musterion
Well-known member
I don't know Hebrew or Greek, I can only read a lexicon like anyone else. Does that actually say the woman will love the man?
ECT Q about what Paul said about marriage
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
I don't know Hebrew or Greek, I can only read a lexicon like anyone else. Does that actually say the woman will love the man?
musterion
Well-known member
I agree with that.
musterion
Well-known member
That too.
That is exactly my thought. And the woman is not to do this for him.
Your desire shall be for your husband. He had to work in the garden [Ge 3:17] (which he was already doing by the way).
musterion
Well-known member
Thinking out loud here. Show me where I'm missing anything.
1. The husband (literally or analogously) the head of the wife (v. 23) just as Christ is literally Head of the Church which is His Body.
2. Since He loved us enough to give Himself for us, husbands are likewise to love the wives as He loved us, sacrificially if need be. No argument there.
3. Wives, in turn, are to submit/reverence/fear their husbands as all members of Christ are to reverence Him, but they are not specifically instructed to love their husbands.
4. It would be assumed members of Christ - knowing what He did for us - would love Him without needing told to love Him.
Would that be the simplest reason Paul didn't bother telling wives to love husbands? Given that he was speaking more broadly of Christ and His Church (yes Tet, we knew that), did Paul assume that wives would love their husbands just as it's safely assumed believers love Christ? Or am I trying to read into Paul's marriage/Body analogy more than he intended to convey?
1. The husband (literally or analogously) the head of the wife (v. 23) just as Christ is literally Head of the Church which is His Body.
2. Since He loved us enough to give Himself for us, husbands are likewise to love the wives as He loved us, sacrificially if need be. No argument there.
3. Wives, in turn, are to submit/reverence/fear their husbands as all members of Christ are to reverence Him, but they are not specifically instructed to love their husbands.
4. It would be assumed members of Christ - knowing what He did for us - would love Him without needing told to love Him.
Would that be the simplest reason Paul didn't bother telling wives to love husbands? Given that he was speaking more broadly of Christ and His Church (yes Tet, we knew that), did Paul assume that wives would love their husbands just as it's safely assumed believers love Christ? Or am I trying to read into Paul's marriage/Body analogy more than he intended to convey?
She must love God over him (Ge 3:16). A wife submits supremely to Christ and secondarily to her husband. She is not treasonous if she puts Christ first (Piper).
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
The "desire" there is not love.
It's desire (תְּשׁוּקָה). It's part of the fall. She must get her priorities in order.
genuineoriginal
New member
genuineoriginal
New member
Close, but believers are told to love God as well as submit/reverence/fear Him, so something is missing from the comparison.
Maybe you are trying to read too much into it.
When we look in the Old Testament, which Paul referenced often, we find this passage:
Numbers 30:2-8 2 If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. 3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. 6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her. |
This passage shows that God recognizes the husband or father as the head of the household over the woman.
This relationship between the husband and the wife from the Old Testament may be all that is needed to explain why Paul didn't see any reason to tell the wives to love (provide for and sacrifice for) the husband, but did see a reason to tell the wives to submit/reverence/fear the husband.
Yes it does.
We do not have to love Christ for Him to love us.
There is no reciprocity in the relationship. If there was, we would be doomed.
It's grace. Grace isn't built on reciprocity.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
First off, Paul said great is the mystery Adam prophesied.
He was only speaking of one part of that great mystery.
Christ and the church.
Secondly the OP is wrong.
Love and obey, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Y'all been watchn' too much of the history channel.
1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine:
2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience;
3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things--
4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
He was only speaking of one part of that great mystery.
Christ and the church.
Secondly the OP is wrong.
Love and obey, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Y'all been watchn' too much of the history channel.
1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine:
2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience;
3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things--
4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
The living with your wife according to knowledge means sexual knowledge.
Adam "knew" his wife.
I guess this means to live in such a way with the wife where she is uninhibited from sexually approaching her husband. This would require cohabitation with her where she is comfortable.
I think.
The word Eros is never used in the NT
And in the OT there is no word for sex. It is Ahavah - physical love, the love act.
Adam "knew" his wife.
I guess this means to live in such a way with the wife where she is uninhibited from sexually approaching her husband. This would require cohabitation with her where she is comfortable.
I think.
The word Eros is never used in the NT
And in the OT there is no word for sex. It is Ahavah - physical love, the love act.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Because of what needs to be emphasized by the husband and wife.
The man needs to focus on loving the wife, while the woman needs to focus on respecting the husband.
Being wired a little differently, the woman needs to be loved more, the man needs the respect of the woman
Ephesians 5
Interplanner
Well-known member
What does 'turn on feelings' mean and why is it not possible? Do you mean that men can't become more emotionally articulate? Do you mean that men should not be overcome by emotions and 'quit' on a relationship?
Realistically, can anybody be 'commanded' to love ? If you didn't love your spouse anymore could a command make you love again ?
Interplanner
Well-known member
I think there is something here about male-female differences. Men see themselves more independent than women do even when they are married. He is calling them back to decide to love their wife in particular.
The way the wife loves the husband is the subjection (not always competing with his decisions), and the respect (no marriage can survive a sharp tongue that scorns or spites a partner's character). I think there is a disadvantage to a woman's superior verbal skills (on the average) and it that they will say most of what they think, even though it can be extremely damaging. I don't think a wife has to do very much of the more obvious care or love for the husband to know he is loved, but if there is competition and scorning, then he doesn't believe he is loved. Then those things from other women become extremely dangerous for him, more tempting than beauty or physical attractiveness.
An additional note on beauty. Wives should make themselves as pretty as possible in a way that communicates the same subjection or respect. When they let it go and it is out of spite or contention, it is very damaging. Like many other things in life, there can't just be outward beauty by itself because the weight of disaffection will make it repulsive to the husband. There has to be honor-beauty; outward beauty (or at least the solid attempt at it) because honor and respect are due.
Lon
Well-known member
Humbly submitted, he did:
Ephesians 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.
Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Likewise, men are told to submit to their wives also:
Ephesians 5:21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Genesis 3:16-19 discusses problems after the Fall. One is that a woman would have a hard time submitting, and that man would rule over his wife.
The husband would have to sacrifice and care for his wife by hard work.
Ephesians, to me, seems to embrace again the difficulties in marriage between the sexes and so it is more specific to what following Christ means both to the husband and the wife, most specifically to their role and marriage and perhaps their gender and needs. I believe Paul reminds us what the other needs, and more importantly, shows that marriage is really a picture of Christ and His Church in reflection (another reason I believe scripture demands God's definite foreknowledge, because Christ was planned before the foundations). As such, the order of things was not only planned and directed, but created this way as part of God's overall plan to make good marriages, and reflect upon the very nature of God, as well as teach the Church how they are loved by the Savior, and how they are to be toward, and understand their Savior.
Again, humbly submitted in reverence to scripture, those reading, and Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior,
-Lon