Must wives love their husbands?

  • Thread starter Thread starter D.Erasmus.R
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But is a wife also required to lay down her life for her husband if the situation comes?
 
How can husbands & wives be equal if they aren’t held to the same standards?
 
D.Erasmus.R said:
But is a wife also required to lay down her life for her husband if the situation comes?
Click to expand...
In an emergency situation, her first responsibility would be to make sure the children were out of harms way. However, if the children were safe and her husband got into trouble I’d expect she would step in.
 
Last edited:
I’m asking if wives should love their husbands as ‘Christ loved his Church’.

This is a little of topic, but I’d like to point out that the United Nations deems marrying off of under 18yos (child marriage) and marriages without (name removed by moderator)ut of the marrying couple (forced marriage) to be a violation of human rights.Catholicism should do the same, not because times have changed but because the things mentioned above are bad.
 
phil19034 said:
Straw man.

There is NO DOUBT that some men thought history (esp men with political, military, and financial power) abused women. No one is arguing that.

However, the Bible is the Word of God. God does NOT promote such abuse of women and that is NOT what the St Paul means when he says that women should be submissive to their husbands. St Paul meant it in a way that is STILL applicable today. Not in some way that condoned the mistreatment of women, which is something God NEVER condoned.
Click to expand...
Straw man it is not. Firstly, such things are still in the Bible in too many forms to cover here. I will grant you that most is limited to the Old Testament, but they are still there to use. You earlier used the example of family defense and running away with the children, I’m sorry but that I personally find that demeaning. The reality is that the Bible has been used to justify such things as marital rape laws, the last removed from the books in 1993. The man submits his body because he wants to and the woman must submit her body any time he chooses. See how “submitting” can be used.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
40.png
phil19034:
Straw man.

There is NO DOUBT that some men thought history (esp men with political, military, and financial power) abused women. No one is arguing that.

However, the Bible is the Word of God. God does NOT promote such abuse of women and that is NOT what the St Paul means when he says that women should be submissive to their husbands. St Paul meant it in a way that is STILL applicable today. Not in some way that condoned the mistreatment of women, which is something God NEVER condoned.
Click to expand...
Straw man it is not. Firstly, such things are still in the Bible in too many forms to cover here. I will grant you than most is limited to the Old Testament, but they are still there to use. You earlier used the example of family defense and running away with the children, I’m sorry but that I personally find that demeaning. The reality is that the Bible has been used to justify such things as marital rape laws, the last removed from the books in 1993… The man submits his body because he wants to and the woman must submit her body any time he chooses. See how “submitting” can be used.
Click to expand...
You are failing to understand what is meant by such things.

Also we CANNOT remove anything from the Bible.

You apparently do not beleive the Bible is the Word of God, so you fail to properly understand.

You are reading the Bible like a Protestant does… word for word, and out of proper context.

The Bible CANNOT contradict itself. When it appears like it does, it important to understand what’s the intent was, not just the words on the page. And it’s important to understand what other parts of the Bible say about similar topics.

And for your FYI The Bible never condoned raping your wife. That’s a misunderstanding beyond belief.

I can almost guarantee you that any man who raped his wife without repenteance is burning in hell.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Love, as an essential part of marriage, is a rather radical concept. Indeed, what Paul writes was certainly a break with the traditional Jewish concept of marriage as a contract giving both parties rights and obligations for mutual benefit. For most of history, few people married for love. Many marriages were arranged by one’s kinsmen, others were a logical choice based on convenience and survival. Only in the modern age has LOVE become the central goal of marriage, above and beyond the ancient marital concepts of the rights, obligations and commitments of the parties. Perhaps this is why so many marriages fail. LOVE alone is not enough.
 
Last edited:
alice24 said:
Made my day.
Click to expand...
During the rebuilding of my home from willful tenant damage, we had to replace every last window (OK, there was one that we just did while replacing the rest with the walls off . . . naturally, this undamaged one was the smallest, and in the laundry room . . . )

Anyway, in choosing windows, we delivered that there is such a thing as the National Fenestration Rating Council . . . it rates windows.

And we did go all out while we were at it, with tinted double pane in vinyl frames.

Then winter can, and my wife complained about “your stupid windows.” In addition to keeping the cool in, they also significantly slowed the warm coming in in winter after she got up . . .
D.Erasmus.R said:
How can husbands & wives be equal if they aren’t held to the same standards?
Click to expand...
“equal” is tossed around in this context all the time, even though it is meaningless.

Men and women are fundamentally different enough that they can no more be “equal” than oranges and apples can be equal, or circles and squares.

Different does not suggest that one is greater or lesser; just that they’re, well, different.

Talk about holding mean and women to “the same standards” is meaningless in a world where men don’t bear or nurse children, and the size, strength, and speed of the sexes is different.

hawk
 
Allegra said:
Can you play the guitar?
Click to expand...
By coincidence, I posted this a few hours ago.
40.png
Curmudgeons In The Valley Of Gwangi t_rex Casual Discussion
I trust we have a few devotees of The Sound of Music here! I was clicking through the Edelweiss scene to practice the singing, and happened to pause it right here, on a blink. Each time you see the movie you notice more of the baroness’s reactions to Maria… This is about the fifth time in this scene… What a moment! (And, what acting!)
disappointed_relieved
[image] “
”
Click to expand...
 
phil19034 said:
You are reading the Bible like a Protestant does… word for word, and out of proper context.
Click to expand...
And…there’s my queue.

Token Protestant here - and yes - if there’s one thing we LOVE to do - it’s take scripture out of context and for improper purposes. We ESPECIALLY like to keep our women quiet and very submissive - although apparently my wife didn’t get the memo… but I digress.

I mean - we LOVE Paul - mainly because he was all about keeping women in their place (barefoot, in the kitchen - ideally making chocolate chip cookies that are not overdone and still hot and kind of chewy).

Occasionally we come accross something like this though - we’ve spent the last 400 years or so on how to make some sense of it (cause we’re not very smart - except for Presbyterians - they’re smart but really, really snooty and mad all the time):

“For through faith you are all children of God. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.”

Yep, we’re all about taking things out of context and literally (except for that whole “eat my body and drink blood” thing of course!) 😉
 
Last edited:
Then I’m not sure. Technically we have to listen to God’s commandment to love everyone like he has loved us. I think there’s somewhat of a double standard, although idk if that’s the best choice of words. These Bible verses were basically there to remind husbands to not be abusive, and to stop wives from causing trouble (I’m assuming). If the whole loving part was a specific instruction, I would imagine it would appear again and again whenever marriage is concerned, just like the submission verses (wives are told to do so multiple times if I’m not wrong). But it didn’t. 💀
 
My apologies. What I meant by “reading the Bible like a Protestant” really meant that Protestants typically ignore tradition.

My point was this: this person is reading the Bible but ignoring 2000 years of theology, homilies, sermons, papal documents, etc which have provided commentary regarding the meanings of the Scriptures, esp the “hard sayings.”

I apologize for drawing a comparison between Protestants and this person’s incorrect view of the Bible.

Please forgive me.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
All good Phil. Thanks for the kind words. No harm, no foul. I like where your head and (more importantly) your heart’s at. 🙂
 
D.Erasmus.R said:
But is a wife also required to lay down her life for her husband if the situation comes?
Click to expand...
Marriage is the self-sacrifice and self-donation of the husband and wife to one-another. The man is asked to lay down his life…but not in a dramatic life-or-death situation. He lays down his life in every moment of every day when he unselfishly puts her needs (and the needs of their family) above his own. She does likewise. Marriage is not about what you get out of it; it’s about the selflessness you put into it.
 
Be subordinate to one anotherq out of reverence for Christ.*22Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord…Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her
Click to expand...
The full passage is really about understanding the Church’s relationship to Christ. Christ is the bridegroom, we are the bride. Healthy marriages will model what our relationship with God should look like. Unhealthy marriages will model what they shouldn’t look like.

And we should always remember that Christ washed the feet of His disciples before he died on the cross. He was not domineering. A woman’s subordination to her husband, especially in the era this passage was written, simply was about recognizing her dependency on her husband. We should reflect on her dependency as we reflect on our dependency on the Lord. It is not one where we do not aspire to do things. But there is a connectedness.

Again, any unhealthy relationships will screw up our relationship with the God and impact how we approach the moral law.
 
I’m not sure if there is something different in the “versification” of the Bible that @Lee1 is using, but I always thought that these verses were in Eph 5, not 6.

In any event, there is some quite beautiful theology going on in these verses. My reading has always been the following:

“Wives, be submissive to your husband”, submissive mean sub missio, or “under the mission”. What then is the mission of the husband? “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her”. In short, wives ought to let their husbands love them by laying down their lives for their wives.

What does it mean to be a man? Death. What did Adam, the first man, the original type or “mold” of a man fail to do? Die for Eve at the hands of the Serpent. The Bible tells us that he “was with her” when Eve was being tempted. Why didn’t Adam do anything? Revelation describes the serpent not just as a snake with legs, but as a dragon. Adam was afraid. What did Christ succeed in doing for his wife, the Church? He died for the Church. Christ became the new Adam, the new “mold” or measuring stick of what it means to be a man.

Phenomenologically, man is built to lay down the life for his bride. Adam failed to do it. Christ succeeded in doing it. Some men are called to do that literally, yes. But the vast majority are called to do it a little each day, in a white martyrdom. It is no accident that when this passage is misunderstood, it is misunderstood because of men who fail to live up to their vocations to lay down their lives for their brides. Instead, we see men who abuse their brides and other women – not out of selfless sacrifice, but out of selfishness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top