Wives, Submit to your own husbands as to the Lord

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mdybiblegal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A Knights of Columbus magazine had a comments column. One reader said that many of his male friends looked forward to the sermon from Paul about the submission of wives. As a woman, it galls me that men consider they are the human race, while women are the ladies auxilliary.
Frankly, when I see the mess men have made of the world in their quest for power over other people, it convinces me they are not the superior sex at all. Paul had the usual male attitude of his time, which still persists in the middle East.
 
A Knights of Columbus magazine had a comments column. One reader said that many of his male friends looked forward to the sermon from Paul about the submission of wives. As a woman, it galls me that men consider they are the human race, while women are the ladies auxilliary.
Frankly, when I see the mess men have made of the world in their quest for power over other people, it convinces me they are not the superior sex at all. Paul had the usual male attitude of his time, which still persists in the middle East.
Then those men have distorted and twisted the meaning of this passage. In all likelyhood, they have taken it out of context, or simply do not know how to read Scripture. They do not understand the totality of the meaning of the gospels.

**Loving sacrifice **- that is what mean are called to give, in this passage from Ephesians. If these men do not comprehend that fact, ask them to read Matthew 27, or any of the other Passion narratives. Then re-read Ephesians 5, and ask them if they really know what love is.
 
A Knights of Columbus magazine had a comments column. One reader said that many of his male friends looked forward to the sermon from Paul about the submission of wives. As a woman, it galls me that men consider they are the human race, while women are the ladies auxilliary.
Frankly, when I see the mess men have made of the world in their quest for power over other people, it convinces me they are not the superior sex at all. Paul had the usual male attitude of his time, which still persists in the middle East.
Yeah, like the previous poster said…This is completely twisting the nature of the passage. Don’t decide to look at the whole concept and scripture with jaded eyes just because of some hearsay about people who you don’t even know who may or may not have a warped view of the passage. Undoubtedly, there are people out there who have a warped view of Ephesians 5 (along with every other passage of Scripture.)

It’s not about questing for power or which sex is or isn’t the “superior” sex. I hate what feminism has done to normal information gathering and thought patterns…I’m a victim of this myself, so I’m not pointing any fingers that aren’t pointed back at me too.
 
It is all about mutal respect and total self giving. The husband as head of the family is provider and protector and is supposed to be the Head of the family in that light. Not as lord overall. Likewise the wife is supposed to respect the position of the husband as head of the family (as the provider and protector) NOT be a door mat, but a help mate and confidant.The two become one. The husband is supposed to lead as head of the family as Christ did, laying down his life for his family. I would die for my wife, children and now my grandchildren. Unselfish love. That means going to work wether you ar tired or not. It means doing the dishes so your wife can take a break ( I do the dishes EVERY night). It means doing house work when your wife is sick. It means dropping your hobbies to be a Dad. It means putting everything aside whenever necessary to do what needs to be done, like it or not. It means growing up and being a man.

I had to learn all this on my own. My Dad left when I was a kid and Mom was lost in her own world. God has revealed this to me in pieces over the last 25 years of marriage and 6 kids and now one grandchild. I MUST (and do) pass this along to my four sons. Your family MUST come first. God, Family, Work, these are the priorities you must live by.

God Bless.
 
I was in a wedding this weekend in which the bride and groom asked me to read the Ephesians 5 passage. And then we heard the exact same reading for Sunday Mass (which we actually had said privately with the bride and groom in their home not two hours after their wedding Mass!). When you hear the same reading twice in one day–especially when you’re a newlywed–you start thinking that God is trying to tell you something. 👍

I think that many of the explanations offered here about the beauty and depth of Ephesians 5 are right on–it is a call to mutual submission of husband and wife, and in some sense is an even “harder” call to live out for the husband, who is to give his life for his bride.

For women, we can sometimes struggle with how to live out the part of the Church in this whole equation, and many women just reject the passage altogether because the submission thing is just too foreign to our 21st century ears. But if we truly believe that God’s word is true when we read “This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church,” we will try to make sense of the mystery.

So for me personally when I try to incorporate Ephesians 5 into my life as a wife, I can’t get away from the idea of submission, but I understand it more positively. I think that probably only married women could understand what I mean when I say that what God seems to teach all wives through our feminine vocation is trust. We are called to give our fiat, our “may it be done to me according to thy word” to God, and in turn, to our husbands. We are called to trust our husbands without reservation, especially when they are striving to love us as Christ loves the Church.

Both husband and wife are called to give of themselves and sacrifice their own comfort and interests, but I think that this sacrifice often “hits home” for women more. It is a beautiful vocation–because in trusting God as the Church does, we can become mothers. Being a wife isn’t a glamorous vocation, it’s not one that should leave a woman in the spotlight…but I think that’s why it was created by God, to teach us holiness by humility and trust in His will.
 
I was in a wedding this weekend in which the bride and groom asked me to read the Ephesians 5 passage. And then we heard the exact same reading for Sunday Mass (which we actually had said privately with the bride and groom in their home not two hours after their wedding Mass!). When you hear the same reading twice in one day–especially when you’re a newlywed–you start thinking that God is trying to tell you something. 👍

I think that many of the explanations offered here about the beauty and depth of Ephesians 5 are right on–it is a call to mutual submission of husband and wife, and in some sense is an even “harder” call to live out for the husband, who is to give his life for his bride.

For women, we can sometimes struggle with how to live out the part of the Church in this whole equation, and many women just reject the passage altogether because the submission thing is just too foreign to our 21st century ears. But if we truly believe that God’s word is true when we read “This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church,” we will try to make sense of the mystery.

So for me personally when I try to incorporate Ephesians 5 into my life as a wife, I can’t get away from the idea of submission, but I understand it more positively. I think that probably only married women could understand what I mean when I say that what God seems to teach all wives through our feminine vocation is trust. We are called to give our fiat, our “may it be done to me according to thy word” to God, and in turn, to our husbands. We are called to trust our husbands without reservation, especially when they are striving to love us as Christ loves the Church.

Both husband and wife are called to give of themselves and sacrifice their own comfort and interests, but I think that this sacrifice often “hits home” for women more. It is a beautiful vocation–because in trusting God as the Church does, we can become mothers. Being a wife isn’t a glamorous vocation, it’s not one that should leave a woman in the spotlight…but I think that’s why it was created by God, to teach us holiness by humility and trust in His will.
Thank you, great post! 🙂
 
Part 1 of 2:

Ephesians 5:22-33 and 1 Peter 3:1-7 are very similar and this infers that a mutual agreement between the two, (Peter and Paul), was reached.

Let us examine first Ephesians 5:22-33 in relation to certain other scriptures:

Ephesian 5:22,
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”

This request contradicts with God’s first commandment, (Exodus 20:2-3, “I am the LORD thy God, …] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”), and the commandments of Christ, ( Matthew 23:8-12, “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”), and is therefore an unlawful request which, in it’s corruption and temptation, should not be heeded. *(Matthew 4:8-11 is an inspiring demonstration of maintaining integrity before temptation, “…] [T]he devil taketh [Christ] up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.”)

5:23,
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Here, there is again a deviation from God’s and Christ’s commandments and theology. A husband and wife are to be as one flesh and not two, (Mark 10:6-9, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”), and, since it is unlawful to separate them, how much more so is it unlawful to separate them for the sake of unlawful subjection?

5:24,
“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Though the church is ultimately subject unto Christ, it is not therefor lawful for men and/or husbands to claim the role of Christ is the union of marriage. In fact, they are fobidden from doing so, and any such request would implicate – not only the errors of insurrection and rebellion – but also the sin of adultery; for, how could one be made subject to the other if they are not two but one flesh? The request that is being made by Paul (and Peter) can not be fulfilled, (even if it should be), without separating, “that which God hath joined together.”

5:25-33,
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

Indeed, many of these passages are inspiring and near to the truth, but the intention of the initial demand should not be forgotten in relation to them. Also, consider that when Satan lied to and tempted Eve that what he said/taught was not so far from the truth/commandment that she had heard/received before, (Genesis 3:1-6: “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”)

In 1 Peter 3 we have a similar request issued from Peter,

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; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that
outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 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.”

and the same argument applies to them both. Also, we have Christ’s own words as witness of the fallibility of Peter’s thoughts, (Matthew 16:21-23, "From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.")

So, although the request(s) seem(s) innocent and imbued with alruistic motives, a careful investigaton would indicate otherwise.
 
Part 2 of 2:

Did Paul have an alterior motive?

More than likely Paul did because he also demands that woman be silent in church, (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”), and boasts that this opression is justified, (1 Corinthians 14:36-40, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.”).

Yet, Paul’s boasting is, in effect, an attempt to undermine the foundation of Christianity, and therefor must ultimately fail. Moreover, Paul’s boasting is not an accurate statement at all, nor one that has enduring or historical merit. For example, Christ’s resurrection was related by women, (Matthew 28:5-8, “And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.”), and women were both prophets and conquerers in the Old Testament as well, (Judges 4:4-9, “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand. And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go. And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.” Also Judges 4:21, “Then Jael Heber’s wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.”)
 
Angelo, thanks for taking the time to post all that…but I’m not buying it. You gotta take all this modern Scripture scholarship with a grean of salt. Especially if it very obviously has an agenda.
 
Claiming you know better than Jesus Christ’s handpicked men is one of the best ways to demonstrate your eternal destination being wrongly oriented. 🙂

Exegesis against St. Paul is not Catholic exegesis. 🙂

We are called to humble conversion, not to convert Him and His laws, ordinances, recommendations and saints. In our conversion we will discover our true selves and joys.

There’re some good sermons on husbands, wives, marriage and these matters here.

‘Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children must be obedient to their parents in every way; it is a gracious sign of serving the Lord; and you, parents, must not rouse your children to resentment, or you will break their spirits.’

Colossians 3:18-21

Husbands have to be told to love, Wives have to be told to obey… so we see what comes natural to each… Husbands are good at giving orders… Wives are good at loving… they hardly need to be told to do either… No one is surprised at this! lol. 🙂

Both need to be told not to sin and not to encourage the other to sin, quite often too, but rather to support each other in virtue. 🙂

‘Wives must obey their husbands as they would obey the Lord. The man is the head to which the woman’s body is united, just as Christ is the head of the Church, he, the Saviour on whom the safety of his body depends; and women must owe obedience at all points to their husbands, as the Church does to Christ. You who are husbands must show love to your wives, as Christ showed love to the Church when he gave himself up on its behalf. He would hallow it, purify it by bathing it in the water to which his word gave life; he would summon it into his own presence, the Church in all its beauty, no stain, no wrinkle, no such disfigurement; it was to be holy, it was to be spotless. And that is how husband ought to love wife, as if she were his own body; in loving his wife, a man is but loving himself.’

Ephesians 5:22-27

‘Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, “The head of the woman is the man;” and, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.” So also the Apostle Peter writes: “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”’

St. Augustine, Father, Bishop and Doctor of the Church

'The first effect of this love is the indissoluble union of your hearts. If you glue together two pieces of fir, provided that the glue be strong, their union will be so close that the stick will break more easily in any other part than where it is joined. Now God unites husband and wife so closely in Himself, that it should be easier to sunder soul from body than husband from wife; nor is this union to be considered as mainly of the body, but yet more a union of the heart, its affections and love.

The second effect of this love should be an inviolable fidelity to one another. In olden times finger-rings were wont to be graven as seals. We read of it in Holy Scripture, and this explains the meaning of the marriage ceremony, when the Church, by the hand of her priest, blesses a ring, and gives it first to the man in token that she sets a seal on his heart by this Sacrament, so that no thought of any other woman may ever enter therein so long as she, who now is given to him, shall live. Then the bridegroom places the ring on the bride’s hand, so that she in her turn may know that she must never conceive any affection in her heart for any other man so long as he shall live, who is now given to her by our Lord Himself.

The third fruit of marriage is the birth and bringing up of children. And herein, O ye married people! are you greatly honoured, in that God, willing to multiply souls to bless and praise Him to all Eternity, He associates you with Himself in this His work, by the production of bodies into which, like dew from Heaven, He infuses the souls He creates as well as the bodies into which they enter. . .

'Therefore, husbands, do you preserve a tender, constant, hearty love for your wives. It was that the wife might be loved heartily and tenderly that woman was taken from the side nearest Adam’s heart. No failings or infirmities, bodily or mental, in your wife should ever excite any kind of dislike in you, but rather a loving, tender compassion; and that because God has made her dependent on you, and bound to defer to and obey you; and that while she is meant to be your helpmeet, you are her superior and her head. And on your part, wives, do you love the husbands God has given you tenderly, heartily, but with a reverential, confiding love, for God has made the man to have the predominance, and to be the stronger; and He wills the woman to depend upon him, - bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, - taking her from out the ribs of the man, to show that she must be subject to his guidance. All Holy Scripture enjoins this subjection, which nevertheless is not grievous; and the same Holy Scripture, while it bids you accept it lovingly, bids your husband to use his superiority with great tenderness, lovingkindness, and gentleness. “Husbands, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel.”

St. Francis de Sales, Bishop and Doctor of the Church

‘Then after saying, “The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church,” he further adds, “and He is the Saviour of the body.” For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then “the Church,” that is, both husbands and wives, “is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.” For she is the body, not to dictate to the head, but to submit herself and obey.’

‘Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity. . . To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.’

St. John Chrysostom, Father, Bishop and Doctor of the Church
 
*(I posted this same thing in a thread I have running in the Sacred Scripture section)

I think the hang up with the passage, is that many women interpret it to mean, that a woman will have to cease being a unique individual if she submits to her husband. NOT AT ALL! I heard a priest recently say that that is not what the passage indicates…rather, it means that we are to sacrifice for each other, in ways that God outlined for us as men and women. Doesn’t mean we lose our uniqueness or individuality…standing by our husband to tell us the next command or what thoughts to think…lol No, it means that we should submit as Christ submitted to the Church. He served the Church. He served us. He died for us. If He asks me to submit in marriage, gosh, I think I’m getting off easy! lol :o Following Christ is not always easy, but sometimes, we complicate His teachings more than need to be. ;)*
 
What is it that you are implying, Angelo?

Are you implying that St. Paul was a heretic? Are you implying that his epistles are heretical?

How could Sacred Scriptures themselves be heretical? If they are the Word of God, revealed to Man, so they could be passed down in written form - then how could they be heresy?

Sorry, something about this just doesn’t make sense. Either I am completely missing something, or this just isn’t logical.
 
…] Though the church is ultimately subject unto Christ, it is not therefor lawful for men and/or husbands to claim the role of Christ is the union of marriage. …]
Correction:

Sentence/statement is intended as,

“Though the church is ultimately subject unto Christ, it is not therefor lawful for men and/or husbands to claim the role of Christ in the union of marriage.”

I apologize for any misunderstanding.
 
Correction:

Sentence/statement is intended as,

“Though the church is ultimately subject unto Christ, it is not therefor lawful for men and/or husbands to claim the role of Christ in the union of marriage.”

I apologize for any misunderstanding.
It’s still wrong. St. Paul’s exaplanation of the Great Mystery in Ephesians 5 doesn’t include husbands “claiming the role of Christ” in a marriage, and thus usurping Christ’s own role. All he is saying is that a sacramental marriage is meant to be a sign of Christ and the Church. We are to submit to our husbands as the Church does to Christ, and our Husbands are to love and sacrifice for us, as Christ did for the Church. Also, like Christ and the Church, which are one body, with Christ as the head, so a husband and wife are one body. Nobody says that the husband becomes Christ. Christ is still Christ. Make sense?
 
The idea of sexual equality and romantic love originated with Christianity.

Feminism rejects that. Feminism is about eugenics and destruction of the family. Just take a glance at the philosophy of Margaret Sanger.
Actually, that’s only selective. Susan B. Anthony, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton spoke out AGAINST abortion, seeing it as a way to hurt women instead of helping them. Just check Susan B. Anthony List and Feminists for Life. They believe, like feminism does, that women should be empowered as men are, but for something greater.

Honestly, I see the husband and wife operating as a team, that they are to submit to EACH OTHER, meaning some days, the man has the last word, other days it’s the woman. It depends on what the decision is.

And really, some readings have to be taken into context. I think it’s more about love language (men = respect, women = love) than anything else. But I’ll be damned if I allow a man to treat me like a child who can’t make decisions.
 
First, original feminism was NOT what we’ve had since around the twenties; those original feminists would be appalled at what has been done in the name of feminism, chiefly the encouragement of abortion and the absolute destruction of femininity. Sure makes me want to barf.

Angelo, it’s odd that you would use Deborah as a point that Paul was wrong about women being leaders, and speaking in church, because the whole point of choosing Deborah as a judge was to shame the men. You even said so in the verse you used about her-- “And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” She was put in the place of a man’s authority because all the men were too chickenspit to do what God meant for them to do. So she’s not really a good example for the point you’re trying to make.

As far as teaching in church, Eve was the one who was deceived and had wrong teaching that she passed on to Adam, who followed her despite the fact he should’ve been the scriptural authority of their home, but followed her because he loved her and really, a man will do just about anything to make his lady happy. Remember also Jezebel called herself a prophetess. So she’s a good example of reasons to let women take charge in church–oh wait, nope. Not her! Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how the women being the first to announce the resurrection as being related to teaching in church. They were all highly honorable women who God chose to honor even more preciously, with the first knowledge of the fact.

There are a LOT of holes in your post there, but I don’t really want to bullet-point them all. You know, if the whole Bible just contradicts itself and one half can be used to prove the other half is bunk, let’s just throw the whole thing out and have done with it, right? Is that where this is going?
 
*I sometimes scratch my head that this passage is so often scrutinized. Simply put, Jesus could have chosen 6 men and 6 women to be His Apostles. But He didn’t. Many say…‘well that was because it was that culture…or that timeframe. If that were today, Jesus would have…’ etc…

But, Jesus didn’t come today. He came some 2000 years ago. Regardless of the culture, do we think Jesus wouldn’t have done what He intended? Then, the answer is…sometimes…"well, maybe He didn’t intend for that to be carried on all these years.’’ But, why? The thing is everyone, Jesus asked 12 men to be His Apostles…and when Judas betrrayed Him, He could have chosen a woman to replace him, then…and He still chose a man to replace Judas. So, I don’t get upset as a woman when I think of this, I think…this is what Jesus intended…what He wanted.

Taking apart passages, and debating them for days…it doesn’t matter, really. Jesus chose 12 MEN to be His Apostles. He chose Peter to build the Church, and lead it. That’s it…if we can’t accept that, then we don’t accept Jesus’ ‘strategy.’

He had his reasons…and we should be more than okay with that. Just my two cents.

And, this doesn’t have all that much to do with the original post. 🤷 So we are going down this path, I don’t know. lol :o*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top