"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)

Wonderment

Does anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?

First of all I think that a wife should respect her husband and that a husband should respect his wife. It goes both ways. However, when this was written women were property. They could not own land, have an inheritance or testify in court. So at that time a man did not have to respect his wife and for the most part it is obvious that women were not respected. At that time it was not even a concept to respect women or that women would want to be respected. Heck, God HAD TO TELL Abraham to listen to Sarah. That is why it is only emphasized a man should love his wife or cherish her. I think it would not be so offensive if it read something to the effect that husbands and wives should respect each other. I have always had a problem with the scriptures always stressing the wife should have respect for her husband and that a husband should love his wife? I am a woman and I would rather be respected than loved. You don't have to like me or love me but you damn well better respect me!

Doug Mason

Paul wrote that in God's sight, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". (Gal 3:28, NIV)

Paul used women in important roles.

Ephesians was written near the end of the first century, about 50 years after Paul died. It was written by a mysoginist who wanted to get his ideas accepted, so he pretended that the letter to the Ephesians was written by Paul.

This unacceptable process of forgery, of pretending that Paul wrote things that he did not write, happened with other NT writings, including Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and Hebrews.

For example, since Paul fully expected Jesus to return in his own day, while he was still alive, he urged people not to marry, nor was he concerned at organisational structure. However, towards the end of the first century, when it became painfully aware that Paul's expectations of an imminent return would not be fulfilled, the ecclesias started to speak about organising theselves (elders, etc.), even saying that the leader had to be married; they also tried to silence women and told them their purpose was to be subservient and pregnant.

Thus, not only did these later ideas not come from Paul, and are contrary to his teachings, they were fraudently put forward as having been written by Paul.

Doug

Band on the Run

I spit on Paul's letters literally (not the actual manuscripts) for all the niggardly little, stupid rules. When I read Paul for the first time as I would read a book, I was shocked. Almost all the revolting, nauseating women submission scriptures were in letters he did not write. I read John Dominic Crossan's book on Paul and the Roman Empire.

I was so used to totally despising Paul from the Witnesses (the name Timothy makes me sick), I could not read clearly. There was much new information for me in the book. Paul was a true feminist. --for his time. Jesus was too. The scripture quote above --there is neither male nor female in Christ -- and the references to important church leaders who were women --reveal so much of Paul's general theology.

It is extraordinary how you can read the same words, be excellent in reading comprehension, and still read what you are told will be there rather than the actual text.

Admiring Paul is so shocking to me.

.... Now go fix me my sandwich.

Go get your own damn sandwich

"the wife should have deep respect for her husband" (Eph 5:33)

Wonderment

meangirl

Doug Mason

Band on the Run

Hortensia

dm6

Broken Promises

dm6

Broken Promises

dm6

Share this