Wives, are you 'submissive' to your husbands?

definitely not. not a wife yet, but I don't think this will have any reason to change after we marry. again, equality is the key. if you have one leg significanltly longer or stronger than the other, you won't walk smoothly, the same could be said of a relationship. and I think he'd always admit I'm the brains of this. hehe. I work, I look after him (due to his illness he doesn't work at the moment) and he is getting very good at cooking and tidying up. this is good. if he worked and I didn't, or worked less, I'd be happy to do the bigger share of housework.

Its 2009, a person chooses to be submissive to their husband. it is an agreement made by both parties... this isnt the same as a sexist husband who feels all women should be barefoot pregnant and taking care of the house.

i'm lucky enough to having been raised by parents who don't believe in this. growing up we no longer had househelp, and my mom works too. me and my brother have their own respective chores. now i am married, i work as well and me and my husband have our own chores. who ever cooks doesn't have to clean the dishes, who ever does the laundry does not have to hang clothes. it's a tag team effort. and it's like even if it is a chore, it's something you and your partner do. in this way, no one takes for granted the effort to keep the house in tact, no one makes a mess that easily, you're grateful for the great meal you've just eaten etc. i am not really sure about wives should be submissive to their husbands. i just know what works for me. you wouldn't want to be submissive to a husband that's bad or is a criminal right? what you see in the bible shouldn't be always taken literal is what i believe. i'm submissive to my husband with things that i know are good and right. i support him in his endevours. for me that is enough. cleaning the house i think, isn't what God means ;)

Is this a serious discussion?.....LOL

This is a fascinating discussion. I think that is a very worthwhile discussion, and one that should be looked at in a serious vain. Let's look at the entire passage though because as with anything from the Bible, if taken out of context it can be misunderstood. The bible states in Ephesians 5:22 KJV "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord". Well, that can infuriate any woman if that is all she is looking at in today's society because the meaning of submission has changed and evolved over time. So, to further study this let us look at the rest of what Paul has to say. In 5:23-33 he says "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. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 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 in 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, 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". I think we need to take into account the historical times that Paul was writing. There were places that he wrote which were not the most upstanding, that had their own issues. In this case, there were issues that related to the treatment of wives and of children. In today's world we have these problems but there are very few theologians writing letters to heads of state urging them to stop behaviors. Getting back to the woman in all of this, she truly has the better end of the deal. She is asked merely to keep herself for her husband only. That is not such a bad thing, and most of us take it as normal in society that a woman should not be going around having affairs. I doubt very much that even Paul was telling a woman to sit there and take it. Not even in the Jewish faith do they agree with wife abuse, child abuse, or the like. I think in today's society with the modern day feminist movement somehow it's become polluted, dilluted, and muddied to the point that we have a skewed vision of what the wife's duty is in a home, and somehow think that it means that we don't have a mind if we keep up the home. I believe it is proverbs that gives the entire description of the job of a wife as it related to the Jewish community, and it's not all that bad of a deal. A wife would have run the household while her husband was out in the vineyards, shepherding, etc. This doesn't mean she was a doormat though. She was over finances, controlled the servants, the buying of goods, etc. So, she was very much respected because she needed to be smart enough to do the job. In Paul's passage here, the man is told he must be willing to sacrifice himself for his wife as Christ did for the church. Meaning, he must be willing to die for her. Whether or not Paul meant that literally is debatable, but it's a pretty stern command to the husband. Paul also tells the men that they should treat their wives as they do their own body. Yes, in today's society we have just as many abusers, etc as they did when Paul wrote this, but it is still a stern command. Paul is telling them the old saying "Treat others as you want to be treated". So, it is not a command to walk all over your wife and treat her poorly. It is a command telling a man to treat his wife well. It's an interesting take because in the Muslim community the Q'ran states something very similar. The muslim women I've met where I reside have a choice to work or stay home. If they work their money is their own to spend as they want, as is their husband's money. The husband has no income, it is to be given to his wife to run the house with. Unique difference in cultures. The muslim women I've met also have a great deal of freedom and respect of their husband's. I will see muslim men taking care of their children while the wife runs out with friends, etc. I think we could stand to take a bit from Paul's passage and realize that we as the wife have a duty to our husband's as well. We cannot take him for granted. In respecting ourselves, we show respect to him. We're not property, but we do reflect him. I think this is a concept found easier in the East then in the West. The West has rejected this belief, but let's even look at the asian culture. A man's wife reflects him in the business community and this must be a good reflection. It's not any different though then in the West when we say to someone "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree". Would you really want your children to be so foul in the world that people judge you by their actions? No. So, it stands to reason that you'd not want your husband's actions to reflect on the type of person you are, or vice versa. I definately don't think Paul was talking about equality, that seems a given in the text, as well as the culture. Women's work was not considered somehow beneath another's work. It was just a part of the culture. It seems that particular belief stemmed from later cultures in civilization, and it's something that somehow was warped in this society through the Puritans and has stayed with us. Not even the Vikings, who spent some time here first before settlers, thought of themselves in such thoughts. Women were just as equal. Great conversation!