Photo of one of our Septuplets :)

6 Weeks Old

Mr. Mom is taking care of the puppies- black golden doodles (standard poodle/golden retriever cross). I think he now understands why I was reluctant to have a winter litter. Keeping the puppy nursery clean is much more challenging when they can’t be outside during the day at all.

But they are cuuuuuuttte! I’m sure they will be well loved in their new homes!

And the income will help towards our oldest daughter’s June wedding.

“being subject to one another in fear of Christ” Part 2

“being subject to one another in fear of Christ”
Ephesians 5:21 (interlinear)

Part 2- “…in fear of Christ”

(continued from Part 1- “being subject to one another…”)

What does “in fear of Christ” mean in this context?

As I have discussed in previous posts, I am convinced that the passive voice parsing of “being subject” is accurate, thus the ones who “are subject” have not chosen to be so, they just are.  Its a description, not a prescription.  As a one flesh body with head is used as a metaphor for marriage in Ephesians 5, Paul also uses the body as a metaphor for the church both here and elsewhere: most notably 1 Corinthians 12:12ff:

¹²The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. ¹³For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.¹⁴Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. ¹⁵If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. ¹⁶And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. ¹⁷If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? ¹⁸But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. ¹⁹If they were all one part, where would the body be? ²⁰As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

²¹The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” ²²On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, ²³and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, ²⁴while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, ²⁵so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. ²⁶If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

²⁷Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 1 Cor 12 (NIV)

Can you see there how the members of the body have no choice? They are interdependent?  Even if they say “I don’t need you!”, that is not true and is impossible.

The  same connection and interdependence of the body of Christ is expressed in Ephisians 5 in the phrase  “being subject to one another” Eph 5:21.

I think “in fear of Christ” modifies this, puts some boundaries on it.

Let’s re-visit the FEAR thread which I have addressed in previous posts. This is not the lone occurrence of FEAR in the context of Ephesians 5.  Bear in mind that our English versions are all translations.  The fear/phob- verb and noun occur three times in Ephesians- all within this teaching periscope:

Eph 5:21 “in fear of Christ” phobō 5401 N-DSM;

Eph 5:33  “wife that she fear [her] husband” phobetai 5399 V-PMS-3S;

Eph 6:5 “slaves be obedient to masters with fear and trembling” phobou 5401 N-GSM.

“and great fear came upon them”

Notice the repetition word for word of the birth of great fear, following the death of Ananias, and again following the death of Sapphira:

καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος μέγας
kai egeneto phobos megas.
and came fear great Acts 5:5

καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος μέγας
kai egeneto phobos megas.
and came fear great Acts 5:11

I am struck by the equality of responsibility, and of consequences.  I am also struck by the root cause of their death:

an absence of appropriate FEAR!

That is a topic warranting much attention as PHOBEO is a responsibility expressly  placed upon the wife in marriage. see Eph 5:33 “wife that she fear [her] husband”

Why did Sapphira follow her husband in death?  The passage explains that this happened because they “agreed together“.  The Greek word there is derived from, sumphóneó with root words  sun- together and phóné -voice.  Strong’s concordance defines sumphoneo as “to call out with, to be in harmony, generally to agree”.  Note how the word resembles our English word “symphony”

Ananias and Sapphira were a harmonious agreeable couple.

But what did they agree to do?

They agreed to to lie to the Holy Ghost (vs 3); to tempt the Spirit of the Lord (vs. 9).  The definition of “to tempt” provided here is “to challenge”.  They agree to lie to the Holy Spirit and to challenge the Holy Spirit.

Can you see how “in fear of Christ” can act like a restraint to put the brakes on when needed?  We ARE SUBJECT to one another indeed, but we ARE SUBJECT to Christ. If the gravitational pull of  “being subject to one another” is taking me on a downward spiral, then I need to do what I can to resist and counteract injury by that body part which is in mutiny.

Ephesians 5 warns of potential deception, and advises how to respond:

5 For this ye know __ that no __ whoremonger nor unclean person nor covetous man who is an idolater hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words for because of these things come the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them 8 For ye were sometimes darkness but now are ye light in the Lord walk as children of light 9 For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth 10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather __ reprove them (KJV )

Just imagine if Sapphira had heeded this instead of agreeing with her husband?  What if – in appropriate fear of Christ, and in appropriate fear of where her husband’s actions were taking them-she had not partaken with her husband but had instead reproved/exposed him?  She was his wife, the very one called to be his lifesaving ezer/”Help Meet”.  Instead of fulfilling that call to be a  lifesaving influence, she agreed with him unto death.

ETA: I was pondering this some more today and came back to a pregnant woman as a good illustration.

The baby inside her “is subject” to her.
They are one body, but they are unique individuals.

Who is the one on whom responsibility rests?
Who is the one who chooses what to do within this interdependent relationship?

Within the body of Christ, being subject TO ONE ANOTHER means each of us bears that motherly responsibility (if you will) for some others. Within the church, the “being subject” has more potential for reciprocity (“one another”) than is the case with an unborn child.

I was thinking how could a baby “being subject” to his/her pregnant mother clarify the “in fear of Christ”? I thought of how an unborn child sometimes appears to “fight back” against injustice “in the fear of the Lord” : the ones who survive abortions, for example,

But the biggest aha moment of this meditation is that MOTHER in this illustration- the one to whom the other one “IS BEING SUBJECT”- the MOTHER has a choice whether or not to receive the admonition “IN FEAR OF CHRIST” Eph 5:21. And the mother’s choices have far more power within this “one flesh relationship” than those of the one who “IS SUBJECT” to her. The one “being subject” may face a life and death struggle if his/her mother chooses a deadly direction…

“being subject to one another in fear of Christ” Part 1

“being subject to one another in fear of Christ”
Ephesians 5:21 (interlinear)

Part 1-  “being subject to one another…”

Recap: This is the last participle in a series of participles describing what “be [ye] filled with the Spirit” looks like.  (see  “Submitting” is a Participle)

All of the  participles in the series  are parsed in the ACTIVE voice with one exception:  “being subject” (sometimes translated “submitting”)  is in the PASSIVE voice.

see http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm

I believe that the passive voice is accurate parsing and that Paul switches from active to passive in the case of “submitting” deliberately in order to communicate the truth about the nature of the subjection.

see “Wives [Subject] to Their Own Husbands in Everything” Ephesians 5:24

In researching passive voice some more, I found a blog by Jay Guin in which he presents a passive/middle voice dispute about the word translated “adultery” (MDR: The passive-voice argument) Aha, here is a man who understands the implications of PASSIVE voice!  He also has published a book online (Buried Talents–on the role of women) which includes a chapter about Ephesians 5 (Ephesians 5–Mutual Submission).

So, I put two and two together and suggested:

I was looking at your material on Ephesians 5, and I was also looking at : “MDR: The passive-voice argument”.

Please re-consider your interpretation of the passages where “wife” and “submit” occur together. In every instance except one, the hupotasso verbs are in the passive voice!

To which Mr. Guin kindly replied:

Charis,

In v. 22, the verb is borrowed from 5:21, which is a present passive or middle participle. “Submitting yourselves” in 21 sounds very middle to my ear.

In v. 24, “is subject to” is present indicative middle.

I get my tenses from Zodhiates.

I’ve looked at your website. I’m not sure we really disagree as to the outcome. I’m no advocate for paternalism.

Mr Guin bases the choice of middle voice parsing on the fact that “‘Submitting yourselves’ in 21 sounds very middle to my ear.”  My thoughts on this are:

1. The translation into English which he quotes has adopted the middle voice and does not reflect the ambiguity in the Greek.
2. Paul switches from active voice for ALL the other participles in the series.
3. The hupotasso verb used two verses down in Ephesians 5:24 is- to my ear- a clear passive voice based on  the contrast with other linguistic/grammatical choices of Paul’s within the periscope, as well as the context in which the manner a wife “is subject” is directly correlated  with the manner a body “is subject” to a head.

So I still think the passive voice is the accurate parsing and quite intentional on the part of Paul/God.  But that left me meditating, pondering, and asking God: What does “being subject to one another  in fear of Christ” mean?  What does it look like in practice?

Part 2- “…in fear of Christ”

She is Playing no “role”! She “IS SUBJECT”!

In the blog post quoted below, I believe the teaching BEFORE the STOP sign is basically true  if we take out the element of  requiring any action/performance on her part (my corrections are in [brackets]) ie.  she is playing no “role”, she “IS SUBJECT”:  its a description, not a prescription.   To review the grammatical/linguistic evidence for this in Ephesians 5 start at  A wife IS SUBJECT to her husband like a person IS SUBJECT to gravity)

But the teaching after the STOP sign is bunk because that is all about performance.

from The God Card ~ Thoughts on Patriarchal Teachings

my corrections are in [brackets]

There is no choice in the matter.  A woman does not get to “choose” whether or not she [is subject] will play the submissive role.  That choice has been made for her, made by God when He chose her to be a woman—and she is informed that if she [marries] wants to belong to God, she will “choose” the submissive position [she is subject], because not “choosing” it means she has consigned herself to Satan and the fires of an everlasting Hell. For a  woman who loves God and believes in the general evangelical/fundamentalist paradigm, this means that there is really no actual choice at all.

Piper goes on to define “Biblical” manhood and womanhood (in all caps, by Piper):

“AT THE HEART OF MATURE MASCULINITY IS A SENSE OF BENEVOLENT RESPONSIBILITY TO LEAD, PROVIDE FOR AND PROTECT WOMEN IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO A MAN’S DIFFERING RELATIONSHIPS.”

“AT THE HEART OF MATURE FEMININITY IS A FREEING DISPOSITION TO AFFIRM, RECEIVE AND NURTURE STRENGTH AND LEADERSHIP FROM WORTHY MEN IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO A WOMAN’S DIFFERING RELATIONSHIPS.”  (pg. 18, “What’s the Difference,” J. Piper).

For example, according to such teachings, my femininity is defined by how I respond to and respect the authority of the men in my life.   When I am not in a state of humble submission, I am not only disobeying God but I am also no longer fully feminine.  I am denying the essence of who God made me to be, when I failt to nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in my life.  The gender I was born with requires me to nurture and respond to the leadership that a male’s birth requires him to have.  (Actually, “require” is probably a poor word choice, because Piper is asserting that this desire to submit and this desire to lead are supposed to be innate, and that all who are godly and mature will naturally have these qualities).

To actually play out these “complementarian” (or so they have called themselves) definitions and teachings in real life can lead to some serious social gymnastics.  On page 42 of the previously quoted book, Piper works through those sticky situations where women might be in positions of authority over men, warning that women in high positions of authority might well “stretch appropriate expressions of femininity beyond the breaking point”—ie., women in positions of authority over men can sometimes happen, but it’s certainly not ideal and may even be dangerous for all genders involved), and then explains,

“For example, a housewife in her backyard may be asked by a man how to get on the freeway.  At that point, she is giving a kind of leadership.  She has superior knowledge that the man needs and he submits himself to her guidance.  But we all know there is a way for the housewife to direct the man that neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised.”

In other words, when you give of your superior knowledge to men, make sure you do so in a way that indicates they are designed to lead you and you are designed to follow them.

Piper teaches women that as long as their authority over men is non-personal, it is probably/possibly okay.  It’s when a woman is personally in authority over another man that the line needs to be drawn.  Piper says (pg. 44),

Wild at Heart? Knights and Damsels?

Great insights from Prof.  Du Mez!

Beyond Knights and Damsels: Evangelicals and Gender (emphases mine)

First, in defining masculinity and femininity in static terms, and then in re-enforcing those understandings, many evangelical writers turn a blind eye to ways in which their own culture has shaped their notions of what seems “natural.” Further, they fail to consider ways in which a consideration of sin must complicate any discussion of gender “norms.” …

This kind of reasoning leaves little room to account for the distorting effects of the fall. If boys tend to be more competitive and “dangerous,” and if girls are by “nature” more tentative or passive (or worse, more dependent and seductive), do these tendencies necessarily reveal God’s will for masculinity and femininity? Or do they represent remnants of a fallen order that God calls us to redeem?

…

However, given the connections between Victorian and contemporary evangelical gender constructions, the cautionary words of Katharine Bushnell, an evangelical Victorian woman, may have renewed relevance today. Bushnell, a theologian and reformer, came to the nation’s attention in the late nineteenth century by leading exposés of organized prostitution in the lumber camps of northern Michigan and Wisconsin, and then in the British army camps in colonial India. To comprehend how Christian men could behave in such a manner toward women, she turned her attention to studying the scriptures. Her investigation led her to conclude that Victorian (and Christian) constructions of masculinity and femininity were thoroughly unbiblical.¹¹

Bushnell’s work with prostitutes convinced her that the “feminine” passivity held up as a Christian virtue for Victorian women, actually left them vulnerable and ill equipped to protect themselves. True virtue, Bushnell insisted, required strength and courage from women as well as men. “When an expositor and preacher of the Gospel wanders out of his path of duty ‘to preach Christ’ as woman’s one example of conduct, and instead preaches ‘womanliness,’ he sets up an idol of his own creation for women to worship,” she wrote.¹²

With characteristic impudence, Bushnell added that “we imagine such expositors would have been pleased had God sent into the world, an additional female Christ, to set women a female example; but since God did not see fit to do so, women are under obligation to endeavor, as best they are able, to follow the ‘manly’ example of Jesus Christ, and leave the consequences with God.”¹³

In theory Bushnell advocated the same “virtues” for both men and women. But due to centuries of female subordination, she suggested that modern men and women required different correctives in order to follow Christ. Men would need to become less proud and domineering, while women would need to become more confident and assertive.

Many of Bushnell’s contemporaries recommended altering Christianity to suit cultural notions of masculinity and femininity, rather than following Bushnell’s advice to place those notions under biblical scrutiny and reappraisal. These contemporaries were responding to a “crisis” of masculinity in the Christian church. They believed that if emotion, submission, and dependence were inherently feminine characteristics, then Christian theology—which demands submission and dependence upon God—was clearly not for men. To address this dilemma, they fashioned a Men and Religion Forward Movement, and a “muscular Christianity” that would have greater appeal to “real” men.¹⁴

…

Certainly Christians are called to be courageous and unflinching in their faith, but by separating “masculine” virtues of courage and strength from the “feminine” virtues of humility and gentleness, the church risks fostering a culture of arrogance and aggression—all, supposedly, in the name of a manly Christ.

A wife IS SUBJECT to her husband like a person IS SUBJECT to gravity

Suppose when you rode in an airplane, I was to chastise you for your “rebellion” because you “defied” gravity?

Rebellious? Defiant? IMPOSSIBLE! There is no choice and no escape from GRAVITY as long as we live on planet earth- even in an airplane, parachute, or hang glider we are SUBJECT to gravity. Scientists refer to gravity as a LAW: “the LAW of gravity”.   There is no escape on earth from our subjection to gravity. Living in denial can be downright dangerous!

In the same manner “Wives [are Subject] to Their Own Husbands in Everything” Ephesians 5:24

…and those interconnected in a body relationship are subject to one another. Eph 5:21, 1 Cor 12:12-26.

The use of the  translation “submit” in the case of the hupotasso verb in the passive voice confuses the issue, as does the addition of extra-biblical words such as “ought to”, “should”. “must”, etc.  How does it sound if I say as a COMMAND: “Mary, you ought to/should/must  SUBMIT to gravity in everything you do on earth!”.  It sounds like Mary has some choice in the matter, like she can choose to defy gravity.  But the truth is she cannot defy gravity.  She IS SUBJECT to gravity in a passive indicative sense just like wives ARE SUBJECT to their own husbands in EVERYTHING.  Passive Indicative is the parsing of the Greek verb used in Ephesians 5:24.  Its a DESCRIPTION not a PRESCRIPTION!  Just like “humans are subject to gravity” is a DESCRIPTION not a PRESCRIPTION.

A woman’s like a rose.
If you treat her right, she’ll bloom.
If you don’t, she’ll wilt.”
-Firefighter Michael in  “Fireproof”

Do you find this to be true?
Does your husband’s behavior have the power to “wilt” you?

That dynamic is what Paul is describing in Ephesians 5:24 when he says:

“but even as the assembly is subject to Christ,
so also [are] the wives to their own husbands in everything.” Eph 5:24

Colossians 3:18- the only case where “wives submit” is IMPERATIVE!

Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands as it is fit in the Lord
Col 3:18  KJV with Strong’s

“wives, be you submissive to own husbands as is fitting in Lord”
Col 3:18 (interlinear)

5293
V-PMM-2P
ὑποτάσσεσθε
upotassesthe
be you submissive

The V-PMM-2P is the parsing of the verb.  Note the IMPERATIVE mood.  Imperative is used for COMMANDS.

As I have explained in several recent posts: The fact that the wife ” is subject” and “being subject” to the husband according to Ephesians 5:24, Titus 2:5 and 1 Peter 3:1,5  is in NONE of those cases a command, nor even in the active voice.    They are all in the PASSIVE voice which is not related to any action on the part of the wife at all.  They are descriptive of the state of being of a wife, not prescriptive of wifely behavior.  Studying the grammar of the hupotasso verb reveals this. (see   “Wives [Subject] to Their Own Husbands in Everything” Ephesians 5:24 and“The elder women… that they may teach the young women” Titus 2:3-5

So, what about Colossians 3:18.  the only case where Paul/God states a genuine instruction in the IMPEATIVE: ie a COMMAND to wives to “be submissive to your own husbands”?

Paul/God qualifies the submission with an easy litmus test.

Is what your husband wants you to do something JESUS would want you to do?  If not, don’t do it!  It isn’t ” FITTING IN THE LORD”

A wife has complete  freedom of conscience.  If whatever he is asking for does troubles her conscience; if she cannot do what he wants her to do “in faith” (Rom 14:23), if it does not meet the test of “wisdom from God” (James 3:17) then she needs to decline, resist, (and  and even defy her husband if need be- the story of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 comes to mind).

When I was thinking of things which would be “fitting in the Lord”, where a wife might struggle a bit with submitting and need to remind herself of Paul/God’s command in Col 3:18,  I thought of a wife all stressed out from a hard day, she isn’t handling minor irritations graciously.  So  her husband comes up to her in the kitchen and says, “Honey, I can see you are tired and stressed out after a long day.  You are DONE for the day! I am going to wash the dishes, give the kids their bath, put them to bed.  I want you to go take a hot bath and then get in some comfy pajamas and RELAX in the bedroom alone with the door closed.”

Though she may feel  uncomfortable and struggle a bit with submitting,  her husband’s request is quite “FITTING IN THE LORD”.  She needs to SUBMIT to her husband’s effort to wash her feet in this manner.

The teaching to husbands and wives here is like a coin. It has two sides which go together. The “other side of the coin” is the COMMAND in the IMPERATIVE to husbands (in Colossians 3:19) which says:

19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them. (NKJV)

19Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. (NASB)

19A husband must love his wife and not abuse her. (CEV)

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. (NIV)

So, a wife has a duty NEVER EVER to SUBMIT to anything Harsh nor abusive as that enables her husband to live in violation of this COMMAND to him. It is NOT “FITTING IN THE LORD” to submit to anything harsh or abusive. A wife has a responsibility to decline, resist and even defy if needed in order to avoid harshness and abuse from her husband.

husband is head of wife…THEREFORE:

being subject to one another in fear of Christ

the wives to [their] own husbands as to the Lord

for  husband is  head of  wife

as also Christ head of church

Himself savior of body

THEREFORE

as the church IS SUBJECT to Christ

so also the wives to husbands

IN EVERYTHING

…

and the wife that she fear husband

Eph 5:21-24, 33 (interlinear)

“being subject”- the last in a string of participles Paul uses to describe being filled with the Spirit.  This is the ONLY one of them which is in the PASSIVE VOICE.  “being subject” is a better rendition than “submitting” because it carries the passive voice over to the English.

“THEREFORE”- when one sees a “therefore” in scripture, the question is “what is it there for?”  In this case the “therefore” directly connects the concept of the HEAD and BODY connection/relationship with the nature and extent of the subjection described.  Is there volition involved when a body IS SUBJECT to a head?  No, the body IS SUBJECT IN EVERYTHING in an absolute sense, and by no volition of its own.

“IS SUBJECT”-

from http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm

5293
V-PPI-3S
ὑποτάσσεται
upotassetai
is subject

V-PPI-3S is the Parsing taken from the interlinear.  “IS SUBJECT” is parsed in the passive voice and indicative mood.  I discussed the significance of the passive voice at some length here. Some more reading on the indicative mood renders even more evidence that “IS SUBJECT IN EVERYTHING” is not an instruction, nor a command, but refers to a state of being: its descriptive not prescriptive!

Indicative Mood
The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer’s or speaker’s perspective. Even if the writer is lying, he may state the action as if it is a fact, and thus the verb would be in the indicative mood. It may be action occurring in past, present, or future time. This ’statement of fact’ can even be made with a negative adverb modifying the verb (see the second example).
This is in contrast to one of the other moods (see below) in which the writer/speaker may desire or ask for the action to take place.

For example: “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb.”
Rev. 12:11 “God is not mocked.” Gal. 6:7

fear- of Christ (21) and husband (33), in both cases related to “being subject/is subject“  (see also wives … enjoined to live in ‘fear’ of (the wrath of) their husbands)

from http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm

5399
V-PMS-3S
φοβὴται
phobētai
she fear

“The Christmas Shoes”: Kate and Robert Illustrate what Paul/God Teach about Marriage in Ephesians 5

Last night, at my husband’s suggestion, we watched “The Christmas Shoes”.  He thought I would like it, and I did.  I identified very much with Kate who is married to Robert- a workaholic who routinely misses their daughter Lily’s events.  During the movie, through several “miracles”- along the lines of car breakdowns and lost shoes-  Robert has an awakening and adjusts his priorities.

I want to point out a clip in the movie to tie into my meditations on the wife being subject to the husband in EVERYTHING as the church is subject to Christ.  The way one often hears “wifely submission” taught, it is about the wife coming under or beneath her husband and supporting his goals and dreams.  One often hears that he holds “final decision making authority”.  The wife is the vice-regent, subordinate to the husband and it is her duty to follow his lead.

I believe and have provided evidence that the above is a wrong understanding of what Paul and God are saying in Ephesians 5. see “Wives [Subject] to Their Own Husbands in Everything” Ephesians 5:24 and  “Submitting” is a Participle.

If you will watch the following from the 7:00 minute marker to about 9 minutes, you will see a husband’s attempt to “lead” his wife in the wrong direction.  His wife replies to him (in part) at minute 8:42:

“This is your dream scenario.
You just want me to follow you!“

This is NOT an “unsubmissive wife” despite her resistance to her husband’s “leadership”.  This wife is an illustration of a wife who IS SUBJECT to her husband in EVERYTHING as the church IS SUBJECT to Christ.  Because her husband has his priorities totally screwed up and is putting worldly success ahead of his family, the “NOURISHment” he is giving to his wife and children is poison which is killing their marriage.  Unless and until he wakes up, their marriage is doomed.

There seems to be a veil over the understanding of  people when it comes to this.    I have been engaged in a futile attempt to explain to some egalitarians here on Complegalitarian.  Thankfully, another blogger  who has walked out a wife’s (passive) subjection to a destructive husband immediately heard what I hear (see Waneta Dawn).  The very same Eric who disputes my findings on complegal (even though he was the first on that thread to propose this understanding) also has a beef with Waneta about her use of Strong’s Concordance in her blogs.

I am gratified to be in the company of  Waneta!    As far as her use of Strong’s goes (to which Eric objects)?  I say, “YOU GO GIRL!”  How many times have I heard the Strong’s definition of “submission” quoted to support all the bologna out there?  Never once have I read an EQUAL treatment of the Strong’s definition of “GAVE HIMELF UP” from Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” UNTIL Waneta wrote it here: Husband Give Yourself Up for Your Wife

Against the Establishment – based on Esther 1-3

Enjoy a great sermon by David Instone-Brewer!:

Against the Establishment - based on Esther 1-3 Esther was a teenage bride who showed up the stupidity of an Emperor. One of his silliest decrees was that all wives should obey their husbands, unlike Vashti who refused to parade in front of his drunken friends. The book of Esther teaches that all people are equal in the eyes of God’s law. Under the law of Moses, women had far more rights than anywhere else in the Ancient Near East. But for Christians  in the 1st century, it was important to act submissive, so that the Gospel was not misunderstood.

“each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,”

A discussion on “weaker vessel” in the comments on Suzanne’s latest blog sent me to the concordance looking at other occurrences of “vessel”.

For this is the will of God, your sanctification:
that you should abstain from sexual immorality;
that each of you should know how to
possess his own vessel
in sanctification and honor,
not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God;
that no one should
take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter,
because the Lord is the avenger of all such,
as we also forewarned you and testified.
For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness.
Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man,
but God, who has also given[a] us His Holy Spirit.
1 Thes 4:3-8

“vessel” in the above is also rendered “wife” or “body” depending upon which translation one reads.  I favor leaving the ambiguous “vessel” which can mean either/or/ both/and.

The VESSEL should be posssessed in” sanctification and honor not in passion of lust“

I am grateful that “the Lord is the avenger of all such,
as we also forewarned you and testified.
For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness.
Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man,
but God, who has also given[a] us His Holy Spirit.”

To me, it was a black and white decision.  My husband has chosen the LUST, and he is right back to minimizing and  failing to take responsibility for his behavior and turning it around on me.  While Jane suggested that the change I saw for awhile was manipulation, I don’t believe that.  I believe the change was REAL.  God was merciful.  The spirit of LUST was expelled.  We experienced a season of a marriage bed reflecting sanctification and honor.  It was a little taste of heaven.

But…

he chose to invite the expelled spirit back

and that was his choice

yes, this will end the marriage

but the rejection, though he personalizes it, is not a rejection of ME

Man: “the woman you gave me; its her fault…”

God: “I sent her to HELP you.  Why didn’t you listen to her?”

“he who rejects this does not reject man,
but God, who has also given[a] us His Holy Spirit.”

“The elder women… that they may teach the young women” Titus 2:3-5

Upon reading the latest blog at The Scroll:   All’s Not Fair In “Love and War” and the comments, I have resisted commenting.  50 % of “christian” marriages end in divorce for very good reasons which are not represented thus far in the comments.

Some of the commenters are young, newlyweds.  I wish them the best!  Hopefully their “garden of Eden” experience of marriage will continue and the dream will never be shattered.

Reading the post and comments sent me back to Titus 2- interlinear; Titus 2- with Strong’s.  I am an elder woman who has been married for 27 years.

The elder women…
that they may teach the young women(neos)
to be sober, to be friend of husband and friend of children,
[To be] clear minded, chaste, keepers at home, good,
subject to their own husbands,
Titus 2

I am struck by the repetition of the exhortation for the women to be clear minded and have good judgment (see sober/discreet/self-controlled).

verse 4
4994
V-PAS-3P
σωφρονίζωσιν
sōphronizōsin

verse 5
4998
5   A-APF
5   σώφρονας
5   sōphronas

…adjacent to being pure/chaste, good,  and keepers at home (which has nothing to do with domestic servitude, BTW.   See A Woman’s Place: Keeper at Home)

Older women behave as “becometh holiness” and teaching the neos (new or younger women) to be friend to husband and children- not lover (eros), not servant:  FRIEND.

Older women teaching the neos to be sober/self controlled, good, and chaste. Please note, they are teaching MARRIED WOMEN to be chaste!!!!!!   I believe this chastity is within the context of their own marriage bed.  Personally I can feel when my husband is crossing the line into LUST and I can pray against that.

I see in there God’s intention that the mature women teach the neos (newer, younger) to the end that their mind will be whole, sound, healed, that they will live consecrated, set apart for God, being able to perceive what is good and constructive and what is evil, that they have the charge to GUARD their home/marriage and keep themselves safe, protected, and chaste within their home and with their husbands.

And please note that the hupotasso verb here in Titus 2, as in Eph 5:24,  is in the Passive voice, which means it is not about something the wife is to DO, it is a description of how marriage IS!.  (For more on this  see “Wives [Subject] to Their Own Husbands in Everything” Ephesians 5:24)

Within the context of the FACT that she “is subject” to this man for better or worse and his choices will impact her deeply,  its very important for her to be sober, clear minded, to have good judgment.

Three Strikes and You’re Out!

“Three Strikes and You’re Out!”

As soon as my husband uttered the phrase I knew it was prophetic.

He had been delivered from a spirit of lust. see Cialis? Bah Humbug! I knew if he invited it back, it will happily return bringing 7 more with it worse than itself :

⁴³“When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. ⁴⁴Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. ⁴⁵Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.” Matt 12

The second time he backslid into adultery (2008)  was 7 times worse than the first (1990). The third time will be 7 times worse than the second.

Three strikes, YOU ARE OUT!

He had been behaving very considerately. I was starting to dream of having a sensitive and compassionate husband. One who was supportive, encouraging, and would willingly take the servant’s towel and wash the feet of the other members of the household.

How quickly dreams die and are buried.
The old man is back and its as if he never changed at all.
He is right back to selfishness and verbal abuse toward me and the children. Oh, and LUST. Yesterday, when I mentioned to him that his behavior is seriously off track, he turned it around and said “well, I got affectionate with you three times and you gave me the cold shoulder. Three strikes and you’re out” When I mentioned his name-calling me (bitch) he said “that was a whole week ago” (yeah, the morning after I had sex with him). When I mentioned that he was abusive with the children yesterday…. no response…. he doesn’t care… he wants SEX and its all and only about him.

While he is home all day feeling sorry for himself for losing the high paying job that was the worst thing that ever happened to our family (as if he was the “victim”), he has been looking at nude women online. “Oh, its not PORN”, he justifies. “It’s movies“.

THREE STRIKES, AND YOU’RE OUT!

I want to remember that. No more descending into the fog, no more Sapphira: agreeing with a lifestyle of closet unrighteousness.

THREE STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT!

“Wives [Subject] to Their Own Husbands in Everything” Ephesians 5:24

“A woman’s like a rose.
If you treat her right, she’ll bloom.
If you don’t, she’ll wilt.”
-Firefighter Michael in  “Fireproof”

Do you find this to be true?
Does your husband’s behavior have the power to “wilt” you?

That dynamic is what Paul is describing in Ephesians 5:24 when he says:

“but even as the assembly is subject to Christ,
so also [are] the wives to their own husbands in everything.” Eph 5:24

The verb translated “is subject” (upotassetai) is parsed as  Passive Voice in numerous interlinear resources ^[1] The Passive Voice by definition means that the subject (noun) is the recipient of someone or something else’s action.  “No volition – nor even necessarily awareness of the action – is implied on the part of the subject“.  [2]

According to Professor Carl Conrad [3] there is a judgment call about assigning the Passive Voice to verbs:

Yet the formulation of the phrase in question in the Greek by itself does not offer any clue to which alternative may have been intended by the writer who formulated it, and the question must be resolved, if it is to be resolved at all, by a careful examination of the broader context of the passage in which the phrase occurred and perhaps of the entire corpus of that author. The same is true of the Greek “middle-passive” forms—and by that I mean both the -μαι/σαι/ται-μην; -σο/το forms and the -θη- forms: since Greek does not in fact distinguish morphologically the middle and passive meanings, the determination of whether the meaning is middle or passive in any particular instance is a matter of judgment. ^[3]

Many (if not most) interpret Ephesians 5:24 upotassetai with a middle voice.  The emphasis is upon the wife performing the action.  Some translations even go so far as to (erroneously) insert an imperative force

SOURCE New International Version (©1984) Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. New Living Translation (©2007) As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything. New American Standard Bible (©1995) But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. International Standard Version (©2008) Indeed, just as the church is submissive to the Messiah, so wives must be submissive to their husbands in everything. GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995) As the church is under Christ’s authority, so wives are under their husbands’ authority in everything. Bible in Basic English And as the church is under Christ’s authority, so let wives be under the rule of their husbands in all things. Weymouth New Testament And just as the Church submits to Christ, so also married women should be entirely submissive to their husbands.

There is no “should be”, “ought to” nor “must” in the Greek.  Those are interpretational additions by translators.   The following versions provide a more accurate rendition of the Greek:

Darby Bible Translation
But even as the assembly is subjected to the Christ, so also wives to their own husbands in everything.
Young’s Literal Translation
but even as the assembly is subject to Christ, so also are the wives to their own husbands in everything.

The verse is not a PREscription of what a wife or the church is supposed to DO.  The verse is a DEscription of the state of BEing of the wife and the church.  The church IS SUBJECT to Christ in EVERYTHING.   And the wife IS SUBJECT to the husband in EVERYTHING.

The context of Ephesians 5 provides compelling evidence for the  accuracy of the passive voice parsing of “is subject” in Ephesians 5:24.  The context speaks of a HEAD and a BODY.  The body “is subject” to the head, but there is no volition involved on the part of the body.  It is a description of a state of being, not a command for a certain behavior.  Thus the head/body metaphor is a perfect  illustration and object lesson of connectedness and subjection in the passive voice.

Of interest to those who will object that a wife has equal power to “wilt” her husband,  the  hupotasso verb in Ephesians 5:21-  upotassomeno- is also in the passive voice according to numerous interlinear resources.^[1] Again, the head/body object lesson of the context illustrates: a body is subject to the head, AND the head to the body in a  reciprocal and mutual manner.  However,  because Ephesians 5:24 is a unique statement about the wife with no reciprocal statement about the husband,   and because the statement sounds so universal: “wives [subject] to their own husbands in EVERYTHING” I suggest that Paul (and God) are  speaking of a unique, broader, and deeper vulnerability of wives to the impact of husbands than vice versa.

The Textus Receptus (TR) has an extra hupotasso in Ephesians 5:22 (hupotassesthe) which is in the middle voice^[4].   The earliest and oldest manuscript called “P46″ omits the verb in Eph 5:22. Interestingly, this manuscript was not discovered until the 1930’s.^[5] I presume that the hupotassesthe in Eph 5:22 Textus Receptus  is an unfortunate  interpretational scribal addition which has served to obscure the truth about the meaning of wives  being subject “to their  husbands in everything”.. “as the church is subject to Christ”.

While challenging to put aside preconceptions and read this passage with fresh vision, nevertheless I  propose a re-examination of traditional assumptions in light of the context and the use of hupotasso verbs in the passive voice.

FOOTNOTES:

1. The following interlinears have the Passive Voice parsing of the hupotasso verb in Eph. 5:24 as well as  Eph. 5:21:
   

   Blue Letter Bible- Eph 5:24
   Blue Letter Bible – Ephesians 5:21
   Scripture4All
   http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm

2. see “Voice” in this  online Greek Grammar: “This grammar is a compilation primarily from Wallace and Mounce”
3. “New Observations on Voice in the Ancient Greek Verb” by Carl Conrad, Associate Professor Emeritus of Classics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. See also Active, Middle, and Passive: Understanding Ancient Greek Voice
4. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
5. There was some discussion of P46 here

“For the Creature was Subjected to Frustration…” Part 3

Continued from  “For the Creature was Subjected to Frustration…” Part 2

In every interlinear I checked, the hupotasso verb in Ephesians 5:24 (upotassetai) is identified as Passive:

http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=5&v=24&t=KJV#conc/24

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

Following a disagreement about the voice of the hupotasso verb in Ephesians 5:24 where a commenter was quite adamant that it has to be middle voice, I was doing some web surfing trying to find more details about the  passive versus middle voice of the hupotasso verbs in Scripture.

Coincidentally, I found a discussion I had never read before on an old thread at an old hang out of mine:  Complegal, where EricW has made some comments which indicate his complete understanding of the significance of this judgment call:

Of course, if hupotassô, either by itself or in the middle/passive voice, means voluntary self-instigated subjugation, then that means the demons voluntary subjected themselves to Jesus in, e.g., Luke 10:17. (FWIW, in NT Greek plural neuter nouns normally take a singular verb, which is why you see hupotassetai and not hupotassontai in Luke 10:17.) [Charis: see my blog Irresistible Submission: of devils to apostles and wives to husbands]

Which might be indicative of the recognition of His authority and the power of His name even in and by the demonic realm. [Charis: NOT! If they had any choice they wouldn't have been subject]

Re: Ephesians 5:24 and the middle/passive form of hupotassô there – Does the church voluntarily submit itself/herself to Christ as an act of self-instigation? I.e., can the church choose not to submit herself to Christ? Or is Paul stating something about the nature of the church – i.e., the church, being His body, by its very nature is subject to Christ, just as our limbs are subject to what we with our minds tell our hands, legs, feet, etc., to do – rather than saying that the church can choose whether or not to subject itself to its head? [source]  [Charis: the latter]

And here is another comment of Eric’s:

Ephesians 5:24:

αλλα ως η εκκλησια υποτασσεται τω Χριστω, ουτως και αι γυναικες τοις ανδρασιν εν παντι.

(Literal: But as the church submits/is-submitted to-the Christ, thus also the wives to-the/their husbands in all.)

My fairly literal translation:

But (in the same manner) as the church

a. middle: submits-itself
OR
b. passive: is-submitted [by God? by Christ? - i.e., who is the agent that causes the submission?]

to Christ,

thus also the wives

a. middle: [are to submit themselves]
OR
b. passive: [are submitted] [by God? by Christ? by their husbands? - i.e., who is the agent that causes the submission]

to their husbands in everything.

So, my questions are:

1. Do you agree with this translation of Ephesians 5:24, whether with the translation of hupotassetai as a middle (option a.) or with its translation as a passive (option b.)? If you disagree with any of this translation or with these translation options, please state what you think is a more correct translation and what other options for hupotassetai there might be, and why.

2. Do you think the verse should be translated according to option a., or do you think it should be translated according to option b.?

3. If you think one clause should be translated with one option, and the other clause should be translated with the other option, on what basis do you argue that the author meant two different meanings of hupotassetai in the same verse?

4. If you don’t think that hupotassetai (or, rather, a third-person plural form to agree in number with “wives”) is the implied verb of the second clause, what other verb do you suggest and/or how do you think the verse should read instead?

5. If you choose option b. or otherwise view hupotassetai as being a passive, who or what do you think is the agent (i.e., who or what makes the subjects – the church, the wives – submit)? [source]

My Reply:

My answer to your question is option B

The wife IS SUBJECT to her husband in EVERYTHING (Eph 5:24)- passive-
no choice in it,
no power to change it
perhaps not even conscious of it in most cases.
It is GOD who has subjected her.
That happened in Genesis 3:16

Eph 5:24 is DEscriptive not PREscriptive just like Genesis 3:16 and Romans 8:20.

Romans 8:20 illuminates the concept of passive subjection.

“For the creature [the woman,
and the man but that would be in the context of his work and is another topic]
was subjected to frustration [see Genesis 3:16 in the case of the woman]
not willingly
but by the will of the one [GOD]
who hath subjected the same in hope” Romans 8:20

“For the Creature was Subjected to Frustration…” Part 2

Continued from “For the creature was subjected to frustration…”

I believe we have to let the Word speak for itself and the hupotasso verb in Ephesians 5:24 (upotassetai) is in the Passive Voice.

Romans 8:20 is also in the Passive Voice:

“For the creature
was subjected to frustration
not willingly
but by the will of the one
who hath subjected the same in hope”
Romans 8:20

Romans 8:20 describes what occurred in Genesis 3:16.
Ephesians 5:24 also describes what occurred in Gen 3:16

“Therefore as the church is subject to Christ,
so also the wives [to] husbands in everything” Eph 5:24

The one who has subjected wives to their husbands is
not the husbands.
It is GOD.
It was done at the Fall.
And it is a subjection to frustration/vanity/futility IF the husband is a fleshly man. (Read Romans 8:20 in context)

The manner in which she IS SUBJECT (per Eph 5:24) is NOT something she chooses or is even conscious of. If her husband has been sowing death, she will be struggling, and (if she is churched) she will probably have been judged by church people as “an unsubmissive wife”. But that is not fair, nor is it true. The fact is she IS SUBJECT as described in Eph 5:24.

IMO, this is NOT something a wife should be sweating over! She has no choice, and she is powerless to change it. Its something a husband should be sweating over because he is the one who is supposed to nourish, cherish, and agape love (5X all ACTIVE VOICE, twice in the imperative in Eph 5). She IS SUBJECT to how he treats her. If he sows badly, he will reap ugliness.

Some of my egalitarian readers may be tempted to knee jerk dismiss the following because it refers to “spiritual leadership” but I do think Ken Nair gets intuitively that a wife IS SUBJECT to her husband, though he frames it in “spiritual leadership” language:

Quoted from Discovering The Mind Of A Woman The Key To Becoming A Strong And Irresistable Husband Is... by Ken Nair

Pg 115-116
In the previous chapter we covered symptoms that reveal a problem husband, a husband who is not living with his wife in an understanding way, who is not demonstrating Christlikeness in his attitudes toward her, who is not being encouraging and supportive, as Christ encourages and supports the church through thick and thin. I have discovered that all of these problems reveal a lack of sensitivity, a failure to minister to a wife’s spirit.

“Right”, you may be saying, even a bit sarcastically. “I’ve got to take all the blame for what’s wrong. But if you knew my wife, you wouldn’t say that I had failed. She had all these problems long before I met her.”

Granted. But let me ask you how long you have been married…

“Okay… HAS SHE GOTTEN BETTER OR WORSE SINCE YOU MARRIED HER?” I ask.

What would your answer be? Without fail, the husbands reply, “WORSE”. I that is your answer, then my next question is, “If you are the spiritual leader in your home, and the job of a spiritual leader is to bring the one you are responsible for to spiritual maturity, then why has your wife gotten worse instead of better?”

“they did not believe His messengers”

The Messengers by Hubert Edgar

“When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.”
Mark 16:1-14 (TNIV)

When I read this recently in my devotional time, I was struck by something I hadn’t noticed before and would like to pass it on to you.

Jesus told off the Eleven for two reasons. First was their lack of faith. Second was because they did not believe His messengers. Jesus sent women to confirm what He had told the Eleven would happen and they would not believe them. Was this because they were women? I’d suggest so. Otherwise it would just have been their lack of faith. [source]

And from the time of creation, a wife’s calling is to HELP her husband.  Christian husbands should be taught to LISTEN to their wives and RESPECT their discernment instead of “Adam’s big mistake was listening to Eve and I don’t intend to do likewise!”

“For the creature was subjected to frustration…”

Previously, I noted my recent realization that in several places, the  hupotasso verb describing how a wife “is subject” to her husband is Hupotasso in the Passive Voice: A Wife’s Submission is descriptive rather than prescriptive )

I have continued contemplating the passive voice of the wife’s subjection as stated in Ephesians 5:24:

“Therefore as the church is subject to Christ,
so also the wives [to] husbands in everything” Eph 5:24

I have investigated other occurrences of hupotasso in the passive voice.

Here is a question for readers along the lines of my recent contemplation.  The hupotasso verb below is also in the passive voice (different tense but passive voice).

“For the creature
was subjected to frustration
not willingly
but by the will of the one
who hath subjected the same in hope”
Romans 8:20

When did this occur?
What was the human female creature subjected to?
Hint: see Genesis 3:16

Continued: “For the Creature was Subjected to Frustration…” Part 2

Porn Sows Death: “Help Meet”/ezer is a Life-Saver!

What is a Christian wife to do if her husband is addicted to porn?

Rise up, Christian wife.   YOU are  his  help meet!

Katharine Bushnell (1856-1946) wrote:

“Woman was created as a help ‘meet,’ sufficient for man; and because it was ‘not good’  for him to be alone…. That is sham virtue in woman which lends a cloak or gives stimulus to vice in man. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ That which begets virtue in others is virtue; that which begets vice is vice. A wifely self-immolation which encourages masculine sensuality is vice. A feminine ‘humility’ which gives place for the growth of masculine egotism is vice.  [Quoted from   Lesson 53 "Meekness and Humility for Women" out of Katharine Bushnell's book "God's Word for Women"- available for purchase or for online viewing on the GWTW website] .

What is a “help meet”?  Genesis 2:20 describes the purpose of the creation of woman.  She is to be  the man’s “help meet”- ezer kenegdo in transliterated Hebrew.

The word ezer is used only twenty other places in the entire Old Testament. Fifteen of those are descriptions  of God Himself coming through for you when you need Him desperately: often life and death situations  with God as your only hope. Your ezer. If He is not there beside you… you are dead. Kenegdo means alongside, or opposite to, a counterpart. So, ezer kenegdo/”help meet” is a lifesaving partner.  What God has called a wife to be, HE will equip her to be!

What does this have to do with porn use?  Porn sows death.  His very spiritual life hangs in the balance.   Nowadays, porn use is at epidemic proportions among self professing Christians and even among pastors.  Here are just a few statistics taken from a large collection compiled by Blazing Grace:

* In December of 2000, the National Coalition to Protect Children and Families surveyed 5 Christian Campuses to see how the next generation of believers was doing with sexual purity:
48% of males admitted to current porn use
68% of males said they intentionally viewed a sexually explicit site at the school

* In 2000 Christianity Today survey, 33% of clergy admitted to having visited a sexually explicit Web site. Of those who had visited a porn site, 53% had visited such sites “a few times” in the past year, and 18% visit sexually explicit sites between a couple of times a month and more than once a week.

* Out of 81 pastors surveyed (74 males 7 female), 98% had been exposed to porn; 43% intentionally accessed a sexually explicit website
National Coalition survey of pastors. Seattle.  April 2000.

* In his book, “Men’s Secret Wars”, Patrick Means reveals a confidential survey of evangelical pastors and church lay leaders. Sixty-four percent of these Christian leaders confirm that they are struggling with sexual addiction or sexual compulsion including, but not limited to use of pornography, compulsive masturbation, or other secret sexual activity.

* In March of 2002 Rick Warren’s (author of the Purpose Driven life) Pastors.com website conducted a survey on porn use of 1351 pastors: 54% of the pastors had viewed Internet pornography within the last year, and 30% of these had visited within the last 30 days.

* 47% percent of families said pornography is a problem in their home.
Focus on the Family Poll, October 1, 2003.

* In a survey of over 500 Christian men at a men’s retreat, over 90% admitted that they were feeling disconnected from God because lust, porn, or fantasy had gained a foothold in their lives. As reported in an article on Pastors.com by Kenny Luck. (source)

My husband of over 25 years is a Christian who struggled with porn use.   Active membership in church did not bring deliverance, attempts to be part of male “accountability programs” did not bring deliverance.  Deliverance came only when I stopped listening to all the messages coming from various corners of evangelical Christian subculture about the duties of a Christian wife, started seeking God deeply and rose to the Holy Spirit’s challenge to  be transformed into the keeper at home and the help meet which God has called and authorized me to be.  Neither the church nor other male  “accountability partners” are on the front lines when it comes to victory over the scourge of porn in Christian homes.  I am convinced that the wife’s role is  key.  Biblically, she is the only one on earth who is called to be her husband’s  “help meet”/ezer kenegdo and expressly given authority over his very body (see 1 Cor 7).

There are very few real life examples of married couples in the NT.  Among them are Ananias and Sapphira.  You can read the account of them from Acts 5 here.  I must confess that I was guilty of entertaining what I refer to as a  “Sapphira spirit”.  Because the porn statistics are so deplorable among Christians, I have to wonder if many other Christian wives are also following in Sapphira’s footsteps?

Why did Sapphira follow her husband in death?  The passage explains that this happened because they “agreed together“ (Acts 5:9).  The Greek word there is derived from, sumphóneó with root words  sun- together and phóné -voice.  Strong’s concordance defines sumphoneo as “to call out with, to be in harmony, generally to agree”.  Note how the word resembles our English word “symphony”.

Ananias and Sapphira were harmonious; agreeable. But what did they agree to do? They agreed to to lie to the Holy Ghost (vs 3); to tempt the Spirit of the Lord (vs. 9).  The definition of “to tempt” provided here is “to challenge”.  They agree to lie to the Holy Spirit and to challenge the Holy Spirit.

Notice the repetition word for word of the birth of great fear, following the death of Ananias, and again following the death of Sapphira:

and came fear great Acts 5:5
καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος μέγας
kai egeneto phobos megas.

and came fear great Acts 5:11
καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος μέγας
kai egeneto phobos megas.

I am struck by the equality of responsibility, and of consequences.  I am also struck by the root cause of their death- an absence of appropriate FEAR!

Could a lack of appropriate FEAR be contributing to the epidemic of porn use and preventing revival among Christians?

Upon some word study of the teaching on marriage in  Ephesians 5, I realized that within marriage,  PHOBEO/fear is a responsibility expressly  placed upon the wife:

Eph 5:33 “wife that she fear [her] husband”

Bible translations are just that: translations.  The God breathed Word was originally given in Greek and Hebrew.   I believe the above rendition of Ephesians 5:33 (from the interlinear at biblos.com) is an honest translation which takes the God breathed Greek word at face value.

Is it comfortable?  Does it fit the tradition?  Do we like it?

Maybe not.  But I believe God has good reason for His instructions to wives, and I don’t believe it is merely a relic of a bygone era where wives were chattel.  Its truth and timeless.

I did some research and found several resources which acknowledge the FEAR meaning of Ephesians 5:33.

M. Barth (p. 662)  “the substitution of words softer than ‘fear’, e.g. ‘awe’, ‘reverence’, or ‘respect’, contradicts philological evidence and must be rejected in favor of the literal translation.” Thus, he interprets Ephesians 5.33: “Just as a political revolutionary must ‘fear’ the ‘wrath’ of the authorities, wives appear to be enjoined to live in ‘fear’ of (the wrath of) their husbands” (p. 649). [Ephesians by Markus Barth]

“‘fear’ is a better rendering than ‘reverence’ or ‘respect’”  page 437 The Letter to the Ephesians by P. T. O’Brien

Some teachings interpret wifely PHOBEO along the lines of  FEARing a pounding from their husbands and/or God if she “disrespects” her husband .  I suggest that the  FEAR instruction to wives has quite a different focus than that!   A  close look at the account of Ananias and Sapphira clarifies the intent and importance of GODLY FEAR in a marriage.   It does involve fear of consequences, but not from “disrespecting” her husband, No.  She should have the fear of consequences upon herself and the children from failing to stand up to him when he is headed in the wrong direction.  His porn use is sowing death, not only into his own spirit, but into the spirits of his wife and children.

Rather than living in FEAR of the WRATH of the husband- as the  quote from Barth states- I suggest that Paul and God’s intent is more along the lines of living in FEAR of the consequences of tolerating and  enabling lying to  the Holy Spirit.  Renounce the “Sapphira Spirit” and refuse to cover up and agree with a pretense of righteousness while your husband is keeping back, not part of the sale price of some land as did Ananias, but part of his very life.

GWTW’s  word study on “help meet”/ezer speaks of this courageous MEET help who will firmly oppose her husband’s unrighteousness:

The Torah Study for Reform Jews says, “From the time of creation, relationships between spouses have at times been adversarial.  In Genesis 2:18, God calls woman an ezer kenegdo, a “helper against him.” The great commentator Rashi takes the term literally to make a wonderful point: “If he [Adam] is worthy, [she will be] a help [ezer].  If he is not worthy [she will be] against him [kenegdo] for strife.” This Jewish study also described man and woman facing each other with arms raised holding an arch between them, giving a beautiful picture of equal responsibility

Rise up, Christian wife.   YOU are  his  help meet!

I confess: I usurped his God ordained position in the marriage!

On another thread, PT is patiently emphasizing the danger of  a wife usurping her husband’s position.

Could it be that you simply wanted to rule the roost and resented your husband? (Don’t answer.) In many cases, it is the independence of woman, cultivated by our culture, that dies the hardest in marriage. (Truthfully, marriage is torture for the selfish husband and selfish wife alike.) When she has to defer to her husband after living a life where she is told to be woman and “hear her roar,” coming into agreement with a husband is the last thing that she wants to do. She can obey a disagreeable boss for years and years, but a husband, not so! Too many wives feel entitled to dictate, set the agenda, change the agenda, and basically are trying to usurp the position of the husband

While I may not be understanding the matter just the way PT does, in my case, he is preaching to the choir!

I repent and renounce stealing my husband’s position and authority.  I found a good illustration of how MY marriage worked for 20+ years:

Notice the ROLE REVERSAL!
Tsk. Tsk!
That was me. I “usurped his position”.

Gary Thomas, author of a book which I highly recommend, says this in
“Sacred Influence”:

Helping Him Love You

In her role as an inspirational speaker, Jo has met many women whose husbands have cowed them into an “unhealthy doormat mode”. Sadly, sometimes this posture gets couched in religious language and represents a complete misreading of biblical submission. Jo observes, “Women don’t tell men what they need because we’ve been taught its selfish to even think of ourselves. In fact, some of us aren’t in touch with our own feelings enough to even know what we need…”

This “martyr” method of marriage, though common among well meaning Christian women, shortchanges both husband and wife. Your husband will prosper spiritually and personally by excelling in loving you. God designed marriage, in part, to help both husband and wife grow in character. If you do all the sacrificing, if your husband runs over you, he’s not growing; he’s shrinking, spiritually speaking. He’s becoming lower in character. You may well become a saint after living with such a man for twenty years, but he is going to become increasingly miserable, because ultimately, any man who treats others poorly begins to despise himself. This might sound backward, but you need to love your husband by teaching him how to love you, because its spiritually healthy for him to grow in loving you.

At one time, the thought of telling her husband what she needed would have sounded selfish to Jo, and she would have dismissed the thought. She has since learned that respect matters and that a husband won’t truly love a woman for whom he has no respect. Jo realized that if she didn’t respect herself, her husband would adopt that same attitude of disrespect….

An angry husband often acts as if only his wife needs to change. This is a false view based on a lack of respect.