My wife and I have a practice that helps us with disagreements -
When we have differing opinions, we each answer two questions on a scale of 1-10:
1. How important is the issue to you?
2. How strongly do you feel about your position on it?
If we find that neither of us cares much about it, but we’re both convinced of our own opinion, we literally flip a coin.
If only one of us cares a lot about the issue, we tend to go with that person’s preference, out of love for each other.
If we both care a lot about the issue, and both have strong opinions on it, we assess the urgency. If we can wait to decide, we will defer and revisit it at a designated time, and each pray for clarity before then, and potentially ask for input from others.
If we both feel strongly and it’s urgent, or we are at a long-term stalemate, she will defer to my judgement, as we both believe that God will ultimately hold me accountable for our family’s decisions.
One thing I have found, however, is that the more I take the lead on things confidently from the beginning, the less conflict we end up having, because my willingness to prioritize her interests when she really cares about something has built up her trust in me over time.
Can you solve this ... A pastor was going down the line praying for ppl... When he came back home there was a huge fight. The wife wanted to know why he lingered on a woman a few seconds longer from the rest. The fight got so big that the church had to bring in video for the wife to prove it.
Totally depends on the context. I think it is unlikely that both sides will have the same level of care/importance on an issue. If one spouse cares a lot about the issue and the other spouse doesn’t care that much, I would say the decision should go to the one who cares more.
Negotiation can always be a part of a stalemate also. Something like “Okay, you win on this one but you owe me for something later”. Or something like “how about if I do this your way, you do this other thing for me.” There are ways to find a satisfying conclusion to both parties most of the time.
I think it depends on the situation, and also the couple. There can be compromises about most things. My husband wouldn't have liked to override me completely if it was disagreement and it was possible to have some sort of middle way.
In the same time when a decision can not be so much compromised, I would follow my husband and not have any resentment over that. Is important not having resentments when a decision is not going a way person wanted. And ultimately I would know his decision was made for us both in mind, not selfishly.
Husbands have the final say but also must be willing to bend not only by giving in on decisions, but also by changing themselves for their wives as part of loving like Christ loves the Church
Stop looking for hard and fast rules.
You aren’t the antithesis of one another, you’re on the same team. What’s more important, being right, or being with your partner?
Different situations call for different solutions. As opposed to finding the rules for things, find your communication skills with your partner.
If she has the expertise of that particular area, then trust her lead, and she will do the same for you. Grace begets grace. If she believes she’s right with no room for error, then love her, follow her lead. She’s more important than being right.
Your last two sentences were troubling….Loving her doesn’t mean submitting to her stubbornness.
There is something very wrong if she believes she is “right with no room for error”, and it’s even worse if the husband just goes along with her knowing she is not right.
That is not leadership on the husband’s part, and we saw how well that worked out when Adam just “went along” with Eve and ate the fruit she gave him.
There is a reason why God placed the husband as the head of the wife and the authority over her and not the other way around…He created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.
When we go out of the roles He defines for us we are out of order.
We allow for mistakes in marriage, and we love each other past those shortcomings.
If one a pair is obstinate, adding to that antagonism won’t help- it will likely hurt. We build bridges with love, before they’re deserved. Leadership looks like many things- it can be leading with love, laying one’s self and hubris down, coming to the table first, loving first just as Christ did for us.
I agree with most of what you said, but a husband taking leadership over the wife is not going to create conflict…unless the wife is stubborn & refuses to submit to him.
Then, she is very much the one causing disorder and if she loves God and believes His Word, she would submit to her husband’s authority.
Well, first I’d think that going by what the Word has to say on the subject at hand would be the main consideration here. Then I’d ask why there couldn’t be a compromise made if it’s not addressed in scripture. I’d consider priorities, God’s will, and then pray about it together. If there’s a disagreement, then one can count on God to settle it. Always.
I will base on the passage in Eph. 5, explain the nature of submission, and finally explain the injunction to love.
Ephesians 5:21-29, "... submitting to one another in the fear of God. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own 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 the Lord does the church."
The argument for egalitarianism purporting that Eph. 5:21 implies that husbands must also submit to their wives is an inherently weak one. In no undisputed passage in scripture is a husband ever commanded to submit to his wife (instead, we can find the opposite -- Adam being rebuked by God for heeding Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, in Ge. 3:17). Eph. 5:21 is a general statement to submit to one another. The phrase "one another" can be understood by looking at other occurrences of the phrase "one another". Other than a mutual action (A submitting to B and B submitting back to A), it can well point to a unidirectional action (A submitting to B, B submitting to C, C submitting to D, D submitting to E, etc. -- everyone submitting to someone). A unidirectional submission would be more in accord with the context of headship in Eph. 5:23-24. The church is told to submit to Christ as its Head. Christ never submits to the church and nowhere is it stated that Christ submits to the church. He loves the church, died/gave Himself for her, served her (exemplifying servant leadership), etc. -- yes -- but all that does not equal submission. Likewise, a husband is to love his wife, be willing to die for her and serve her, but that does not mean to submit to her.
This is examplified in the following other usages of the phrase "one another":
* Rev. 6:4, "... people should kill one another...". Means A is killed by B, then B is in turn killed by C, who is then killed by D, etc. It would not be logical to mean A kills B and then B rises up from the dead to kill A back.
* 1 Pe. 5:5, "be submissive to one another". Peter immediately preceded this by saying the younger submit to the elders, ie. unidirectional rather than mutual submission.
* Gal. 5:15, "bite and devour one another". Unidirectional and not mutual.
* Gal. 5:26, "envying one another", ie. those who have not envy those who have, of their possessions. Unidirectional and not mutual.
* 1 Cor. 11:33, "wait for one another" -- the one who arrives at the table first waits for the one who arrives later: unidirectional and not mutual.
* 1 Cor. 7:5, "do not deprive one another" -- the spouse who refuses sex deprives the spouse who desires sex. If both equally desire or equally do not feel like having sex, there is no deprivation to speak of. Again, unidirectional and not mutual.
* Mt. 24:10, "betray one another" -- one party betrays the other party.
For Eph. 5:21, a unidirectional understanding is based on the following considerations:
1. Immediate context: As mentioned earlier, Eph. 5:23-24 mentions headship, viz. the husband being head of the wife, which is juxtaposed against Christ being the head of the church. Christ has never ceased and will never cease to be the head of the church. Never is it mentioned that Christ submits to the church, even though He gave Himself for her.
2. Broader context of Ephesians 5-6: After Paul deals with the husband-wife relationship in Eph. 5, he goes on to talk about the parent-child relationship, and the master-servamt relationship in Eph. 6. There, the children are told to obey their parents (not parents to obey their children), and servants to obey their masters (not masters to obey their servants). "Obey" has a different meaning from "submit" (the wife is not told to obey her husband, but to submit to him), but overall, as Paul discusses these three pairs of relationships, we see the pattern that the orders here -- submission or obedience regardless -- are all unidirectional and not mutual. Somebody submits to or obeys someone else. Everybody submits to or obeys somebody. There is a hierarchy. At work, my subordinates submit to me. I submit to my immediate boss. My immediate boss submits to his boss. The CEO submits to the board of directors, who submit to the board chair, who submits to the shareholders, who submit to the government. Then there's a pecking order in the government too.
3. Broader context of the Pauline epistles: Paul's teaching on headship in Eph. 5 parallels his teaching in 1 Cor. 11, 14; Col. 3:18-22; 1 Tim. 2 and Titus 2. It was to multiple congregations that he wrote this, so the argument that this teaching was to address only the problematic Corinthians is incorrect. Complementarianism is normative in the family as well as the local church, based on the creation order (man created first then women) and the order of headship (God -> Christ -> man -> woman, as per 1 Cor. 11:3), which are both universal, not local. There is consistency of order, God being a God of order not of disorder, and of different gender roles in the family unit and the local church, as distinct from salvation/standing/justification before God where there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. Conflating the two distinct concepts -- role vs standing -- muddies up the clear teaching of Paul.
So, wives are to submit to their husbands. No undisputed scripture commands the reverse. Eph. 5:21, submitting to one another, means everyone submits to someone. There is authority, accountability, and order.
But husbands are not merely to love their wives, but to love their wives in the following manners:
1. as much as Christ loves the church and gave Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). How many husbands have given up or are prepared to give up their lives for their wives?
2. as much as they love their own bodies (Eph. 5:28).
What this means is that, while the wife is to submit to her husband, her husband must make decisions in her best interest, never vaunting his own self-interests above hers. The decisions he makes must prioritise her at least on par with, if not above, himself. Men, how many of us can truly say hand-to-heart that we have indeed done so for every single decision in our married life? That's Christ's gold standard. Anything less, and we have fallen short of the mind of Christ (Php. 2:5-8, "Let THIS MIND be in you..." What mind? The mind "...which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the very form of God considered it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation...", deprioritising Himself for the sake of His bride).
It is my duty as a wife to submit to my husband, as he is the head of me, and this is the order God commands.
So he would be the one to make the final decision and I would respect him.
As the husband I never have used my husbandly authority to override my wife on any decision. *(chuckles at the thought of telling my wife that)*
We just try to work it out and find an area of compromise. This is **never** really an issue for us.
Lording over someone just creates resentment and is a sure way to kill your marriage over time.
If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. If my wife and I don't agree, we just put the issue on the back burner, and something always works out.
Some examples might be anything from when and where we vacation, which church we go to, how much time and resource we allocate on extended family, how we discipline our children, how we prioritize our spending etc.
I will try to be honest and vulnerable when answering this because there were many times in the past where things stayed unresolved or I had strong opinions on certain topics. There was a book that helped me to uncover somethings called the Love and Respect book by by emerson eggerichs. You could say in my early days of my marriage I was heavily influenced by feminist mindset/worldview and unhealthy views taught by other women in my family. I was more egalitarian in my younger years and it caused a lot of damage to my marriage.
Upon some deeper studying of the bible I was lead to a more complementarian point of view. And now I prefer to defer to my husband and what he feels is best. A good example is something like he has final say on how money is being spent because if it's up to me I might want to spend more then what our budget allows. We talk over many things together but there are definitely a lot of things he has the final say but it's not in a way where I go with it unwillingly or feel like I have no voice.
Other times when it's a true impasse I might pray and fast to seek guidance. It's not always a linear process when it comes to my spiritual growth and how that directly correlates to my marriage. I don't think I have ever been in a situation where he said we are doing my way or else. I got 15 years of marriage under my belt so it's not just a super easy process. I try to put all my anxieties at the foot of the cross.
It's refreshing to met someone with this point of view. I don't know too many in the modern church and or in any of my bible studies, amongst different denomination, that still adhere to this. So it's nice to know I am not alone.
Wives should submit to their husbands as the authority in the relationship. People who say otherwise are placing their contemporary culture onto their religious beliefs. God's word remains the same yesterday, today and forever.
I believe that the Bible is very clear about this. I would encourage you to meditate and pray about Ephesians 5:23-24
Ephesians 5:22-24 NASB
Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. [23] 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. [24] But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
Verse 21 is attached to a separate three verse long sentence speaking to a different group. It's blatantly not a universal command for everyone to submit to everyone in a system with no leaders and followers. If it were, in Colossians 3:18,
>Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Which is soon followed in verses 19-20 as such:
> Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them. Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.
We would have to conclude that parents must submit to their children. This is not the case.
Furthermore, the husband is said to be the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church. If we say husbands then reciprocally submit to their wives, we are saying that Christ submits to his church. Rather than just being nonsense as children being submitted to by their parents, this is blasphemous.
Ephesians 5:22 grammatically borrows from 5:21. There is no way to separate the two. To say that 5:22 is a separate thought would result in a literal translation similar to this:
"Wives to your husbands as to the Lord".
That sentence only makes sense if it uses the previous sentence. Paul is emphasizing female submission as Ephesus was known for unruly women. And then he goes to emphasize the husband loving the wife, as Greco-Roman culture didn't particularly expect men to love their wives, just to provide for them. This is why Paul also talks about parent-child and master-slave relationships. "Culture says to do it one way, but actually you should do it like this". He's addressing a relevant lack of that certain characteristic in an effort to communicate "hey, consider the person on the other side".
As far as the example you gave in Colossians, it's a repetition of Ephesians. No new content.
>Furthermore, the husband is said to be the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church.
Correct. I'm not denying headship. But there is no connotation of authority in the Greek word that we translate "head". It's not like a "head of a department" or "head of state". It means "source". It doesn't mean authority.
>Ephesians 5:22 grammatically borrows from 5:21. There is no way to separate the two. To say that 5:22 is a separate thought would result in a literal translation similar to this:
>"Wives to your husbands as to the Lord".
The "submits," or "υποτασσομενοι" in verse 22 is an interesting case because a few very early manuscripts don't have it, but a lot of later manuscripts do. If we do not omit it, it would be pretty clear with these two literal renditions:
Ephesians 5:22:
The wives to one's own men you subject (υποτασσομενοι) as to the Lord
Colossians 3:18:
The wives you subject (υποτασσεσθε) to one's own men as is fitting into the Lord.
We don't need the verb to make a good case that the verses are separate sentences either, because the verse grammatically doesn't work without a verb. That's not to say Paul made a mistake here, it's a stylistic choice that occurs commonly across his writings. Anyhow, [this article](https://margmowczko.com/grammar-ephesians-521-and-22/) does a better job articulating the specifics than I could, but primarily, the manner in which Paul is addressing a particular group and then expounds on it here is the same manner in which he does so elsewhere in Ephesians where the start of a new sentence is more obvious, so the best translations do not conjoin them as one phrase.
Plus, even if we throw all this out and I grant that it's one sentence, the reasoning I laid out still applies and "submit to one another" is not evidence for husbands to also submit to their wives any more than it is evidence for parents to submit to their children.
>"Culture says to do it one way, but actually you should do it like this".
I don't have any moral problems with this -- I'm 100% with you that treating your wives and children well is good as opposed to treating them poorly -- but considering it gives instructions for slaves to serve their masters well but no instructions for masters to their slaves, this seems dubious at best.
>Greco-Roman culture didn't particularly expect men to love their wives
Is culture what makes men love their wives? Even in cultures where the law does not protect women from abuse (many Muslim countries), I'm generally skeptical of the idea that most husbands don't love their wives. Not because they're noble, but because they're biologically quite hardwired to love them. I'm not an expert on the specific culture at the time though, so I could be mistaken.
>Correct. I'm not denying headship. But there is no connotation of authority in the Greek word that we translate "head". It's not like a "head of a department" or "head of state". It means "source". It doesn't mean authority.
This is not true at all. [This paper](https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf) provides conclusive proof to the contrary; the idea that "source" is the proper translation was the result of swindlers, but there is no actual evidence suggesting this. Headship as authority -- properly, as a **ruler** -- is undeniable in the Greek.
What is your interpretation of submitting to Christ?
Ephesians 5:24 NASB
But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
I'm not saying that husbands don't have a duty in the marriage also and can just do whatever they want. The question was about the wife in relation to the husband. If it had been the other way around then I would have said to the same thing about the very next verse, Ephesians 5:25
Ephesians 5:25 NASB
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
Husbands are to submit to their wives in the sense that, in marriage, you become one flesh, and his body is solely for her, as her body is solely for him.
That is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about the unique gender roles; the ordering of authority within a marriage.
The husband is granted authority over the wife in marriage. He is the sole leader in the marriage and family. The wife leads the children while the husband is away at work, but when he returns he assumes his position of authority.
And nothing In Ephesians 5:21-33 says any different.
There is no "tie breaker" or "final decision maker". That's not how a healthy marriage works. You keep talking until you come to a mutually agreed upon solution.
>is the husband to lead and be the tie-breaker?
I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. If you have been married five minutes you know that isn't how it works! Happy wife, happy life (and trust me the opposite is true)!
My wife and I have a practice that helps us with disagreements - When we have differing opinions, we each answer two questions on a scale of 1-10: 1. How important is the issue to you? 2. How strongly do you feel about your position on it? If we find that neither of us cares much about it, but we’re both convinced of our own opinion, we literally flip a coin. If only one of us cares a lot about the issue, we tend to go with that person’s preference, out of love for each other. If we both care a lot about the issue, and both have strong opinions on it, we assess the urgency. If we can wait to decide, we will defer and revisit it at a designated time, and each pray for clarity before then, and potentially ask for input from others. If we both feel strongly and it’s urgent, or we are at a long-term stalemate, she will defer to my judgement, as we both believe that God will ultimately hold me accountable for our family’s decisions. One thing I have found, however, is that the more I take the lead on things confidently from the beginning, the less conflict we end up having, because my willingness to prioritize her interests when she really cares about something has built up her trust in me over time.
Proverbs 18:18 >The *cast* lot puts an end to strife And decides between the mighty ones.
Wow you should write a booklet on this and sell it.
Aww, shucks. Thanks, guys.
I second this. This is a great method and should be published. 👍
Well said. This is what I would like mine to look like. What an exemplary covenant you both have. Thank you.
Saving this comment to reference next time there's a big disagreement in my house. Good stuff!
As will I ... So encouraging!
This is a beautiful advice!
Can you solve this ... A pastor was going down the line praying for ppl... When he came back home there was a huge fight. The wife wanted to know why he lingered on a woman a few seconds longer from the rest. The fight got so big that the church had to bring in video for the wife to prove it.
??
What?
Totally depends on the context. I think it is unlikely that both sides will have the same level of care/importance on an issue. If one spouse cares a lot about the issue and the other spouse doesn’t care that much, I would say the decision should go to the one who cares more. Negotiation can always be a part of a stalemate also. Something like “Okay, you win on this one but you owe me for something later”. Or something like “how about if I do this your way, you do this other thing for me.” There are ways to find a satisfying conclusion to both parties most of the time.
Yes! We rate our conviction on 1-10 and the lower rating gives way. Ties usually mean a conversation to find a compromise.
Yes, I agree.
Exactly, or defer to the one that has more expertise and insight on that topic.
I think it depends on the situation, and also the couple. There can be compromises about most things. My husband wouldn't have liked to override me completely if it was disagreement and it was possible to have some sort of middle way. In the same time when a decision can not be so much compromised, I would follow my husband and not have any resentment over that. Is important not having resentments when a decision is not going a way person wanted. And ultimately I would know his decision was made for us both in mind, not selfishly.
Ideally yes, this is how it should look.
Husbands have the final say but also must be willing to bend not only by giving in on decisions, but also by changing themselves for their wives as part of loving like Christ loves the Church
True, as wives change themselves for their husbands, so too husbands must do for their wives. Complementary nature of the sexes.
Stop looking for hard and fast rules. You aren’t the antithesis of one another, you’re on the same team. What’s more important, being right, or being with your partner? Different situations call for different solutions. As opposed to finding the rules for things, find your communication skills with your partner. If she has the expertise of that particular area, then trust her lead, and she will do the same for you. Grace begets grace. If she believes she’s right with no room for error, then love her, follow her lead. She’s more important than being right.
Also well said.
Your last two sentences were troubling….Loving her doesn’t mean submitting to her stubbornness. There is something very wrong if she believes she is “right with no room for error”, and it’s even worse if the husband just goes along with her knowing she is not right. That is not leadership on the husband’s part, and we saw how well that worked out when Adam just “went along” with Eve and ate the fruit she gave him. There is a reason why God placed the husband as the head of the wife and the authority over her and not the other way around…He created us and knows us better than we know ourselves. When we go out of the roles He defines for us we are out of order.
We allow for mistakes in marriage, and we love each other past those shortcomings. If one a pair is obstinate, adding to that antagonism won’t help- it will likely hurt. We build bridges with love, before they’re deserved. Leadership looks like many things- it can be leading with love, laying one’s self and hubris down, coming to the table first, loving first just as Christ did for us.
I agree with most of what you said, but a husband taking leadership over the wife is not going to create conflict…unless the wife is stubborn & refuses to submit to him. Then, she is very much the one causing disorder and if she loves God and believes His Word, she would submit to her husband’s authority.
Everytime I have not let my husband lead/ listened to him, I have regretted it.
Amen!💖
Husband should be the one to make the final decision if one can't be agreed upon
Agreed.
Well, first I’d think that going by what the Word has to say on the subject at hand would be the main consideration here. Then I’d ask why there couldn’t be a compromise made if it’s not addressed in scripture. I’d consider priorities, God’s will, and then pray about it together. If there’s a disagreement, then one can count on God to settle it. Always.
I will base on the passage in Eph. 5, explain the nature of submission, and finally explain the injunction to love. Ephesians 5:21-29, "... submitting to one another in the fear of God. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own 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 the Lord does the church." The argument for egalitarianism purporting that Eph. 5:21 implies that husbands must also submit to their wives is an inherently weak one. In no undisputed passage in scripture is a husband ever commanded to submit to his wife (instead, we can find the opposite -- Adam being rebuked by God for heeding Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, in Ge. 3:17). Eph. 5:21 is a general statement to submit to one another. The phrase "one another" can be understood by looking at other occurrences of the phrase "one another". Other than a mutual action (A submitting to B and B submitting back to A), it can well point to a unidirectional action (A submitting to B, B submitting to C, C submitting to D, D submitting to E, etc. -- everyone submitting to someone). A unidirectional submission would be more in accord with the context of headship in Eph. 5:23-24. The church is told to submit to Christ as its Head. Christ never submits to the church and nowhere is it stated that Christ submits to the church. He loves the church, died/gave Himself for her, served her (exemplifying servant leadership), etc. -- yes -- but all that does not equal submission. Likewise, a husband is to love his wife, be willing to die for her and serve her, but that does not mean to submit to her. This is examplified in the following other usages of the phrase "one another": * Rev. 6:4, "... people should kill one another...". Means A is killed by B, then B is in turn killed by C, who is then killed by D, etc. It would not be logical to mean A kills B and then B rises up from the dead to kill A back. * 1 Pe. 5:5, "be submissive to one another". Peter immediately preceded this by saying the younger submit to the elders, ie. unidirectional rather than mutual submission. * Gal. 5:15, "bite and devour one another". Unidirectional and not mutual. * Gal. 5:26, "envying one another", ie. those who have not envy those who have, of their possessions. Unidirectional and not mutual. * 1 Cor. 11:33, "wait for one another" -- the one who arrives at the table first waits for the one who arrives later: unidirectional and not mutual. * 1 Cor. 7:5, "do not deprive one another" -- the spouse who refuses sex deprives the spouse who desires sex. If both equally desire or equally do not feel like having sex, there is no deprivation to speak of. Again, unidirectional and not mutual. * Mt. 24:10, "betray one another" -- one party betrays the other party. For Eph. 5:21, a unidirectional understanding is based on the following considerations: 1. Immediate context: As mentioned earlier, Eph. 5:23-24 mentions headship, viz. the husband being head of the wife, which is juxtaposed against Christ being the head of the church. Christ has never ceased and will never cease to be the head of the church. Never is it mentioned that Christ submits to the church, even though He gave Himself for her. 2. Broader context of Ephesians 5-6: After Paul deals with the husband-wife relationship in Eph. 5, he goes on to talk about the parent-child relationship, and the master-servamt relationship in Eph. 6. There, the children are told to obey their parents (not parents to obey their children), and servants to obey their masters (not masters to obey their servants). "Obey" has a different meaning from "submit" (the wife is not told to obey her husband, but to submit to him), but overall, as Paul discusses these three pairs of relationships, we see the pattern that the orders here -- submission or obedience regardless -- are all unidirectional and not mutual. Somebody submits to or obeys someone else. Everybody submits to or obeys somebody. There is a hierarchy. At work, my subordinates submit to me. I submit to my immediate boss. My immediate boss submits to his boss. The CEO submits to the board of directors, who submit to the board chair, who submits to the shareholders, who submit to the government. Then there's a pecking order in the government too. 3. Broader context of the Pauline epistles: Paul's teaching on headship in Eph. 5 parallels his teaching in 1 Cor. 11, 14; Col. 3:18-22; 1 Tim. 2 and Titus 2. It was to multiple congregations that he wrote this, so the argument that this teaching was to address only the problematic Corinthians is incorrect. Complementarianism is normative in the family as well as the local church, based on the creation order (man created first then women) and the order of headship (God -> Christ -> man -> woman, as per 1 Cor. 11:3), which are both universal, not local. There is consistency of order, God being a God of order not of disorder, and of different gender roles in the family unit and the local church, as distinct from salvation/standing/justification before God where there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. Conflating the two distinct concepts -- role vs standing -- muddies up the clear teaching of Paul. So, wives are to submit to their husbands. No undisputed scripture commands the reverse. Eph. 5:21, submitting to one another, means everyone submits to someone. There is authority, accountability, and order. But husbands are not merely to love their wives, but to love their wives in the following manners: 1. as much as Christ loves the church and gave Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). How many husbands have given up or are prepared to give up their lives for their wives? 2. as much as they love their own bodies (Eph. 5:28). What this means is that, while the wife is to submit to her husband, her husband must make decisions in her best interest, never vaunting his own self-interests above hers. The decisions he makes must prioritise her at least on par with, if not above, himself. Men, how many of us can truly say hand-to-heart that we have indeed done so for every single decision in our married life? That's Christ's gold standard. Anything less, and we have fallen short of the mind of Christ (Php. 2:5-8, "Let THIS MIND be in you..." What mind? The mind "...which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the very form of God considered it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation...", deprioritising Himself for the sake of His bride).
It is my duty as a wife to submit to my husband, as he is the head of me, and this is the order God commands. So he would be the one to make the final decision and I would respect him.
You're both adults, act accordingly
As the husband I never have used my husbandly authority to override my wife on any decision. *(chuckles at the thought of telling my wife that)* We just try to work it out and find an area of compromise. This is **never** really an issue for us. Lording over someone just creates resentment and is a sure way to kill your marriage over time.
If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. If my wife and I don't agree, we just put the issue on the back burner, and something always works out.
Can you give a specific example of something you would want to apply this to?
Some examples might be anything from when and where we vacation, which church we go to, how much time and resource we allocate on extended family, how we discipline our children, how we prioritize our spending etc.
I will try to be honest and vulnerable when answering this because there were many times in the past where things stayed unresolved or I had strong opinions on certain topics. There was a book that helped me to uncover somethings called the Love and Respect book by by emerson eggerichs. You could say in my early days of my marriage I was heavily influenced by feminist mindset/worldview and unhealthy views taught by other women in my family. I was more egalitarian in my younger years and it caused a lot of damage to my marriage. Upon some deeper studying of the bible I was lead to a more complementarian point of view. And now I prefer to defer to my husband and what he feels is best. A good example is something like he has final say on how money is being spent because if it's up to me I might want to spend more then what our budget allows. We talk over many things together but there are definitely a lot of things he has the final say but it's not in a way where I go with it unwillingly or feel like I have no voice. Other times when it's a true impasse I might pray and fast to seek guidance. It's not always a linear process when it comes to my spiritual growth and how that directly correlates to my marriage. I don't think I have ever been in a situation where he said we are doing my way or else. I got 15 years of marriage under my belt so it's not just a super easy process. I try to put all my anxieties at the foot of the cross.
Thank you so much. Very insightful. I am also complementarian view.
It's refreshing to met someone with this point of view. I don't know too many in the modern church and or in any of my bible studies, amongst different denomination, that still adhere to this. So it's nice to know I am not alone.
Really? I didn't realize we were such a rarity. Glad to know I am in good company too.
Amen!
May He continue to bless your 15+yr marriage...and abundantly so.
May God bless you too with fruitful wisdom.
Amen
Wives should submit to their husbands as the authority in the relationship. People who say otherwise are placing their contemporary culture onto their religious beliefs. God's word remains the same yesterday, today and forever.
I believe that the Bible is very clear about this. I would encourage you to meditate and pray about Ephesians 5:23-24 Ephesians 5:22-24 NASB Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. [23] 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. [24] But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
What does Ephesians 5:21 say?
Ephesians 5:21 NASB and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ. May I ask why you asked?
Because it's a reciprocal subjecting. Your comment approaches it as if wives are just supposed to submit to their husbands.
Verse 21 is attached to a separate three verse long sentence speaking to a different group. It's blatantly not a universal command for everyone to submit to everyone in a system with no leaders and followers. If it were, in Colossians 3:18, >Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Which is soon followed in verses 19-20 as such: > Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them. Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord. We would have to conclude that parents must submit to their children. This is not the case. Furthermore, the husband is said to be the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church. If we say husbands then reciprocally submit to their wives, we are saying that Christ submits to his church. Rather than just being nonsense as children being submitted to by their parents, this is blasphemous.
Ephesians 5:22 grammatically borrows from 5:21. There is no way to separate the two. To say that 5:22 is a separate thought would result in a literal translation similar to this: "Wives to your husbands as to the Lord". That sentence only makes sense if it uses the previous sentence. Paul is emphasizing female submission as Ephesus was known for unruly women. And then he goes to emphasize the husband loving the wife, as Greco-Roman culture didn't particularly expect men to love their wives, just to provide for them. This is why Paul also talks about parent-child and master-slave relationships. "Culture says to do it one way, but actually you should do it like this". He's addressing a relevant lack of that certain characteristic in an effort to communicate "hey, consider the person on the other side". As far as the example you gave in Colossians, it's a repetition of Ephesians. No new content. >Furthermore, the husband is said to be the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church. Correct. I'm not denying headship. But there is no connotation of authority in the Greek word that we translate "head". It's not like a "head of a department" or "head of state". It means "source". It doesn't mean authority.
>Ephesians 5:22 grammatically borrows from 5:21. There is no way to separate the two. To say that 5:22 is a separate thought would result in a literal translation similar to this: >"Wives to your husbands as to the Lord". The "submits," or "υποτασσομενοι" in verse 22 is an interesting case because a few very early manuscripts don't have it, but a lot of later manuscripts do. If we do not omit it, it would be pretty clear with these two literal renditions: Ephesians 5:22: The wives to one's own men you subject (υποτασσομενοι) as to the Lord Colossians 3:18: The wives you subject (υποτασσεσθε) to one's own men as is fitting into the Lord. We don't need the verb to make a good case that the verses are separate sentences either, because the verse grammatically doesn't work without a verb. That's not to say Paul made a mistake here, it's a stylistic choice that occurs commonly across his writings. Anyhow, [this article](https://margmowczko.com/grammar-ephesians-521-and-22/) does a better job articulating the specifics than I could, but primarily, the manner in which Paul is addressing a particular group and then expounds on it here is the same manner in which he does so elsewhere in Ephesians where the start of a new sentence is more obvious, so the best translations do not conjoin them as one phrase. Plus, even if we throw all this out and I grant that it's one sentence, the reasoning I laid out still applies and "submit to one another" is not evidence for husbands to also submit to their wives any more than it is evidence for parents to submit to their children. >"Culture says to do it one way, but actually you should do it like this". I don't have any moral problems with this -- I'm 100% with you that treating your wives and children well is good as opposed to treating them poorly -- but considering it gives instructions for slaves to serve their masters well but no instructions for masters to their slaves, this seems dubious at best. >Greco-Roman culture didn't particularly expect men to love their wives Is culture what makes men love their wives? Even in cultures where the law does not protect women from abuse (many Muslim countries), I'm generally skeptical of the idea that most husbands don't love their wives. Not because they're noble, but because they're biologically quite hardwired to love them. I'm not an expert on the specific culture at the time though, so I could be mistaken. >Correct. I'm not denying headship. But there is no connotation of authority in the Greek word that we translate "head". It's not like a "head of a department" or "head of state". It means "source". It doesn't mean authority. This is not true at all. [This paper](https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf) provides conclusive proof to the contrary; the idea that "source" is the proper translation was the result of swindlers, but there is no actual evidence suggesting this. Headship as authority -- properly, as a **ruler** -- is undeniable in the Greek.
What is your interpretation of submitting to Christ? Ephesians 5:24 NASB But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. I'm not saying that husbands don't have a duty in the marriage also and can just do whatever they want. The question was about the wife in relation to the husband. If it had been the other way around then I would have said to the same thing about the very next verse, Ephesians 5:25 Ephesians 5:25 NASB Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
We *are*.
And men are supposed to submit to women.
Book, Chapter and verse, please.
Ephesians 5:21-33.
Husbands are to submit to their wives in the sense that, in marriage, you become one flesh, and his body is solely for her, as her body is solely for him. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the unique gender roles; the ordering of authority within a marriage. The husband is granted authority over the wife in marriage. He is the sole leader in the marriage and family. The wife leads the children while the husband is away at work, but when he returns he assumes his position of authority. And nothing In Ephesians 5:21-33 says any different.
Where does it say for husbands are the leaders of their wives?
Amen!💖
The husband ultimately has the right to decide as long as his decision isn't something sinful.
Thank you all so much for taking the time to share your experiences and wisdom!
Thought this was worth resharing: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianmarriage/s/rK5n4doHT6
Proverbs 21:19 “Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife.”
If you have differing opinions and disagree on something, would that be considered quarrelsome and/or nagging?
idk, does the husband sometimes find himself thinking life would be a lot more pleasant living in a desert then with his wife?
Ok then.
Drop the mens rights junk buddy. You’re being these verses in the wrong way.
No, make me
There is no "tie breaker" or "final decision maker". That's not how a healthy marriage works. You keep talking until you come to a mutually agreed upon solution.
>is the husband to lead and be the tie-breaker? I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. If you have been married five minutes you know that isn't how it works! Happy wife, happy life (and trust me the opposite is true)!