Submissive Women are In Fact Progressive
March 20, 2009
I wrote this article written for Yakuti Magazine where it was published a year ago. I have however reproduced it here owing to the timeliness of its message in this day and age.
1 Peter 3:1,7 and Colossians 3:18 provide magnificent texts for understanding submission as detailed in God’s ideal plan for marriage.
1 Peter 3:1,7: Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; … Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Col. 3:18: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
I asked my friend, Eddy, the implication of the statement “wives submit to your husbands” according to Peter and Paul. Her response was rather cautious. She said “It simply means letting the man be the head of the home.” Seeking to clarify the practical implication of the word headship, she said it just meant that the woman allows the man to make decisions. Another friend, Alice had this to say: “submission is taking your husband as the authority and the head of the house as well as the head of the wife. Practically, when there are disagreeable issues the back stops with the man.” But goes on to say that the Petrine passage must be interpreted with verse seven in mind.
Indeed there is much misunderstanding today about what the Bible means when it says that wives are to “be submissive” to their husbands, this text is very helpful in correcting wrong understandings and practices. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, why would God have left this passage in there? It’s a source of ridicule from the secular world. It’s just about the most attractive target of radical feminists and other enemies of Christianity desperate to ravage the Bible’s moral and spiritual authority. The modern, secular, feminist-driven culture rails against the idea of wives submitting to their husbands in marriage: “Insane! Barbaric! Patriachal! Fascist!”
Now this is an interesting reaction when you consider their alternative. The secular folks promote a value system that encourages women to submit to any number of men outside of marriage. If a man wants to have sex with you, with no forethought or concern for the physical, emotional, medical, financial, or social consequences to you, let him, they say. Let him, whoever he is, use your body for his momentary pleasure with no expectation of responsibility for the results. Women are encouraged to put themselves at the mercy of selfishness, egotism, uncontrolled anger—and then rage about the damage men do.
But speaking of God: Did God set marriage up the way Paul and Peter writes in Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Peter out of spite for women? Does the Christian God despise and devalue women as much as the world accuses the Christian Church of doing? The Gospel says, “No”—resoundingly! Jesus liberated women from the outdated straightjacket they wore consistently—everywhere and in every age—until Jesus. And everyday and everyplace since, every action by, for, and against women has been judged by the standard Jesus established for their fair and honourable treatment.
“Well, maybe Jesus is okay and apostles the ones who have the problem with women.” Most people think these passages makes no earthly sense at all today. Of course, God has never been particularly concerned with or impressed by “earthly sense.” All right, then, “Why would God make marriage to be this way?”
Meaning of the word submission
At the bone of contention in this discourse is the word submission. Now it is important to recognize that words are not invariable or wooden constants, but are capable of semantic ranges that depend on contextual, lexical, and other grammatical features by which one may ascertain precision in meaning. The key words that must be examined are ‘submission/subjection’, and ‘weaker vessel’.
The Oxford Dictionary defines submission as: “the action of presenting something formally for consideration or for a decision to be made; “the acceptance of defeat, or of another’s power; the action or state of submitting to somebody”. The adjective submissive is defined as “willing to show obedience and yield to the authority of others.” The verb ‘submit’ is defined as “to accept the authority, control or superior strength of somebody or something.”
Normally the dictionary only gives the denotation of words but downplays the significance of what they may connote. A further lexicographical study would suffice for the unlocking of the true meaning of this word. Peter and Paul uses the Greek word ύποτασσομεναι which is a compound word consisting of ύπω and τασσω. ύπω is a preposition with a genitive pronoun – under; hence used to express influence. Τασσω is a verb meaning to arrange, to set or to appoint.
An amalgamation of the two words leads to a compound word ύποτασσομεναι which literally means to place under. It is in the feminine gender – thus expecting the wives (subject of the verb) to be of the same (feminine) gender. This permanently seals all possibility of the liberals’ cry for gay marriage. The present passive participle tense denotes an action in progress. Therefore the submission is not a one time action but linear. It calls for continuous, progressive obedience. Within the cultural context, upotassomenai was a Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.”
Translated Words
The other word that must be understood in clear terms if we are to unlock this puzzle is the “weaker vessel”. The first word weaker is the Greek Ασθνεστέρώ – and is the dative singular, comparative adjective of ασθενής (nominative, singular, masculine, adjective) a compound word α+σθενής (strength) thus when combined it means without strength, weak, infirm (cf. Matthew 2:41, Mark 14:38, 1 Peter 3:7, ), helpless – Romans 5:6; imperfect, inefficient – Galatians 4:9; feeble or without energy. It is an adjective modifying the noun Vessel (Σκεύει meaning – a vessel, an implement).
“Vessel” was a common Greek metaphor for “body” since Greeks thought of souls living temporarily in bodies. To understand the phrase “weaker vessel” one must look at the preceding word for woman gunaikeio. Wayne Grudem suggests that in the phrase, “Bestowing honour on the woman” (RSV), the word “woman” translates to gunaikeio, a rare word that is used only here in the New Testament. It means more literally “the feminine one,” and suggests that Peter is looking to the characteristic nature of womanhood or femininity and seeing in it an appropriateness for receiving honour. It is appropriate that those who are “feminine,” those who give characteristic expression to “womanhood,” should receive special honour, for this is what God has directed.
What then does submission imply in marriage? Wayne Grudem says that submission is the inner quality of gentleness that affirms the leadership of the husband. “Be submissive to your husbands” means that a wife will willingly submit to her husband’s authority and leadership in the marriage. It means making a choice to affirm her husband as leader within the limits of obedience to Christ. It includes a demeanor that honors him as leader even when she dissents. Of course, it is an attitude that goes much deeper than mere obedience, but the idea of willing obedience to a husband’s authority is certainly part of this submission, as is clear from verses 5-6. There Peter illustrates being “submissive to their own husbands” with the example of Sarah, “who obeyed Abraham,” thus showing that obeying (hypakouo) is the means by which Sarah was being submissive (hupotasso, the same word used in verse 1). Moreover, this submission is a respectful affirmation, for Peter recalls that Sarah obeyed Abraham and “called him master” (verse 6
Further understanding of the nature of this submission is gained from Peter’s description of the beauty that accompanies it, the beauty of “a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight” (verse 4). The adjective gentle (praus) only occurs three other times in the New Testament, twice referring to Christ (Matthew 11:29; 21:5; also 5:5), but its related noun, translated “gentleness” or “meekness,” is more frequent (Galatians 5:23; 6:1; James 3:13; etc.). It means “not insistent on one’s own rights,” or “not pushy, not selfishly assertive,” “not demanding one’s own way.” Such a gentle and quiet spirit will be beautiful before other human beings, even unbelieving husbands (verses 1-2), but even more important, it “is of great worth in God’s sight.” Why? No doubt because such a spirit is the result of quiet and continual trust in God to supply one’s needs, and God delights in being trusted (cf. 1 Peter 1:5, 7-9, 21; 2:6-7, 23; 5:7).
In describing the things that accompany this submission, Peter focuses on the inward attitudes of the heart. When he says that a wife’s source of beauty should be “the inner self” (verse 4), he is speaking of her inward nature, her true personality. It is not visible in itself, but it is made known quickly through words and actions that reveal inner attitudes. Unfading (Greek aphthartos) is an adjective that the New Testament uses consistently to speak of heavenly realities, things that are not subject to aging or decay, things that will not fade away with the passing of this present world. Peter uses this adjective without a noun following it, so the noun he intends must be supplied by the reader from the context. Various suggestions have been made (RSV, “imperishable jewel;” NIV, “unfading beauty;” NASB, “imperishable quality”), but the sense is roughly the same in all of them: a gentle and quiet spirit is something that has beauty that will last for eternity, in contrast to the fleeting beauty of jewellery or clothing.
Submission takes cognizance of an authority that is not mutual. Evangelical feminists are the most popular protagonists of “mutual submission” theory. One would agree with them if 1). Peter was addressing both genders (which he happens not to), and 2). By the statement “mutual submission” they meant that the wife and husband are to be thoughtful and considerate towards each other and put each others’ interests before their own – something aptly consistent with New Testament theology. In which case “Mutual submission” would then mean that the husband is to be unselfish in his exercise of leadership in the family and the wife is to be unselfish in her submission to and support of that leadership. Even with this kind of thinking one would agree that this use of submission is far fetched and does not accurately interpret Peter’s thought. In the whole of Scripture, the husband is at no time called upon to submission to his wife and the reverse is also true. The husband does not have to, and indeed should not submit to his wife’s authority. But “mutual submission” within marriage as the evangelical feminists put it is such a wicked invention, a wishful thinking – an utmost impossibility, and an ultimate disregard for God’s word in the name of alternative interpretation. These heretics apply the phrase to all texts that say wives should submit to their husbands and deny that any submission to authority is intended. According to them, mutual submission in marriage implies that wives are to submit to husbands and husbands are to submit to wives in exactly the same way. According to this view, the husband has no unique authority or leadership responsibility in the marriage. Usually Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ,” is claimed to support this view.
To legitimize this spiritual-intellectual fraud, evangelical feminists must take two steps in their misinterpretation of Scripture. First, they fail to account for the fact that wives are told several times in the New Testament to submit to their husbands without an equal reverse command to the husbands. If this was a critical requirement as they falsely claim, then the New Testament authors would have included it in their writings. To ignore such an “important” principle is unforgiveable error and inconsistent with the teaching of biblical inerrancy and fallibility. Thus, this aspect of feminist evangelicalism is not biblical and must be discarded.
The other illegitimate step taken by the evangelical feminists in Bible interpretation is seen when they change the meaning of the word hupotasso (“submit to,” “be subject to”), giving it a meaning that it nowhere requires, something like “be thoughtful and considerate; act in love” (toward another), without any sense of obedience to an authority. This is not a legitimate meaning for the term, which always implies a relationship of submission to an authority.
Following the hermeneutical principle of Scripture interprets Scripture; we explore the use of the term elsewhere to see whether the words usage gives the same meaning. Thus far Luke 2:51 uses it to refer to the submission of Jesus to the authority of His parents; Luke 10:17 of demons being subject to the disciples (Luke 10:17—clearly the meaning “act in love, be considerate” cannot fit here); Romans 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13 – of citizens being subject to governing authorities etc. In all these usage, there is no reversal of relationship.
It is noteworthy, however, that though the wife’s submission to her husband is a universal principle, it is takes different practical dimensions in different cultural contexts. Yet this is also true in so far as cultural forms or practices do not contradict, but rather complement Scripture.
Submission to authority must also not be taken to mean obedience or compliance to dictatorial tendencies – even evil ones. Nowhere does Scripture condone or support the abuse of wives by husbands, but explicitly forbids even harsh attitudes (Colossians 3:19; 1 Peter 3:7), and therefore certainly condemns any physical violence used by husbands against wives. Evangelical churches have a strong responsibility to prevent such abuse and to protect those threatened or harmed by it.
Peter illustrates what he means by submission by referring to the lives of holy women who hoped in God. Although he specifically mentions Sarah in verse 6, the plural “women” refers to godly women generally in the Old Testament. The pattern of their lives was that those who were hoping in God (the present participle suggests continuing in hope over time) used to adorn themselves “in this way,” or “so” (houtos, “thus,” referring to adorning with a gentle and quiet spirit). The word “adorn” (RSV; kosmeo) is the verb related to the noun “adorning” in verse 3, and its imperfect tense indicates continuing or repeated action over time in the past, “they were repeatedly or continually adorning themselves” in this way.
“They were submissive to their husbands” (verse 5) brings us back to the theme of verses 1-2 and indicates the relationship between such submission and the inward beauty of verses 3-4. Quiet confidence in God produces in a woman the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, but it also enables her to submit to her husband’s authority without fear that it will ultimately be harmful to her well-being or her personhood.
The example of Sarah’s obedience would be an appropriate encouragement to the wives to whom Peter was writing, for Sarah became the mother of all God’s people in the old covenant (Isaiah 51:2; cf. Galatians 4:22-26), even though there had been many times in which following Abraham had meant trusting God in uncertain, unpleasant, and even dangerous situations (Genesis 12:1, 5, 10-15; 13:1; 20:2-6 [cf. verse 12]; 22:3). Yet Peter says believing women are now her children (or “daughters”), the true members of her spiritual family. To be Sarah’s daughter is to be a joint heir of the promises and the honor given to her and to Abraham. condition for being Sarah’s “daughters” is “if you do what is right and do not give way to fear” (verse 6). Both verbs are again present participles indicating a pattern of life continued over time: “If you are doing what is right and not giving way to fear,” then you are (more accurately, “you have become”) Sarah’s daughters. Peter’s insistence on doing what is right is a reminder that no acts of disobedience in Sarah’s life are to be imitated by Christian wives (cf. Genesis 16:2, 6; 18:15; perhaps 20:5); it is her submission to her husband and her trust in God that Peter commends. The condition “if you … do not give way to fear” is another way in which faith finds expression. A woman with a gentle and quiet spirit who continues hoping in God will not be terrified by circumstances or by an unbelieving or disobedient husband (cf. Genesis 20:6).
In an age when submission to authority is frequently denigrated and thought to be degrading and dehumanizing, Peter’s words remind us that submission to rightful authority is beautiful and right in God’s world. It is “for the Lord’s sake” (2:13) that Christians are to be subject to God-ordained authorities, whether in civil government (2:13-17), in employment (2:18-20), in the family (3:1-6), or in the church (5:5). Specifically within marriage, the beauty of a wife’s submission to her husband is evident to unbelievers, who are attracted to Christ through it (verses 1-2). Peter also expects this beauty to be evident to believing husbands and to other people generally, for this is the beauty that he tells Christian women to make their “adorning”-their source of beauty (verse 4). This is the beauty that adorned women of the Old Testament who “put their hope in God” and “were submissive to their own husbands” (verse 5). This beauty also ought to be seen and felt by the Christian wife herself, for it is not accompanied by fear (verse 6), but by reverence, purity (verse 2), moral uprightness (verse 6), quietness of spirit (verse 4), and hope in God (verse 5). Finally, the beauty of this submission is evident to God, for the gentle and quiet spirit that accompanies this submission in God’s sight is “of great worth” (verse 4).
A complete commentary of the Petrine passage on submission in marriage is not quite complete without commenting on the nature of the husbands’ leadership. For the purpose of brevity, I’ll only suggest that the husband’s role in a marriage relationship is not a dictatorial, anarchist and egocentric one but rather one of honour unto the weaker vessel. This kind of leadership understands that there are differences between the husband and the wife, the weaker vessel, who is more vulnerable to being hurt by a selfish, domineering husband. Secondly, the husband must understand the equality between husband and wife: “Since you are joint heirs of the grace of life” (RSV). One who has equal standing in God’s kingdom is worthy of equal honour and thoughtful, loving attention.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized. .
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed