Posted on 08/16/2011 6:21:14 AM PDT by Mamzelle
Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one to another out of reverence for Christ.”
Submission clearly involves respect. She respected the council of her husband. Submission demands respect on the part of both husband and wife. The husband needs to respect the wife to the point that he wouldn’t make demands that were not in concert with love and support. Biblical submission does not portend to derision or abuse but more of respect for ones partner. I would submit that Biblical submission does indeed mean respect.
Beware, Christian candidates for office. Get your talking points ready for do-you-believe-the-Bible questions like this.
If only the Christians, historically, in the past centuries had interpreted ‘submission’ to be the same as ‘respect’....
It is no different than asking a muslim if shari’a law supersedes civil and criminal law of the USA.
These questions merit asking. Christians are not exempt from questions, especially after proclaiming a ‘stance’ publicly. Either they stand by them or not, no waffling or reinterpretation.
By the way...did the ‘slave’ do what the master told him to (regardless of how demeaning) from submission or respect?
Think about it.
You’re equating the partnership of marriage to the relationship of a slave and master? Are you kidding me? Just the fact that you equate the two is enough to discount you assertions but you need to study the original language meaning of the two words used.
Go back and re read my post. I had no contention with the question being asked. My post was in response to the contention that submission did not equal respect.
Byron York is now the proud owner of “Journalist who asked the single most stupid question in any Presidential Debate”.
The trophy is a sign to hang around your neck.
Byron, Here’s your sign......
Submission requires, much, much more than respect and establishes the husband as the head of the house. Submission involves respect, but it is only the beginning.
“My post was in response to the contention that submission did not equal respect.”
Thus you contend that submission equals respect, right?
I contend that it does not.
SUBMISSION:
Submission is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the power of one’s superior or superiors.
an act of submitting to the authority or control of another
the quality or condition of being submissive to another
from O.Fr. submission, from L. submissionem (nom. submissio) “a lowering, sinking, yielding,” from submissus, pp. of submittere “lower, reduce, yield” (see submit). Sense of “humble obedience” is first
RESPECT:
denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion), and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem.
an act of giving particular attention : consideration
expressions of high or special regard
A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem
From Middle English, regard, from Old French, from Latin respectus, from past participle of respicere, to look back at, regard : re-, re- + specere, to look at; see spek- in Indo-European roots
Ephesian 5: 21-33 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Contend with scripture, not with me. Christ died for the church. The husband is to be to the wife as Christ is to the church. It seems to me that the greater responsibilty is on the husband. The question then remains. If the husband is not submissive to Christ, should the wife be in submission to or respect the husband?
You might also be enlightened by reading this.
Historically, too bad the Biblical meaning was taken to the extent of the ‘wife’ not having any legal rights to the extent of not even owning property or voting.
I am sorry, but we need to go back to the Complutension Polyglot when the Bible was first translated from several middle eastern languages to Hebrew, Latin and Greek.
We Christians are the mercy of whomever made the translations and their understanding of the various word meanings.
Thus, I don’t contend w/ Scripture, I contend that the present cultural understanding and the true definitions of the words does bear consideration.
You can think what ever you please but your contention does not have any validity.
No, we are not. It’s not difficult at all in this information age to determine the exact meaning of the original words. Your excuses and hiding behind laziness won’t work with me.
>>I contend that the present cultural understanding and the true definitions of the words does bear consideration.<
That comment only applies to those who are too lazy to truly understand and to those whose ideology they want to fit it into rather then boldly ferreting out truth.
It was ostensibly a political debate, there was not enough time allocated for her to go into a detailed theological response and had she done so, it would have provided all sorts of political fodder (particularly for opponents on the left) for the rest of the campaign. The question was better suited for a one-on-one interview where she could have given more of a "Christian answer."
“Your excuses and hiding behind laziness won’t work with me.”
This fallacious presentation of yours cannot be affirmed.
Identify the ‘excuses’.
Establish the facts which prove laziness.
Frankly, you present your case just like a liberal. You attack the person without ever providing truth or facts for your position. Go ahead and attack me as lazy and using excuses. You must think that strengthens the facts of your position as to what you contend.
Discussing anything with someone incapable of logic or unable to resist attacking the person with whom they are debating rather than present truth or facts is a waste of time.
I like the way, you, by implication, assert your superiority. I would bet you require a lot of ‘submission’ from people in your daily life.
You are not an honorable.
Your quote “We Christians are the mercy of whomever made the translations and their understanding of the various word meanings.”
That’s an excuse to not do due diligence and find the correct meaning of a text or passage. You hide behind that excuse and try to imply that it’s someone else’s fault that the true meaning is not plain. That also implies laziness in not being willing to expend the effort to find truth and meaning. I stand by my assertions.
Your entire contention that translations of the Bible you use somehow are no longer the true word of God would suggest that you need to evaluate which “interpretation” you use. My faith in God dictates that He will reveal the true meaning and not rely on “wrong interpretations” for those who truly seek His truth.
The “honorable” thing to do is not rely on wrong interpretation as you seem to indicate you do but to search out God’s true meaning of each and every passage and verse.
When Christians start blowing up buildings, cutting the heads off innocents, then we’ll ask them for a definition about “submission.” Until then, we should lay off decent Christians who love God and feel free to express that love.
And that comes from me - I don’t even know if I believe in God.
Byron York made a jackass out of himself and he’s been very defensive while covering for Bill Bennett on his talk show.
Great point. The last “gotcha” question to a Democrat was Bernard Shaw’s query to Dukakis about what if his wife was raped. Dukakis blew the answer and many people thought he then blew the election.
Democrat journalists learned from that experience and never again have asked really tough, visceral questions of creepy, abortion-loving libs.
Well, Byron DOES need a haircut.
Sadly, up until that debate, I always like him. Now he’s in the cross hairs of freepers, lol!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.