Husband love your wives

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
This question was a hot topic this morning with a bunch of my friends. Most are in bad relationships,some divorced, some hanging in there.
We all know the verse about woman submitting to their husbands, but most of us, coming out of heavy fundamentalism, have never heard much on Husbands love your wives, like Christ loves the church.
We were wondering if our expectations have just all been wrong or to high. So I said , I would post this questions and see if I get some various opinions on the verse.:biggrinbounce:
I would like to know how in this age, this verse should be interpreted.
Also, how did Christ love the church?
We were also, wondering, with Christ being part human, how were his needs met?
Any input would be appreciated:)
Lots of topics going around today:biglaugha:

Blessings,
Nancy

[Amie]

Ephesians 5, in my opinion, is tricky. In verse 32 Paul says "The mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ and as to the assembly." It sounds like what he said before is an analogy, truthfully, I think it is. Consider this for a sec:

2 Corinthians 11
1 ¶ I would that you endured me a little in foolishness, but, indeed, endure me.
2 For I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God. For I have promised you to one Man, to present you a pure virgin to Christ.

In the above, Paul says that he has promised his audience to one Man. Who is that "Man" (translated "husband" in the KJV) if not Jesus Christ? He continues "to present you a pure virgin". How would he accomplish such? What would his job title be in-so-doing? Husband?

So how could Paul be a "husband", presenting the bride/woman to one "husband"? I think that there's a couple of answers to this.

2 Timothy 2
11 Faithful is the Word: for if we died with Him, we also shall live with Him;
12 if we endure, we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him, that One will deny us;
13 if we are unfaithful, that One remains faithful; He is not able to deny Himself.

Matthew 19
25 And His disciples were exceedingly astonished when they heard this, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But having looked at them, Jesus said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
27 Then answering, Peter said to Him, Behold, we left all things and followed You. What then shall be to us?
28 And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, You who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus shared his authority, in the least, with the apostles, and at most, with the first century church. Though they were not "the" husband, they shared in the duty as husbands.

Their actually identity, rather than a shared identity (IE, the "body of Christ") was "wife". They were the betrothed. Consider this again:

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord,
23 because a husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is Head of the assembly, and He is the Savior of the body.
24 But even as the assembly is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly and gave Himself up on its behalf,
26 that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of the water in the Word,
27 that He might present it to Himself as the glorious assembly, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such things, but that it be holy and without blemish.
28 So, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies, (he loving his wife loves himself),
29 for then no one hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as also the Lord the assembly.
30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.
31 "For this, a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh." Gen. 2:24
32 The mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ and as to the assembly.

Does this knowledge mean that actual husbands are not to love their actual wives? Paul answers that I think, in verse 33:


However, you also, everyone, let each one love his wife as himself, and the wife, that she give deference to the husband.

Amie

[Amie]

If you will, consider too the parallels:


Ephesians 5
26 that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of the water in the Word,
27 that He might present it to Himself as the glorious assembly, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such things, but that it be holy and without blemish.


2 Corinthians 11
2 For I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God. For I have promised you to one Man, to present you a pure virgin to Christ.

Amie

[jlv]

At least the first part is. Greek doesn't have a word for husband or father. Just the word man. At a wedding, one man gives the bride to another man. Paul is the first man. Christ is the second.

[Amie]

At least the first part is. Greek doesn't have a word for husband or father. Just the word man. At a wedding, one man gives the bride to another man. Paul is the first man. Christ is the second.

That's why I said that there are a "couple" of answers. If Paul was covenantally "in Adam" until the parousia, then he might also be seen as the soon-to-pass husband. That's just a consideration though, what do you think?

Amie

[Paige]

JL, your view is interesting in that it proves (to me anyway) that the Bride then received her true Husband at the Parousia, and is no longer in need of Apostolic overseeing today. This puts a definitive hole in the theory that "popes" and "mini-popes" have authority today, don't you think?

Paige

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
I am sorry, but I don't understand:rolleyes: So can the word Husband mean more than what we traditionally use it for now. If so, how would that negate, husbands loving their wives like Christ loved the church? I guess, I need to understand how Christ loved the church?
I don't know how to put this in a fulfillment perspective for my fundamental friends.
Also, maybe Amie you would know this. What is the Hebrew word for wife and what does it mean, if you know per chance.
With most of my friends, they don't feel that their husbands are loving them like Christ would. But I don't think we really understand what that would mean. Most of my friends husbands, ex's, significant others, pretty much don't even love themselves, so maybe that is part of a piece to why they feel so unloved.

Thanks for all the input:)
nancy

[Amie]

Nancy,

Were you able to mull through the post that I made right after yours? "Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church" was actually an "analogy". An "analogy" is: a comparison based on resemblance. While many take it as him telling folks how to act in comparison to Christ and the church, it is actually Paul telling the church how to act in comparison to husbands and wives. Paul does tell literal husbands to love their wives as they love themselves.


Most of my friends husbands, ex's, significant others, pretty much don't even love themselves, so maybe that is part of a piece to why they feel so unloved.

I'm betting that you nailed it there. I guess the rest is up to what healthy boundaries are to them.

"Iysh", "ba'al", and "chathan" are translated "husband" from Hebrew.

The meaning of "Iysh", as I understand it, is "to behave manly". It's important to consider not how we see that behavior, but how the Hebrew writer did (since it is written in Hebrew). The man functionally behaved as "husband", or as we would define it, "steward". Today we women can learn "husbandry" for example, by caring for or cultivating and producing. That is how to be "Iysh".

"Ba'al" means "possess", "rule over", "to be married". As JL pointed out, marriage had a lot to do with ownership under the Old Covenant.

"Chathan" means "son in law", or "daughter's husband".

Come to think of it, this creates deeper meaning for me in Hosea 2:16 where in the new day.. "And at that day, says Jehovah, you shall call Me, My husband (iysh); and you shall no more call Me, My Baal." Wow.

As for the "fulfillment perspective", it sounds as if you are already doing a great job Nancy :)

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Thanks Amie,
That really helped me to understand. I really appreciate when you explain things in the Hebrew. I just love that.:biggrinbounce:

Do you suppose woman in the New Covenant times, felt like they were just property? The reason I ask, is the last church I was in, was pushing the woman summit thing and said, that Christ had done a lot for the woman in his time. And was trying to still say that we were so lucky because of that.:uhh: It could be worse.

Anyway, I know this is off topic some, but there were instances where Woman did inherit, I thought anyway, like Jobs daughters.

I also think that myself (not as much anymore) but my fundamental friends are caught in the expectations that their Christian marriage is suppose to be like Ward and June Cleaver:D Sitting under that for so long we didn't even realize that in this day and age, we were not property. But and individual that God values and love for who they are. Also, we all have decided that we put way to much pressure on our husbands to Love us like Christ loved the church. Talk about pressure:eek: Instead of realizing that they also are loved and valued by God for who they are.
Anyway, sorry to wander in my thoughts.
Blessings
Nancy

[Paige]

Nancy,

What I find paradoxical (hope I used that in the right context) about the Love vs. Submit passage is that submission and love go hand in hand. If one truly understands submission (it is not the same word as obedience) it is impossible to do w/o love. So, if a husband is going to love, he is going to submit, and if a wife is going to submit, she is going to love. IMO, there is a wrong focus when "we" are trying to make a distinction between the two and then design certain roles that each gender must fit into in order to be in compliance.

I see it as Amie has pointed out...We are to love each other (in marriage) as we love our own bodies.

Paige

[Amie]

Do you suppose woman in the New Covenant times, felt like they were just property?

I'm not sure that they felt like "just" property, because the way things were seen back then. Property now is only valued monetarily (cash value). It's true that the Old Testament lists a lower cash value for women, but that was not because they were valued from the heart any less - it was because they couldn't put out the same kind of labor.

Women have monthlies, get pregnant, and are physically weaker. That's no longer an issue nowadays, so I would imagine that a woman in today's society would have equal cash value, lol.

I'm still working on my view of it, but I feel (right now) that whenever a law is in place, there are people who will take advantage of that law. For example, in a society that values the their women (in their hearts), they would listen to their opinions and feelings. They wouldn't just sell them off to some "Joe Shmoe" up the road for the biggest buck. Women would actually be treated as equals ("Love your wife as you love yourself") and would be making their own choices.

That's the society that God intended. Jesus said himself that the law and prophets could be summed up as "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love God with all of your heart and soul". Women could be counted as "neighbors", right?

Women's physical weakness meant a great deal back then. Can you imagine going to a strange market alone without a pledge on your wrist or finger(like a wedding ring), or the reputation of your father? Men really were able to "take" you if they wanted to. There weren't any police - the police considered taking you too.

I feel that while men were supposed to be "iysh" ("husbandmen"), that many took advantage of the law becoming "ba'al" ("overlords"). It's important to remember that not all men took advantage. It was mostly the legalistic type who did. They clung to the law, and not the spirit. Jesus had a few words for them, one of which was "vipers!"

So I think that God never had some lower view of women that was lifted by Jesus. No, I think rather that people had gone astray and Jesus came to set them back on the correct path.

We weren't garbage saved from the trash, we were never garbage to begin with. That's just my opinion.


The reason I ask, is the last church I was in, was pushing the woman summit thing and said, that Christ had done a lot for the woman in his time. And was trying to still say that we were so lucky because of that. It could be worse.

Male legalists still take advantage of laws that are accepted by many. They like to use the woman submit thing as a law. In reality, this was again talking about Christ and the Church (woman/bride). We women were an example for how the church should behave - how beautiful is that?

Women did submit, why? Have you ever found yourself in a power struggle with your hubby and submitted? Why did you do it? What was the outcome?

I have, and I did it to end the struggle. It worked, and we talked later - reconnecting. The church was to submit to God in the same way (but don't forget that God first submitted on the cross).

Do you see how important our role was in bringing forth redemption?

Many churches will be quick to point out how the older legalists took advantage of the law and mistreated women, just to convince us "how lucky we are". "Aren't we lucky that we can sit there now without being hit? Aren't we lucky that they don't just sell us to the highest bidder?" Are you kidding me?! They still use the old law to enforce a newer one, which still marginalizes women. The use the old law to demonstrate that we are intellectually weaker, so we don't even try to "usurp" their new law.

Girlfriend, you've inspired me to write a number of articles on the womenbeyond.com site rework.

How do you feel about what the church was saying to your friends? Do they feel differently do you think?

Amie

[Amie]

I was talking to my hubby last week about "mutual submission". My husband made a good point in saying that "submission" implies a power struggle to begin with.

We haven't even touched on what Paul advised wives to do: deference.

I remember a while back, Davo said he could sum up marital relationship with that one word... then I had to look it up, haha!

For those of you in the same boat as me, "deference" is defined as "regard for another's wishes", "in consideration of", "honor".

There need be no power struggle to choose such an action.

(Paige, I don't think that you were implying that there was a power struggle between you and your hubby. I am just examining definitions - semantics really.)

Amie

[Paige]

(Paige, I don't think that you were implying that there was a power struggle between you and your hubby. I am just examining definitions - semantics really.)

Amie

True. Deference is the correct term. As in all marriages, there are times when opinions differ (after all, we are not sharing the same brain). I was pointing out that there are times when a husband needs to defer to his wife and times when a wife needs to defer to her husband. It seems like very basic common sense to me, yet I know of marriages where that is never publicly admitted to.

Paige

[backtothefuture]

Amie, Amie, Amie,
That was so good. I am printing it out, so I can respond later tonight. Off to see how my dad is doing.
Good topic for one of the presence conventions, I personally think:biggrinbounce:

My fundamental friends are having a horrible time in their relationships. I think mine, well I know mine has been saved and healed because of my moving onto Fulfillment. I am so thankful, I didn't get a divorce, or give up.
I still have a long way to go, but 3 years ago on our 25th, I asked God for 25 good years now. We have our 28th in November. Much better place now. We do have our hard times, but this place so inspires me to look at my self and change what I need to.

Seeing my husband with love and grace has at times broken me. And yet, through that, the fighting over who is right, has almost come to an end, and we try more to deal with what is.

My fundamental friends, still one girl made the commit about being saved through childbirth!! I about fell right over. But I didn't want to hurt her feelings and she has no children. In her case, she comes out of a very big and powerful fundamental family in my area. She is only 32 and her husband of 12 years, left her 6 months ago to date while he is marrieds. I know this sounds weird. My heart just breaks for her. He has crossed a boundary and she blames herself. I know its because of the fundamental thinking. She didn't submit enough, love enough, suffer enough, do enough.
She can't figure out why if she has submitted all these years, her husband doesn't love her like Christ loves the church.
Amie, I don't even know where to start with my friends. I feel so lucky to be where I am on my walk. I could kiss the ground on some days:biggrinbounce:
They all carry a ton of guilt and shame. All were or are married to very fundamental Christian husbands. They are broken, and bruised and their love and self worth is in the toilet. I want them to know freedom, and grace and know that they are loved and a jewel, precocious in Gods eyes.
Its hard for me on some days to believe that, but I now believe it so way more than even a year ago. The more I believe it this, the easier it has been to come back to my husband with a repenting heart at times, a spirit willing to try again and to let go and go forward.
my friends are looked down upon in most of their churches, blamed, and some have left the church like I did, but for different reasons.
Anyway, didn't mean to ramble on like that. I will check in tonight.
Blessings,
Nancy

[Amie]

Nancy,

The whole "saved through childbirth" thing is once again covenantal language.

Revelation 12
1 ¶ And a great sign was seen in the heavens, a woman having been clothed with the sun, and the moon was underneath her feet; and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
2 and having a babe in womb. She cries, being in labor, and having been distressed to bear.

As you can see above, it isn't as simple as a literal woman having a baby, there is a lot of symbolism involved.

In Matthew 24, after Jesus gives his disciples of some signs of when the temple would be cast down, he says "But all these are a beginning of throes."

The word "throes" is from the Greek "odin" and it means "childbirthing pains" or "labor pains".

I'm sure that we could do a whole new thread just on that, but the point is that "saved by childbirth" has nothing to do with you and me - or any other woman.

In talking about these things openly and living it, together we are a women's ministry.

It's terrible that so many go through such suffering, and I'm so sorry for your friend's broken heart.

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Amie,
I posted a response this morning and don't see it? Sometimes that happens to me. I must not be sending the send button. Anyway, I will try to remember what all I had said.
I am sorry also that my friends are broken in their hearts. I try to talk to them from my heart and what I have learned. Sometimes they will listen, mostly they just don't understand at all.
When my friend Bright up the thing about being saved through childbirth, I knew I was in for a long ride. Didn't even know how to explain that now.

I haven't had a lot of time to respond yet, like I want to. But I did a real quick search on woman in the Bible and to my amazement there are lots mentioned. I kind of had an AGHHHHH moment when I was reading about some of them. So I know that woman are important to God and really helped shape the redemption story.

Some had names for very obvious reasons. Some not.
I did write down a few that I found encouraging.

Abigail means Father of Joy
Anna means Grace
Elizabeth means Oath of God
Eve means Life
Puah means Splendid
Shiphrah means Fair
Vashti means Beautiful

I still need to look up Naomi, Ruth, Rebeca, Martha, Mary, some of the ones I am familiar with.

Anyway, as always, thanks for the good feed back.
Nancy:biggrinbounce: :biggrinbounce: