experience is a perversion of some Bible verses. I hope that you will contemplate the image of Jesus washing feet because that is what God considers true leadership, serving others no demanding submission from others. That is how husbands are suppose to treat their wives. If you focus on how Jesus treated others especially women, I hope you will realize that patriarchy is a perversion and not God's design for men and women and marriages.
@Don and @Rob, Thank you so much for your replies. Your kind words comfort me greatly.
I'll cut through the "cloud" of the various intrepretations/positions.
The roles of husbands and wives is not a clear-cut "Here's the way it is" teaching.
The different elements (authority of the husband, submissiveness of the wife, or equal standing before God as both are equally sinners) can be priorioritzed in different order based on different scriptures.
The conclusion: whichever element you hold as the most important speaks volumes about what is important to you.
I would give you a VERY strong caution to hold fast FIRST to the position that both husband and wife are equally sinners. This would appear to curb the tendencies of husbands to overstep their roles with their wives, as well as curb the tendencies of wives to deflect their responsibility for their own actions.
The sum total of Paul's writings is that Christians are free in matters of conscience and preference. Why would Paul turn around and ordain an institution where one Christian has the right or responsibilty to dictate matters of conscience and preference to another? This doesnt pass the smell test...
Amen and Amen. My former pastor used to preach this, pointing out that men ruling over their wives was part of the curse and that as Christ had redeemed us from the curse, Christian marriages were to be different. To quote him, "Husbands, it is not up to you to make your wives submit."
That is a great way of putting it. Some passages come to mind : 1 Cor 7:1-7 to clearly show who should submit to whom (spoiler alert, both submit to each other).
Cant find it right now, but Paul clearly deliniates the relationship between a believing husband and believing wife. As both individually are redeemed before God, so is the nature of the relationship; and both individually and corporately they are freed from the "elementary (basic) principles" of the world.
2000 years ago the culture and mindset of the Roman world culture was different than today. (though society is slowly sinking down to that level.) Slavery was considered a career choice. Women were little more than chattel. Assassinations were part and parcel for advancement in a political career. Humanity had a different outlook about life and death. So when Jesus had a deep conversation with the woman at the well, it was a mind blowing event. At the time, no decent man would lower himself to do such a thing, unless looking for a prostitute.
The writings of the Bible reflect that all mankind are created equal in their sin nature. Hence, when someone is saved it changes that nature and the person begins the odyssey of learning how to walk in that new nature, of course, with many failures. And for those first Christians, both men and women, it was a new experiment in how to treat each other, which meant treating women on an equal basis. To love one another as you love yourself was probably easy man to man but more difficult man to woman given how women were considered just above the level of slaves.
And in those 2000 years, this new experiment in how to love one another has had many misdirects as some holy- moly-moldy guru came along and declared his or her own version of "thus sayeth the Lord."
I think Esbee is onto something, here.
The verse about mutual submission is a general verse. In hermaneutics and contract law, the more specific statement takes precedence over the general one, so when the Bible repeats half a dozen times the wife is to submit to the husband in everything as to the Lord and older women are to teach the younger to obey their husbands, it becomes clear that men are the head of the family with final decision making authority. Jesus instructed the church/disciples to do things they didn't want to do and clearly defied the disciples desire not to go to Jerusalem. Jesus did what was best for the bride of Christ whether the bride wanted it or not. Jesus also corrected, reprimanded, and disciplined the bride/church/disciples many times, and Jesus only washed their feet one time, so we should keep all of that in context.
Whether the husband ruling over the wife is part of the curse or not... that's the way it is now... according to God. The consequences of Eve's sin was pain in childbirth, and she (women)would desire to rule over their husbands, but the husband would rule over her. The interpretation could be the main change being the wife's desire to now rule over her husband with the frustration and consequence that she would not be successful. The husband was most likely to rule over his wife before the fall as Adam was made first and as Paul points out... the woman was made for man, not the other way around, so it appears the husband would be head of the wife either way.
Your comments are on 9-year-old posts. "that's the way it is now" is a false interpretation. Jesus told his disciples that the leader is to be the servant and it is the world that rules by force. Reread Jesus final instructions to His disciples in the Book of John at the last supper. He washed his disciples' feet. He was giving an example of what to do. Your misquoting, proof-texting of Bible verses doesn't work anymore, and your ideas and false teaching are only based on partial Bible verses quoted to support top heavy male dominance.
When you have commands in Scripture and then further commands, ALL of them must be true.
It is true that Jesus said leaders were to be servants. But Paul laid out the command structure in the home and church. Neither of these concepts are in conflict. Both are true.
Husband is head of the home - authority structure is clear and Biblical. Wife submits. Paul is correct.
But husband should not rule with an iron fist. The best leaders are servant leaders, fulfilling the role Christ did in giving himself for those underneath him. Jesus is also correct.
At no point in Jesus' ministry was his authority over the world and his disciples ever in question. But He did not exercise militant authority nor did He need to. That's just not the same as saying it wasn't there. The concept translates to husband and wife relationship the same way. Husband should be a loving, caring, serving, sacrificing leader, but in no way does that diminish his headship in the home.
Ok Jm, are the family codes as expressed by St. Paul and St. Peter in their epistles hard nose "commands" or are they guidelines which included responsibilities of men, women, parents and children all in balance? The problem with patriarchy peddlers like Bill Gothard (and many others), is that they only focus on one thing, which is men at the top of a hierarchy of relationships instead of more of a complete circle as expressed in the family codes in the letters of St. Paul and St. Peter. Are they "commandments" like the 10 commandments or are they guidelines and idea models? What you have been taught being steeped in IFB stuff is hard nose, one sided "commandment".
"It is to God alone that we owe total and unconditional obedience, whether intellectual or moral, since He is absolute Goodness and absolute Truth. All obedience to a human being, in any setting, is limited by this primary truth. As Peter and the apostles said before the Sanhedrin: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29. There can be then, a duty to disobey. Whatever might be being asked, the person obeying must make a judgement concerning what is being asked of him: is this in keeping with the law of God or Not?"
from "Abuses in the Religious Life and the Path to Healing" by Dom Dysma De Lassus.
The issue is whether we let the Bible speak for itself or we read into it our own preconceived notions.
These are commands. Period. They are structured as such in both English and Greek. As a languages expert, I can attest to that.
You are not incorrect in that there is more to it. There is a LOT of information in the writings of Peter and Paul.
But here's the rub, Rob. (Sorry I couldn't resist). The information doesn't negate the command. Yes, there is more to it than just men at the top. But the extra information doesn't CHANGE the fact that the men are at the top. Does that make sense?
The issue you bring up with the Sanhedrin and obeying God rather than men doesn't negate any of this. We know this because these disciples still suffered consequences for this form of disobedience. We all understand God is the ultimate authority. That isn't in dispute. But the authority structure does still exist in these cases and is still respected.
Peter and the disciples didn't thumb their noses at the Sanhedrin. Rather, they were respectful with their answers. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego responded with "O king, live forever." There was no denying the natural authority here.
We don't have to like it, and I understand we live in a day where it is considered backward and politically incorrect, but the Bible not only supports patriarchal structures, it flat-out insists upon it.
This doesn't make women of less value or less worth. It just means there is a distinction at times in role.
Don,
I appreciate your clarification. I think it fits just fine with the way I exegeted the passage. And a husband showing Christlike love to his wife is, a lot of times, going to look like he is submitting to her. I don't have a problem believing that--just doing it.
I like how in your reply, the husband only looks like he's submitting. You worded it so he isn't actually submitting.
Of course, I would never want you or any husband to submit to anyone, either. I would object to anyone saying you should, regardless of gender, class, race or relationship status. From earliest childhood, I have always known in my gut that it is deeply wrong for one human to ask another to submit. It has never comforted me for a single second that the husbands should "rule their households well" or treat the people "under them" well. It still means, in the end, that some of us are "under" and others "over." What's worse, these positions are assigned according to gender, something no one earns or chooses for themselves.
Jesus demonstrated and told His disciples that to be a leader, one must be a servant and then Jesus went a washed everyone's feet. Real leaders or heads or bosses don't lord it over those under them or demand submission to their "leadership". St. Paul's comments in Ephesians 5 needs to be interpreted in that fashion. Wives "submit" because they want to serve their husbands out of love for them, not out of demand by them. Husbands should love and serve their wives not because they are the boss but because they love their wives and want to serve them as well. I love the parable of the prodigal son. The son wanted the money and split. The father let him go. He didn't demand submission to his authority, he didn't make him stay. He let his son have his freedom and then waited for his return. God doesn't demand our submission to Him, he invites us to follow. If we don't, we are free to go.
Jesus said, "The greatest among you shall be your servant."
That simple statement somehow clears the otherwise murky waters for me regarding authority.
That's a powerful statement.
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28)
It says, "So submit then to each other:
Then it goes on to tell us how wives are to submit to husbands, husbands to wives, children to parents, parents to children, servants to employers, employers to employees.
Pretty simple, really, especially if you understand the word 'submit'. It just means to give and take, don't lord it over but serve each other in the Lord.
When the stronger start lording it over, is when the suffering starts. The lust for power over others is just the biggest lust of the flesh there is.
I have been going through the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. Today he was on Titus 2 and I almost held my breath since I was so used to the imbalance using God's precious Word in passages such as this one. (By Patriarchal teaching)
What a pleasant surprise and blessing all in one. He explained that it means to respond to. The same as in 1 Cor. 2:14 the natural man cannot receive, respond to the things of God. Wives are to respond to their husbands. He said, and I quote "I am a firm believer that a woman should not tell her husband she loves him until he says it first." (not sure he meant that hard and fast but he was making a point. He went on to explain how a man had once come to him and said, "You need to tell my wife to obey me" Mr. McGee replied he "would do no such thing." He then asked the man, "When is the last time you told your wife you loved her?" "When we were courtin'" "Well, keep courting her!" was Mr. McGee's reply. Well said. That was all he said about women and obedience. You can hear it on the Oct 7 program but the gist of it was - he put the focus where it needs to be and is SORELY lacking in 'our circles' (our OLD circles) - he put the focus on the man loving his wife. What a change.
I miss J. Vernon McGEE! Btw, if you want to read a great commentary on the book of Ruth, I highly recommend McGee's book on this subject.
Thanks Julia.
As one who desires to be a godly woman and one who has walked intimately with the Lord for over 40 years I would like to share what the Lord has taught me through His Word. I Peter 3:6 says "just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear." The word lord is the same Greek word that is used for our Lord Jesus Christ. My husband is my lower case lord and Jesus is my upper case Lord. Since the wife is to be a picture of the church then it is clear that I am to submit to my husband. Scripture is very clear that we are to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. This command is not dependent on whether my husband loves me or agrees with me. One day I will stand before the Lord and will give an account of my obedience to Him.
Anne, I read your comment and I do agree; wives are to submit to their husbands. But I do want to throw something out there from the perspective of a daughter who saw her mother terribly abused and suffer for close to 50 years of marriage.
The only thing the Institute or the church could tell my mom was that she needed to submit to my dad just as we are to submit to Christ - unconditionally. No hope or way of escape was offered – only SUBMIT. Blessing was promised if she did. (And if I remember right, the teaching was this: if she submitted correctly as unto Christ, then God would change her husband’s heart and protect her. Or in other words, she was being told that it was all up to her and SHE was to blame if God was not changing her husband! If God wasn’t changing dad’s heart, then that meant she wasn’t submitting properly.)
One might say, “Submit is indeed what the Bible says. God will take care of the rest.” But there has to be a Biblical solution out there for an abused wife other than just telling her she needs to “submit” as unto Christ. That really messes up your view of God and turns Him into a big abuser too.
Anne, you are correct, the woman does submit herself to her husband as unto Christ. However, that submission must not be forced upon her by her husband; it must be by her own choice. If a husband claims to be a Christian, then he cannot mistreat his wife. If he does beat her or insult her or rape her or denies her provision or is unfaithful, then he must be subjected to church discipline, as it is set down in I Corinthians 5: 'But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one' and also I Timothy 5:8: 'But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.'
God takes the mistreatment of a wife very seriously - in that passage you just quoted, Peter goes on to tell husbands to honour their wives, "that your prayers be not hindered". The word translated hindered, is translated 'cut off' in other places - in other words, God will not even listen to a man who dishonours his wife. As my pastor used to say, husband have the greater responsibility.
@Anne, I can only pray that you are not in an abusive marriage. I cannot imagine that God wants us to submit to a husband, even if the husband does not love us. Such a God is not worth believing in. I have watched my mom be abused for over 40 years. I have also been abused by my father, which has permanently affected me, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. During the last few weeks, I have been reading on this site to try to understand my mother's perspective, but I am really struggling because it doesn't make sense on the most fundamental level.
Please please check out cryingoutforjustice.com
I don't care what you call your husband, but 1. Sarah did override her husband when she knew she was right, and, 2. Jesus VERY CLEARLY said that only gentiles lord it over each other, that as Christians we are never ever to lord it over each other. We have an equal playing field. That passage cannot mean that our husbands can lord it over us, otherwise why in Hoseah does it say about God that we are to no longer call Him 'Master', but 'Ishi', husband. Jesus said we are his friends, not his servants, so too should we be to our husbands, a friend, not a servant. We are equal partners. In fact the word 'helper' in referring to the wife, is the same word as used for the Holy Spirit and God as helper, so I think a mutual paying attention to each other is quite in order. We are called to submit to each other in ALL relationships.
And if you are wondering why I am so adamant on this, I have seen the 'submit' and 'obey' teachings cause fairly reasonable men to become very very abusive because it gave them licence to take power over a weaker vessel, and power over others can be a huge addiction with terrible consequences. USA's founding fathers deliberately formed a government that was 'slow and 'stupid' (their words) because they knew that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Always.
Thank you so much for that link. It is very helpful!
Anne, Sunflowr has expressed my view as well. I would like to ask you to incorporate more scripture into your view. As the instruction in I Pet. 3 is not dependent on your husband's love or agreement, it is followed by strong admonitions to husbands to be loving and not tyrannical. Can the Church hold a woman to "her" responsibility while ignoring the husband's failing? You ought to consider that I Pet. 3 is a continuation of a discussion about legal relationships which begins at I Peter 2:16. The passage is about subjection to human institutions: government, slavery, civil marriage which in ancient times gave husbands legal authority over their wives. Peter is admonishing a humble approach to bless an unbelieving husband to win him over to Christ. But the reference to Sarah does not mean that the Bible presents marriage as a lord/vassal relationship. It is not an instruction to give your maidservant to your husband to impregnate if you are barren. It is not an instruction to lie about your marital status if someone thinks you are attractive and your husband is afraid of him. It is not an instruction to live like Sarah, but to have her humble, responsive, following heart.
The Bible never tells a wife to "obey" her husband. It gives no instruction to men on "ruling" their wives. It never says: "teh man is lord of his home" or wife. The Prime Minister of England calls the Queen "Your Highness" or "My Lady" but he does NOT obey her.
I Corinthians 7 gives the most comprehensive instruction directly about marriage, unlimited by either the context of "submit one to another" (Ephesians) or the context in I Peter. In I Cor. 7, I see three verses that work against a lordship view: v. 5 "...the husband does not have authority over his own body but the wife does"; v. 10-11 " the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried...)"; and v. 16 "if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." Summarized in reverse order: Marriage is not enslavement. The church must accept that some men are not tolerable and a woman is not "commanded" to endure the intolerable. Marriage consists of mutual self donation, NOT one-way self abnegation to a lord, regardless of the cultural setting.
I am glad that you have found fulfillment in the manner you have chosen to respond to your husband. Your example and admonition are beneficial to young wives who may discover the difficulty of being married to an imperfect man. Nonetheless, the rule of a husband is a curse from Genesis 3 and it is NOT part of God's design in Genesis 1 and 2. The curse is real and we do have to live with many effects of it. But more practically, some men abuse what you are teaching becoming tyrants. If the church taught, as Jesus directed our attention to, the glory, mutuality and communion of Genesis 2 and the Mystery of a sacrificial husband in Ephesians 5, and if Christian men gave their lives for their wives, we would never even discuss any need for wives to submit. All we would need to say is "why won't you respond to THAT kind of love?"
I have about as perfect a husband as there could be. He loves the Lord, is an amazing and loving husband and father, Bible study teacher, works with many inner city kids and is a successful business man. Daily he lays down his life for me and the children. Do I always want to submit to him or respond to him. No, I do not. I am so thankful for God's Word that instructed me what to do when nothing within me wanted to do it. We would not have the amazing marriage that the Lord has given us if it weren't for His Word counseling us daily. It is not a degrading thing to submit to him, although it is humbling, like the Lord said in Philippians 2 as He humbled Himself and became obedient.
You have made an interesting statement though...do you think that the husband would love his wife if she submitted perfectly to him since you imply that the wife would love him or at would want to if he loved her like Christ loved the church? I totally agree with you about the husband is commanded to love his wife and to lay down his life for her, but if he doesn't the Lord's command to me is the same.
You are right that Genesis 3 was not part of God's original plan in Gen.1 & 2 but it seems to have become a part of His revised plan after Eve sinned. It is a consequence of sin but is a protection for the wife. I love Numbers 30. So powerful.
Thanks. I do not think there are any guaranteed responses to love. It is a risky venture. Job's friends were convinced that if you do rightly, right things will happen to you. That is not what God teaches. The Spirit teaches to live like Jesus and expect the same rejection.
We do it to reveal the nature of God to others, as the Image of God was completed in Genesis 2, not needing revision after Genesis 3. There is no plan B after the Fall. There is only the restoration of Plan A, One Covenant.
Women were not made needing "protection" but needing complementary maleness, and vice versa. Together, male and female reveal covenant communion. Your testimony of voluntary responsiveness to your husband's love is not inconsistent with what I believe. But treating submission as a command to suffer great wrongs at the hands of a tyrant appears to misstate God's invitation to love well. I tend to believe that all the accommodations for divorce and "if you do, remain unmarried" (I Cor. 7) in the Bible are more protective of women than mere submission. Abiding in Jesus is the only true protection. Submission to anyone without it can be idolatrous. God does not allow anyone to be tempted beyond their ability to endure. He makes a way out and it is not always a loving response from one's spouse. I'm not preaching divorce here but the natural limits of submission. I do not believe it is subordination or obedience to evil.
"But treating submission as a command to suffer great wrongs at the hands of a tyrant appears to misstate God’s invitation to love well. I tend to believe that all the accommodations for divorce and “if you do, remain unmarried” (I Cor. 7) in the Bible are more protective of women than mere submission. Abiding in Jesus is the only true protection. Submission to anyone without it can be idolatrous. "
That is so well said.
Well spoken, Don! And what about the priesthood of all believers? Every believer is encouraged to come boldly before the Throne of God, not just the man of the house. The teachings of patriarchy are not compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ, but through the teachers that infected the homeschool movement since its inception, patriarchy has become a stronghold that needs to be torn down by exposing the truth.
In priesthood you bring up another issue altogether! Pagan priests represent God to man. Biblical priests represent man to God. Jesus entered into His priesthood when he entered the Sanctuary. Aaron had to stow his priestly garments in the sanctuary where they were to be used, and not wear them around the camp.
Priests do not have authority over the covenant family (except as disputes are presented to them). Kings have authority. Lords have authority. Prophets speak for God. But priests have prayers and sacrifices, alters to fall on, intercession to undertake. The whole "priest of the home" concept is so alien to what the N.T. teaches that I have never been interested in it's claims, even when authority has enticed. I believe it to be an ego trip of pagan priesthood. "Listen to me, God speaks through me."
Anne, you say you have to submit to your husband as to Jesus, which is not dependent on whether the husband loves you?
Simple truth: We should submit to Jesus because he loved us first and showed it even on the cross. Our submission to Jesus is totally dependent on/ because of the love of Jesus. To submit to selfish or foolish ideas of a husband is to submit "as to satan" and not "as to Christ" - who loved us first.
--------------
As for Abraham and Sarah, we miss a bit of history and wordplay if we are not Jewish:
1)Peter's first audience knew: Sarah called him lord, but God told Abraham to stop calling his wife Sarai (contentious), and call her Sarah (princess, female ruler) instead. In other words, not someone who is put down for giving her opinion, but someone with a right to rule. In my knowledge, princess is a higher title than Lord. (And capital letter Lord is translated from a different Greek word than the word translated "lord" that Abraham was called, so the parallel is not supposed to be made between God and the husband here.)
2) As for "as Sara obeyed Abraham", Abraham obeyed Sara in letting Hagar go, and God even told him to listen to his wife!
I think the whole "just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" is code language for mutuality!
Mistake: Lord in the Old testament, not New, is translated from a very different term.
Are you a Christian and are you married?
@Anne - "His revised plan?" The whole point of Genesis 3 is that man fell, the consequences of which were not what God hoped and planned for us.
Also, is Retha only allowed to speak to this issue if she is a Christian, married woman? I would like to hear your response to the substance of her argument.
I speak about submitting to Jesus because he loved us first, I glorify Jesus for what he did on the cross - and you ask if I am a Christian? What religion do you think are people who speak, with no chance of gaining anything material from it, of the Christ to whom we respond?
no one here should be questioning your faith or your marriage. It is none of anyone's business
Anne, I want to thank you for asking me about my Christianity and my marriage status. You see, when you asked me that, I had a light bulb moment in my head:
http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/the-last-straw-why-you-cant-be-a-christian-if-you-say-that-stopped-bothering-me/
Retha, I read your "Grasping at straws?" and loved it. Afterwards, a verse in Revelation came to mind:
"Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night."
My experience with those who take the role of "accuser of our brethren," is that nothing is off limits. From how many traffic violations you might be guilty of, to whether you measure up to their standard of moral excellence. It seems they really can't help themselves. They have sold themselves to a job that requires "day and night" scheming. They are just doing their narcissistic job that requires winning at all costs. However, the "loud voice in heaven" always has the last word.
Thanks for sharing your link.
Retha,
Thank you for the link to your website. It is, basically, the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" that we so often see. No true Christian would do this or believe that. When they are a little more cautious to not accuse someone of not being a Christian, one popular phrase I have heard from legalists is "No Bible believing Christian". So, okay, they did not go so far as calling you not a Christian, but clearly you are not a "Bible believing Christian", if you believe in old Earth or don't believe in Quiverfull, or don't agree with their interpretation of the 2nd coming and on and on.
Retha, love your perspective.Thank you for sharing your point of view. Very insightful.
Retha, I did not know exactly what your last line meant, so I clicked on you name to go to your website. After reading a little, I have even more respect for you. You have thought and studied about this stuff for a long time. The little I read, rings so true for me. I have spent years on this topic. I put great weight on what evidently God has shown you. I of course to hear your story, (probably on your website somewhere) but it is not necessary. If I can receive from the apostle Paul (participated in murder) surely it makes no difference how many times you have been married, (if any) your criminal record (if any) or even how many traffic violations you are guilty of. Bless you.
Mistake: I of course, would love to hear
Thank you for the blessing. It is a great counterpoint to people asking if I am a Christian.
Retha, if we witnessed your “chaste conversations coupled with fear” (1 Peter 3) or seen your teachings of “the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of GOD be not blasphemed” (Titus 2); we could tell. Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works (James 2:18).
Instead all we see is pride and self justification in not doing so; both sad and childish. I rebuke within all authority of Titus 2 for both your individual and future failures to teach within sound doctrine.
4God, that was a pretty prideful judgmental smack down on your part, imo. We don't know each other; there are evangelicals, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, unbelievers on here, as well as believers who call themselves egalitarian or complementarian. Just because someone comes in here with views on male/female roles different from you is not a reason to attack their character.
You could have said you disagreed with her on Scripture, and reasoned from Scripture, you know, instead of this head on assault that shuts down conversation on the main issue.
No LynnCD you are not involved, but many posting wish to interfere within discussion and discriminate in the Civil Rights of free speech and religion (not directed at you):
https://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/christian-myths-on-gender-and-gender-roles/myth-to-submit-mean-to-obey/
https://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/perhaps-this-is-what-submitting-as-to-christ-means/
I do not attach character; I am only standing up for my rights, against those that claim they own the mike and podium of the internet outside the United States. In absolute love; should I not?
https://cbesa.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/woman-and-man-in-gods-design-responding-to-gender-hierarchy-retha-faurie/
Should I not have problems with those that solicit from the cherished limited bounds of charity; but do not feed, clothe or educate the living and discriminate? Those who use divert funds from such need and use them to promote the very ideals we are discussing? Should they not get a real job and promote their own ideologies?
http://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/2013-cbe-990-publicws.pdf
Many times we wish to get involved (and it is appreciated and shows heart); but in many cases the battle is long and hard, but love is the background intention.
The article is eisegesis, deceitful and dishonest. Specifically and glaringly in applying "submit yourselves one to another" to the husband wife relationship when that comment was made *to the church members* BEFORE the husband/wife relationship was even broached. Such despicable dishonesty in trying to find fault is reprehensible, as is the other areas of deceit, such as the entire tenor of the article.
The crucifixion reveals the love of God for us better than any other thing God can do, but the PRETENSE that God has not COMMANDED us to both OBEY AND FEAR HIM is, as I've already said, despicably dishonest.
Gary, would it be possible for you to clarify any specific assertions (or clear implications) from the article that you believe are dishonest?
@Gary Sellars: Too many big words. Using this vocabulary you'll be skimmed not read. Just helpin' out.
Well, I think we hit a nerve.
Thanks for your comment. We have no choice in the matter of obeying/fearing Him. It is the timing of it that is what we choose. He says "every knee" will bow before Him. We can bow before we die or we will bow after we die. Also, the Lord said blessed are those who do not stumble over what He says...there seems to be much stumbling these days.
Gary, I think Don and Ron really believe what they are saying. Do you see all error as "dishonest" or are you bypassing any explanation of any error and going straight to convicting them of willful deception?
Is it your opinion that Eph 5:22 should not be read as a specific application of 5:21?
"Eisegesis" and "dishonesty" are unsubstantiated charges. Please substantiate them (give us the specific basis for your charges) if you expect anyone to understand you.
Hi Gary Sellars,
I wish you had responded to the inquiries about your comments.
Just curious, but don't we all, to some extent, by virtue of being human, practice some eisegesis, even though Second Timothy 2:15 seems to tell us to use exegesis?
I have never appreciated the illustration that Veniot, Venoit and Henzel chose for the cover of their book, A Matter of Basic Principles (2003). To me, it reeked of bias.
Mary Olive, at the time the book came out, the authors were well aware of the 1980 sex scandal and how Bill denied, finally confessed, resigned, came back about three weeks later and proceeded to fire and destroy people (Tony Guhr and others) who were trying to hold him accountable. They were also aware of Bill's proclivities with some of the young women, and printed one such story that was witnessed by a Pastor Jones. These things in addition to knowing how Bill verbally abused outside men (Fischer, Allen, etc.) who were trying to hold him accountable to IBLP teachings. By that time, they also had extensive first hand experience of Bill's evasive maneuvering as it pertained to them directly. I would not at all, at that point in time, call a picture like that biased, for that assumes they were not objective in reporting about the man's actions and teachings. For the reader, I might see the case of "poisoning the well" but not bias. Knowing what we know now, I think a picture such as the one on the book is "an understatement of Grand Canyon proportions," to be perfectly honest with you.
Hi LynnCD,
Thanks for your opinion about my comments to Gary.
I chose the word "bias" as a softer alternative, because I understood from Ron Hensel in a previous response to me that the illustration on the cover of the book was the artist's interpretation of the contents.
I had to look up the actual definition of "poisoning the well" and since it seems to imply actual malice, based upon what Henzel wrote, I do not agree with you that it might be that.
I previously wrote that I thought the illustration on the cover of the book "A Matter of Basic Principles" was "distorted" and was challenged for that term.
Whatever the intent, if the facts speak for themselves as you suggest, I do not understand why the cover illustration would need to be so ugly, no matter what the authors presented inside. I don't think it is helpful to a potential reader. These are just my opinions, and are debatable, of course.
Hi, Mary Olive,
Poisoning the well doesn't have to be malicious. I know it sounds bad. It's just what happens when a person totally unfamiliar with Gothard, who may be thinking about going to a seminar, looks at the cover before he or she reads it. Adverse information is given in the picture, which states Gothard is like "the man behind the curtain" in Oz, so "don't listen to him." It's a form of an ad hom, but not all ad homs are fallacious. I know we have differing opinions about the book cover. Thanks for conversing with me!
This latest from Don Veinot is further reason for yawning about the book's cover "poisoning the well" -- http://www.midwestoutreach.org/2014/10/16/bill-gothard-deja-vu-all-over-again/
At age 79, there is still no repentance that anyone can see. He has skipped asking forgiveness, counseling, etc. and has jumped shifted to starting another ministry. Sick, pathetic, and very sad. Yep, that book cover was pretty mild, I think.
Thank you all for your many comments. First of all I would like to say that I have been married for over 30 years and I am more in love with my husband than ever before. We work together now that our children are grown and when our extra vehicle broke down we chose not to get another vehicle because we would rather ride together all of the time. I realize that our marriage is an amazing love story. We also have four grown children who love the Lord and also who are very successful in their personal lives. All of them are strong Christian leaders. Our home is a sweet place to be and a place of refuge. Being married to my husband is the closest thing to heaven that I have known. Do we sin, yes, because we are sinners but it grieves me when I sin because I know it causes my husband grief. We often ask forgiveness even if it is a small thing that someone else would not see as wrong. I live to please my husband. We are one in every way and I think that is the only way two people can be together 24/7 and love it. Other than my relationship with the Lord, I wish that I could give my marriage to everyone. I can't but I can share the amazing truths that the Lord taught me and commanded me to apply to my life. Yes, only One with authority can command and He has all authority. He is the LORD Jesus Christ and if you do not have that view of Him then you need to see if you are indeed in the family of faith in Christ.
I did not come from a Christian home. My parents were abusive and as a result I could not wait to leave home. I became a Christian when I was almost 20 years old. When I heard that I was still under my parents authority I did not like it but because Jesus was my Lord I went back under my parents authority. After a few years my father surrendered his life completely to the Lord and we enjoyed a very loving and sweet relationship for years until the Lord took him home. My mother has not become a Christian and is still abusive. But the Lord has removed my bitterness and given me His love for her. Those who see it marvel because it is not from me. Anyone who has been in an abusive relationship will understand. Again, my Lord Jesus has commanded me to honor my mother. If He is truly my Lord then I have no other option. "He is either Lord of all or NOT Lord at all in a person's life".
Over the years I have had many younger women come to me about the lack of love in their marriages. I ask them two questions. Did you morally compromise before you were married? Every time the answer has been yes except for one time and that marriage had other issues. The Bible teaches that "moral excellence" is the root of true love. If there is a lack of moral excellence before marriage then the seeds are sown for a lack of love in the marriage. Where there is a lack of moral excellence there will be jealousy and selfish ambition and then there will also be a lack of love, respect, etc.
Scripture states this well in James 3:14-17
14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.
God's ways are like the promise land...milk and honey. They are good for you and sweet. It has been over forty years now that I have known Him and He has never disappointed me ever and He never will.
The other question I ask them is "Did your father want you to marry him?" Again, that is what Scripture teaches in I Corinthians 7. Every time the answer is "no, he did not want me to" or "he kept silent". A father can see things in a young man that a female can not see, even her mother.
I do not disagree with many of the comments about husbands...that they are to love their wives, etc. Those are commands to the husband and my husband is not my responsibility. I want to be found faithful to the Lord to fear Him and to keep all of Hid commandments with all of my heart. There is nothing in all of life that compares to the joy of living in His presence and walking with Him. I love my Lord Jesus Christ.
Anne, if I may, a question and a comment:
"I ask them two questions..." - Once you have that information, what do you offer as a solution to the problem?
"The Bible teaches that “moral excellence” is the root of true love." - Respectfully, I disagree. Unless I am sorely mistaken, the Bible does not teach this at all.
Thank you for explaining your thoughts and opinions, Anne. I appreciate your courage in discussing these things.
About moral excellence 2 Peter 1:5-7
5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
It begins with applying all diligence in your faith supply moral excellence.
As to what do I tell women who have answered those questions...many things from God's Word. I seek to counsel them according to God's Word and His ways. They are to be found faithful to the Lord if they belong to Him. In Titus, the Lord says for the wife to "be a lover of her husband," that is to want him. Most wives at one time wanted their husbands and long for the "love" relationship that they once felt like they had or at least long for him to love her as he once did. There are many other truths that the Lord has given to us concerning wives and these also I try to teach. That is just an example.
However, when I teach a Bible study I begin with the word "iniquity" which means we want to be our own god and make our own decisions. That was the sin of Eve. That was also what John the Baptist was referring to when he said "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world". Sin in this verse is singular because it is referring to the sin of wanting to our own god, we want to do what is right in our own eyes. All other sins come from that one sin. That is why the Bible says in Matthew 1:21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." That is why someone can not be saved from their sins until they receive Him as their LORD. I have encountered many women who thought they were Christians and yet when they totally surrender their lives to Him and start keeping His commandments then there is fruit in their lives and by that and by the Holy Spirit they know they are Christians.
There is another verse that in interesting. Psalm 18:26 "With the pure You show Yourself pure,
And with the crooked You show Yourself twisted."
The Lord says in Proverbs that "the way of a guilty man is crooked". If we have guilt in our hearts then God and His ways will seem twisted to us. Our view of God's ways is not a judgment on God's ways, since they are perfect, but is more of a judgment on our own heart. And that is the truth of the death of Christ on the cross and the power and majesty of His resurrection. He says if we judge ourselves then we will not be judged. We have all fallen short. There is no shame in admitting it but the shame remains with us if we do not admit it.
Thank you for asking. I love the Word of God and love sharing it.
Anne, your reply doesn't answer the question of what you counsel a woman if she answers no to your 2 questions. Would that mean that there is now no hope for her marriage? She blew it and that is it?
Your posts are exactly what people on this site are questioning. You seem to imply that you have a formula for a great marriage which guarantees happiness. Yet I know of women (like me) who have followed that exact formula and ended up abused and miserable anyway. Then what?
You need to stop bragging about yourself and how great you are etc etc.
You remind me of the parable of jesus where a tax collected and a pharisee went to the temple to pray. The pharisee reminded God how great he was and all the great things he did and how he is glad he wasn't like the tax collected (or that divorced person) and the tax collector just asked for forgiveness. God justified the tax collector not the pharisee.
Just to state the obvious, if anyone takes the time to read the surrounding context of 2 Peter 1, it will become clear that Peter is not saying anything like "moral excellence is the root of true love." The problems with that claim are manifold.
Some things that Scripture does say about love is that God is love, when we were still stuck in our sins Christ demonstrated his love for us by dying for us, and we love him because he first loved us. Our own moral excellence leaves a lot to be desired even on our best days (Isaiah 64:6) but thankfully the source of true love is God himself.
I, too, am curious why you would ask them if they had "moral compromises" before they got married. I assume you mean they had sex before marriage? You make it sound like they are doomed if they say yes. The story of the Bible is the story of grace and redemption. We ALL have moral compromise. Thankfully, moral excellence is not necessary to experience true love. The word of God says that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. His example of perfect love is to love us all even while we were moral failures, and it is that example that we should follow.
I believe the Bible also says that our "moral excellence" (aka our own righteousness) is as filthy rags to God. We can never make God love us more, or even experience His love more, by trying to be more moral.
- Being married to my husband is the closest thing to heaven that I have known. Do we sin, yes, because we are sinners but it grieves me when I sin because I know it causes my husband grief. We often ask forgiveness even if it is a small thing that someone else would not see as wrong. I live to please my husband. -
Shouldn't you be living to please God? And shouldn't your sin grieve you because it grieves your Heavenly Father, not your husband? It sounds like you may be following your husband instead of God.
Can you tell us the verse in I Cor. 7 that says the father should want a girl to marry her husband? I can't find that verse and I've been studying that chapter extensively for quite some time.
Haven't read all the comments, so maybe this was already addressed. What seems curious to me in this passage, is the way the evangelical community in generally has historically tended to emphasize the "wives, submit to your husbands", and to de-emphasize the "submit to one another" in this passage. Same passage, same context, and to my understanding, same word in the original languages.
Now then, why do we take the "wives, submit," as more of an absolute obedience, but we take the "submit to one another," as a general admonition, something we do when it is not too inconvenient and does not damage our personal autonomy? You can't have it both ways, now. It's one or the other; not both. Or if we wish to say the word used can have a broad range of meaning, why do we arbitrarily assign it a stricter sense when paired with "wives," and a looser sense when paired with, "one another"? Why could not the reverse be true?
I think this is another instance in which Christians are guilty of interpreting the passage according to their personal preferences.
"Same passage, same context, and to my understanding, same word in the original languages."
Yes. Exactly the same word. It seems the passage originally appeared in Greek with the word translated to "submit" only once:
"All believers submit to one another wives own husbands" ("Own" as in "nobody else's", not the verb for ownership)
Which was later translated as: "All believers submit to one another, wives should submit to their own husbands."
But could also be translated as: "All believers submit to one another, wives and their own husbands should submit to one another"
Good points, Retha. I am very interested in your ideas.
Actually, "own" is a modifier for "man": "your own man". And no word for "wife" was used, but "women", translated "wives" due to context "woman own man". There is no Greek word for "husband" or "wive" but "own man" or "own woman" is translated as "husband" or "wife" or "own husband" or "own wife".
Remember too in reading these NT passages that the church included Greeks, Romans, Jews, Scythians, slave and free. Civil or tribal marriage was different for each group (only Romans could marry under Roman law) and some slaves were not allowed to be "married" but had their "own" man or woman anyway.
I've always wondered why the instruction for wives to submit was taken so seriously, but the instruction for husband to love their wives as their own bodies was always kind of glossed over. The wives were told to submit even if their husbands do not love them because that is what God commanded, yet the husband is never told to love his wife even if she is not submissive.
Dreamer, This is in answer to your earlier comment about love. I am not sure of where you got your understanding of righteousness. You are right that we have no righteousness of our own. That is not the righteousness that I am referring to. Christ wants us to live according to His standard, which is a righteous standard of behavior. You don't want someone to lie to you, cheat on you, steal from you, etc. So, if you are like most people then you want people to have moral excellence with you. As to can we experience God's love more...absolutely. It is in John 14: 23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me." Does this verse mean that God's loves us more if we keep His commandments? No, but we will experience more of His love. Also, can we please Him more...yes, we can but that is another truth.
Anne, with all you have offered on this page, would you please answer the others' question: what do you teach a young woman who has a troubled marriage who DID engage in premarital impurity? Is there a 7 step program to cleansing?
Is it possible to be washed, sanctified and justified from prior immorality (I Cor. 6:11) and still have a difficult marriage?
We all want what you claim to have, some of us have found it out of reach so far and others, like you, want to help younger Christians learn to live in Christ.
There is a difference between righteousness and obedience. We are made 100% righteous in the sight of God by the blood of Jesus Christ. Righteousness means that our debt has been paid in full and we are in good standing with God.
Yes, we can go deeper in our relationship with God and experience His presence more fully by being obedient and seeking to please Him. I'm not disputing that. But that is not the same thing as righteousness. We either are righteous in the sight of God by the blood of Jesus or we are not.
As for love, the Bible says that God's love is unchanging and never failing. He cannot love us more or less than He does right now. His love is not based upon our actions. He already died for us when we were still sinners. Our "righteous" actions do not make Him love us more.
So, Anne, what is the “another truth” that we can please Him more? The ONLY thing I have in my life that can be of any use in “pleasing” God is the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF JESUS CHRIST APPLIED TO MY HEART. All of the righteousness I used to think I had by my long skirt wearing, my following a list of standards or steps, or even my obedience was all filthy rags before God. He says that OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS is as filthy rags before Him. (Isaiah 64:6) What is OUR righteousness? The things WE do to be “right” with God. (Please note too, the Bible does not say our sins are as filthy rags, it says OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.) Words of Truth: I can never be any more pleasing to the Lord Jesus than I am just now resting in His righteousness. There is nothing I can do to add to His righteousness. I am dressed in the robe of the Righteousness of the Son of God. That can’t be beat! Sorry, Anne, none of your standard keeping or moral excellence will make you any more right before God. I feel sorry for you if you are depending on that to be your righteousness.
Flower: AMEN! It makes no sense whatsoever to believe I can "please" God when His Son has ALREADY COMPLETELY PLEASE HIM! IT IS FINISHED! Hallelujah.
Eph. 5:25-27 says He Christ loved use and gave himself up for us, that He might sanctify us, having cleansed us by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present us to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that we might be holy and without blemish. Now, on that day, when He presents us to Himself, what on earth will we be able to say that we have done to please Him?
"Jesus, don't you LOVE what I have added to your perfect work?" That sounds to me like someone at the wedding who is wearing the wrong garment.
Do not get bogged down quibbling over imputed "righteousness" and "obedience". I CAN NOT OBEY EXCEPT HE OBEYS IN ME: Not I but Christ, Christ in me, the hope of Glory. Stop doing, stop obeying in your own name and will, and start abiding. The life, the obedience and the fruit are all HIS. The rewards are to honor the Spirit for His glorification of Christ in us. Stop seeking glory for yourself. His and His alone. Him and Him alone.
Don, I love your analogy: "like someone at the wedding who is wearing the wrong garment." Thanks Dreamer and Flower for reminding us to have a clear focus on His finished work to those who desire to be at that feast.
Could I suggest that you get Kristen Rosser to also write you an article on the topics of how to understand man as head, and submission? She is very much respected for her knowledge, and even gets respect as a Christian on No Longer Quivering, an ex-Quiverfull web site which has a rather anti-religious vibe.
Here, for example, is one of her articles: http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/06/does-bible-teach-male-headship-part-2.html
Retha, this link is to a great article! (Pt.2 anyway, haven't looked at pt. 1.) Kristen's is consistent with my own growing understanding of Ephesians and with other things I've read about ancient culture and use of "head". It also supplies some excellent background in Aristotle. The head of a line does not command or rule over the line, except as the line voluntarily follows the head.
What a new world Christ opened up! It sounds like a New Approach to Life! My how we might be blessed by entering into its richness, leaving behind the pagan lording it over one another, entering into union and even communion IN Him, not under His feet. "You will no longer call me lord, you will call me husband."
Thanks.
I don't know if this is appropriate or not here, but not sure where to ask;
Has anyone ever heard of the Steve Maxwell family? They speak at their own confrences around the country. Some of my friends are into everything Maxwell, and yet a lot of what they teach is very very similar to Gothard. I have often wondered if Steve was somehow influenced by Gothard, then started out on his own. The Maxwells seem so perfect, and many families are trying to attain to that perfection they see by following all the godly advice from a family who "has it right."
My point in asking is not to drag Maxwells into this blog, but if they have begun "Gothard" to be able to point my friends to RG to show them where this all is really coming from.
Thanks
I sent a reply but forgot to click on reply so it's below yours.
JustTruthPlease, are you asking about the Steve Maxwell family who lives in Leavenworth KS? I do not know them nor have I heard him/them speak. But I did ask my daughter about him several months ago when I read something about him speaking at homeschool conferences. SHe's usually more willing to give these guys a pass if she's heard them speak and he did speak at the Kansas City homeschool convention in the past. I have read some things today about them and I don't know if he claims to be a "Gothardite" but his teachings are very much like BGs on no debt and so much like BG and Doug Phillips on stay at home daughters (and I think Maxwell adds sons to that but then so did Gothard I guess). I read a blog today where some had tried to ask SM questions on his blog and the answers were so vague and one said, "You will find the answers in my book". In other words ...buy his book- send your money, blah, blah, blah. You could do an online search. Some will praise him and others will show his true colors. I'm not interested in learning about someone else's so called perfect family. Maybe that's why Bill Gothard never married. At some point he was afraid that if he had children they might show or prove that all his ideas were false. Our children don't always do what we would like them to do. So I'm sure that influenced BG to not marry and have children. Of course, that didn't keep him from enjoying several young women. The only thing I can suggest is to see if your local library has any Steve Maxwell books and read one to see what he teaches. Or if not and you don't mind wasting some money you could order one. Or maybe you could be on an email list from him to see what he is doing now.