Obedient Woman

No one will ever get that chance again.

It's always odd to me when someone says that men have a heavier responsibility in marriage. As if Christian wives are exempt from Agape loving their husbands. Christians wives are instructed to Agape love their husbands in the following verses:

Agape love your neighbor as yourself. Matt 22:39, Mark 12:31

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. John 15:12

All Christians are instructed to Agape love those near them. Christian wives are not exempt. After all, Agape love is the 1st and 2nd greatest command.

Jesus taught about Agape love during his earthly ministry. Evidently, Christian men didn't realize that they needed to practice Agape love in their marriages because Paul had to specifically speak to husbands in Eph 5 and tell them to practice the same Agape love that Jesus taught in Matt 22:39, Mark.12:31 and John 15:12 in
their marriages with their wives.

I don't think most couples throughout world history have or will experience the mystery of Christ and the church in their marriages.

Matt 24:12 tells us "because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold." Therefore, I sincerely believe that countless couples have not and will not experience the mystery of Christ and the church in marriage. Men always have and continue to struggle with Agape loving their wives. If that wasn't true, we would have more examples of men loving their wives in scripture that we could study, but we don't.

In this current climate, many women are not as submissive or loving as they were in the past either because the love of many is growing cold.

I don't know any men that would say such a cloying sentiment. I do love my wife though and I tell her that every day. There are some men, Christian, who believe that a submissive wife is their personal slave that must wait and act on their every whim and desire. I would consider this abuse and not something that a wife must tolerate.

It has become apparent throughout the discussion that your concept of a marriage is not much better than a sort of 'dignified' slavery but there are several missing elements, true honor perhaps the most conspicuous of them.

A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son belongs to it forever. _John 8:35

And if you are not pleased with her, you are to let her go wherever she wishes. But you must not sell her for money or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.-Deut 21:14

And if he chooses her for his son, he must deal with her as with a daughter.-Exodus 21:9

I learned something new. I don't think that I have ever read or paid attention to that verse before. Marriage in the Old Testament was so convoluted. There were covenant wives, concubines (sex slaves) and brides taken during war. I think Eph 5 is a attempt to restore marriage to what God created it to be in Genesis before the Fall.

Yes, approaching it from the vantage of the focus on honoring one another, in love, rather than from that of focusing on the avoidance of dishonor, such that seems much more prevalently common to man(kind).

I did not say wives did not have to agape love their husbands. What I said was men are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Will you say you love your husband just as Jesus loved the church? I did not draw attention to the 'and gave Himself for her.' Don't you think that is 'heavy'?

There is also this about older women teaching younger women:

TItus 2

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

No it hasn't become apparent. I've quoted scripture, paraphrased scripture. I made a mistake and said children are supposed to obey their master, instead of parents. But I didn't say men are supposed to treat wives as slaves.

I said, as scripture teaches, that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. The Bible indicates women are supposed to obey their husbands as well. I also pointed out that husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

I don't treat my wife as a slave. If any of you knew my wife, you would think that is a rather ridiculous accusation to make.

You should consider that you may just not appreciate the teaching of scripture, and when you read or hear about it, maybe you associate it with female slavery. You should consider that the problem may just be in your own mind.

IMO, a better understanding of 'concubine' would be a slave raised to the status of wife. A man might marry a virgin and pay a bride price, marry a widow, or marry one of his own slaves. If he married a slave, he would not have to pay the bride price, but the Law guaranteed her rights like other wives.

Many cultures have bride prices. Some have husband prices. In the English culture many Americans inherited, the bride's father pays for the wedding, which is kind of like a husband price if you think about it. What a messed up culture in some ways.

Actually...it was standing the status quo on its head.
(But you aren't far from right at all)

In Roman Society a roman man had a wife for business and social reasons. (It was anything but love despite the many promises) She in turn would produce children.
The Roman man would also have girlfriends/consorts that he indeed loved. Their care was his responsibility and these women had a social status as being favored. Any children wouldn't be recognized socially but both consort and children often lived in the Roman Man's home with his wife.
(No need to explain how well that worked out)
So wives usually were embittered towards their husbands. And husbands usually were extremely dismissive of their wives. Consorts were always on shakey ground and did their best to get along with everyone inside the household as they could find themselves homeless in a heartbeat.
(In other letters, Paul referring to these consorts as a full wife... despite what Roman Society thought of the title)

Divorce and remarriage was an almost given... especially if the wife's father or family lost their business or social standing. In Roman Society only one wife at a time was permitted...but a guy could have as many girlfriends as he could afford.

So...what Paul said to the Ephesians was so outside the box it was almost unbelievable to them.

Submission/obedience is something that wives GIVE to their husbands. A husband doesn't demand it. Consequently a husband should love his wife... looking out for her best interests at all times. (That doesn't entitle the wife to be a couch queen) The wife should be looking out for her husband and manage the household according to the leadership role given to the husband.

@JohnDB There were probably plenty of Romans who lived something like that, but there were probably those who had one wife, actually loved their wives. And there were probably those that hid their girlfriends. Some Roman men lived on the daily dole. They weren't all rich Playboys. And if they weren't in the upper classes divorcing and swapping out wives as a political maneuver.

Ephesus was in a more Greek-influenced area in Anatolia. The core group of a lot of these churches, the group they started with, would have been made up of Jews, proselytes and Gentile God-fearers--uncircumcised Gentiles who feared the God of Israel who had been listening to Torah. The Jews probably had better sexual morality than their pagan neighbors. In Ephesus, the church had grown among Gentile populations, also.

Roman law about who was recognized as a wife applied to Romans. Rome allowed the Jews to have their own customs and legal system, a system headed by the high priest for Jews throughout the empire.

My understanding is that a concubine for Jews is different from what concubines were for Romans. A Jewish concubine is a wife whose status was formerly slave before getting married.... typically to her master or master's son.

Btw, in what letters do you see Paul referring to consorts as full wives?

Of course people in Ephesus ran the gambit of economic status...and a few probably hid consorts from their wives...
But it was a status thing for having the consorts...just like a fancy phone or car or house does today. The prettier and more talented the consort the more elevated your status. (And the more people wanted to do business and know you)
It was an era where everyone tried to live for themselves to the limit of their capacity. (Sound surprisingly similar to today?) Their morals were very different.
Romans considered the multiple wives in Jewish life as barbaric. But absolutely considered the consort/ girlfriend situation as normality. Because consorts were easily dismissed...and usually were.
We are talking about a society where prostitution was a government sponsored industry.

And the other letter where Paul's sarcasm about the Gentile's consort/wife is Timothy..."husband of one wife" meaning that the guy needed to abstain from having a consort.

Right, well Mohamed tried to convert Jews and Christians and when that didn't happen he went on a crusade against them. The sword convinces a lot of people.

Well...I'd like to see a scripture reference on that.

Now Jesus and Moses both did have something to say about keeping oaths.

A marriage contract otherwise known as a ketuba precisely spelled out both the husband's and wife's duties in a marriage. It even detailed out how many times per week physical intimacy was required of the husband. It was extremely detailed.
And a ketuba was always a written oath/vow to God.

.
• Matt 10:39 . .Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life
for my sake will find it.

A major impediment for radical feminists becoming effective Christian
disciples is Jesus' gender. You see, at the heart of feminism, is the drive to
be independent of males. Yet the very lord and master of Christianity, the
supreme male in the universe; demands death to a woman's self interests,
and submission to his domineering control. Good luck on that one ladies.

• Luke 14:26 . . If you want to be my follower you must love me more than
your own father and mother, wife and children brothers and sisters-- yes,
more than your own life. And you cannot be my disciple if you do take up
your own cross and follow me.

In Jesus' day, crosses were for executions. So when Jesus told his disciples
to "take up their own cross" it meant stifling their own way; viz: it was a call
to abandon self interests, and follow their Master's leading.

• Rom 12:1-2 . .Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to
offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your
spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this
world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be
able to test and approve what God's will is-- his good, pleasing and perfect
will.

The bitter irony of it all is that God has delegated the task of humanity's final
evaluation to His son; viz: in the end, it will be a male who casts condemned
radical feminist women into Hell and permanently ruins any chances they
might have had for happiness in the future. For all eternity, condemned
radical feminist women will grind their teeth with hot tears and white
knuckled fury that they ultimately lost out on everything because of one lone
male's obsessive control over their lives.
_

It seems like you enjoy the suffering of sinners.