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

by Wonderment 41 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  nugget

  You cannot demand respect if there is no basis for it. It would have been more useful for the scripture to place the onus for getting respect on the husband rather than the wife. A wife cannot show respect to a bully, a wastral or a womaniser or to someone who abdicates responsibility at home.

  You can respect another person's feelings and respect that they have a right to their opinions and have ar right to express them but to respect a husband in the biblical sense means to be subservient to them. The act of respect in this case does not assume equality of status by respecting the husband the wife is asked to diminsh herself and deny any greater skills or abilities. This is an enormous sacrifice of self and almost impossible to achieve.

  What does the wife get in return a command to the husband to love his wife. This reinforces the wife's inferior status almost reduced to a pet in the household since the husband is told to feed and cherish her. There is no meeting of minds in this scenario.
• 

  possible-san

  Wonderment.

  Thank you for replying.

  However, I feel you have ignored the bible versions I cited that reflects Paul's strong exhortation at Eph. 5:33.

  Yeah.
  I do not agree with those Bible versions/translations.
  but I suppose that you knew it from the start well.

  But I quoted a certain translation.
  That is, the "International Standard Version."

  Well, for me, those Bible versions are not "ultimate/absolute authority."
  If they are "ultimate authority" for you, you do not need to learn Greek.

  I never said that Paul used a strict imperative, but a "substitute" imperative, or as a grammarian calls it, "a practical imperative."
  Why use that instead of a straight imperative?

  I think that I have explained the basis of my assertion to you, even if you do not agree with that.
  Moreover, I said your explanation regarding "a practical imperative" is right/correct.

  Perhaps, because it is kinder to say, "the wife should have deep respect* for her husband," instead of saying: "Fear your husbands!"
  Which sounds better?

  I think that this comparison is strange.
  Your assertion is that (Eph 5:33) is the "imperative."
  And my assertion is that (Eph 5:33) is not the "imperative mood."

  In English, we adapt our approach all the time when we give advice to others, so as not to sound too harsh.
  Hey, who wants to get a woman upset? I think that is what Paul did here.

  I beg to differ.
  I do not agree with your opinion.

  First of all, in this thread, you would want to say that we should not apply that trashy advice (Eph 5:33), won't you?
  You said, "Does anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?"http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/214754/1/the-wife-should-have-deep-respect-for-her-husband-Eph-5-33
  
  And many people who speak English in this forum showed rejection to that Paul's advice.
  It is because that is a "tone of command", IMO.

  possible
• 

  LongHairGal

  Wonderment:

  I suppose the spirit of it should still be in force today. But, respect should be mutual. And let me say just because a person respects someone, doesn't mean they have no respect for themselves. It is respect, not abject servility. They are not the same thing although a lot of uneducated people think they are!

  Nugget:

  I totally agree with your post. A husband has to be worthy of respect and if he fits your description of bully, wastrel, womanizer or irresponsible slacker, he is deserving of none. Sadly, too many men in this day and age fit some or all of these descriptions and somebody who fits even one of these descriptions is not husband material. While all throughout history, many men were bullies and sometimes womanizers, it is in the modern times in the western world that you have men who are wastrels and slackers. The last two are phenomenon of our wonderful modern world. A woman is far better off single rather than settle for any of these. As far as I am concerned, the little bit of sex she gets would not be worth it!
• 

  Bella15

  If you are a Christian, and within Christianity yes still applies/should apply.

  But like so many other stuff in the WATCHTOWER CORPORATION and other cults, they use these scriptures to promote a "sick" respect for men/husbands among us women. For some JW's wive this "respect" turns them into emotional, physical, sexual abuse VICTIMS, which is not the intended spirit of that biblical advice.

  Now that I am a Christian, and believe that the Holy Spirit helps me to understand bible principles, I can apply these to my everyday life and I am way happier than ever. I am re-married and I love and respect my husband, but the respect that I now have for him comes from the admiration I have for him. We encourage each other to be better persons, friends, parents, neighbors, Christians, volunteers, citizens, etc... we encourage each other to get ahead in life, set goals for the future, take care of our health and bodies/appearance, we cheered each other's accomplishments and yield to each other knowing that we BOTH are children of the MOST HIGH GOD. I think that we both have a "healthy" view of the biblical commands when it comes to the relationship of husband and wife, but don't get me wrong, we are very casual, spontaneous, "young" contemporary traditionals, everybody always comments on how much fun we always have with each other (and our children sick - lol), and trust me, it is not a "show" - it comes naturally but part of it is because we are so happy to be spiritual and emotional free and we regard each other as children of God, not slaves or servants, but CHILDREN of our Heavenly Father. This makes a huge difference in the way you put into practice a lot of biblical principles - of course Watchtower CORPORATION and other cults puts you into a sick "slave", "servant" relationship with God thus that relationship causes "pain," as it is a heavy yoke on you. God through the bible tells us that his commandments should result in benefits, happiness, joy, life for us and most of all should glorify HIM - so if you are not feeling this or the results do not glorify God and your results are not a light for others ... you getting pears from an apple tree, something is out of line.

  As long as another person, cult CORPORATION, tells you how to live the biblical commands, what they mean, how to apply them in your life as if they were God, if it is not the Spirit within you leading/teaching/reaveling you, I think it will always result in "death" so to say. The biblical commands are to be lived in the Spirit and to accomplish this one has to be born again of the Spirit, you cannot be applying/living spiritual concepts in the flesh, you have to be "in the Spirit." As believers, followers of Jesus Christ, our realm is the Spiritual realm, spiritually speaking we are not of this world of flesh. Oil and water don't mix. Biblical advice which it is intended to be lived in the Spirit to produce its fruit, cannot be lived in the flesh. Of course the benefits can be seen in the flesh, but cannot be accomplish or obtain in the flesh, for this you have the Spiritual. One has to believe you are in a covenant relationship of Father/Child with God.

  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1st Corinthians 2:14).
• 

  Wonderment

  possible-san said: First of all, in this thread, you would want to say that we should not apply that trashy advice (Eph 5:33), won't you? You said, "Does anyone here think this command still applies in force today as it did 2000 years ago?"

  You are actually saying something I never stated. I merely posted the question above in this thread because I was really curious to see how many on this board interpret the passage today. And I got the answer. A good number of posters think it does not apply today, and some others have stated that it still applies, others stated that it applies conditionally, only if a man is deserving of respect.

  I believe the counsel still applies, but unfortunately, many men today abuse their position of headship, making it challenging for many women to love and respect their men.
• 

  Terry

  "Should"?

  Modern Psychologists have rooted this word out of counseling altogether because it implies an absolute from authority rather than personal choice.

  Why not say, "Husbands should behave in a respectible manner so that their wives may admire them?"

  I can accept that it was probably a good idea, in the 1st Century, for wives to FEAR their husbands! Women's rights were a privilege and not a right.
• 

  possible-san

  Wonderment.

  I merely posted the question above in this thread because I was really curious to see how many on this board interpret the passage today.
  And I got the answer.
  A good number of posters think it does not apply today, and some others have stated that it still applies, others stated that it applies conditionally, only if a man is deserving of respect.
  I believe the counsel still applies, but unfortunately, many men today abuse their position of headship, making it challenging for many women to love and respect their men.

  OK, I see.
  You want to know many people's "interpret the passage."
  Then, I also show you my interpretation.

  I have accepted Dr. Joseph Murphy's explanation.
  He has said like this.

  "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands ...(Ephesians 5:22).
  The wife in the Bible is your subconscious mind, and the husband is the conscious mind.
  Psychologically speaking, the subconscious (wife) is subject to the conscious mind (husband).
  This, of course, is not true in their personal relationship.
  All of us operate the male and female principle within us."
  
  (Within you is the power, by Dr. Joseph Murphy, DeVorss and Company, Inc., Marina del Rey, California, 1977. pp. 103, 104)

  Where do you live in the country?
  If you live in the U.S., that is the home of the "New Thought" Churches.
  But, in Japan, there is no such church.

  Well, I do not interpret the Bible literally.
  And, I am not a fundamentalist.
  But, probably, I am a person who is particular about Greek more than you. LOL

  In the standpoint of my belief (for me, since the wife means the subconscious), I do not care about whether that is an "imperative."
  But my explanation "that is not the imperative mood" may be help for people who do not interpret symbolically like me.

  Paul did use the imperative mood to "Slaves" (Eph 6:5), and "Fathers" (Eph 6:4), and "Children" (Eph 6:1), and "Husband" (Eph 5:33).
  But, he did not use the imperative mood to the "wife/Sisters" (Eph 5:33).
  Moreover, If you look at the Greek text of "Eph 5:22", he is not using even the word "submit/ in subjection."
  That is, he has chosen the word very carefully, when telling about the "wife/Sisters."
  But, people who read the "NIV" in English cannot notice that.

  possible
• 

  Wonderment

  possible-san: Sorry, I don't take any stock in Dr. Joseph Murphy's explanation as you quoted him.

  On the subject of the Greek expression hina phobetai at Eph 5:33 , Dr. Daniel B. Wallace wrote under, "Specific Uses, In Dependent (Subordinate) Clauses [...] b. Hina + the Subjunctive [...] 7) ImperativalHina...Eph 5:33... The parallel with the imperative agapáto in the first half of the verse shows the independent force of the hina clause." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 477)

  On page 486 he adds: "A number of passages could be easily misunderstood as mere permission in most English translations [...] The Greek is stronger than a mere option, engaging the volition and placing a requirement on the individual:...Eph 5:33..."
• 

  possible-san

  Wonderment.

  Sorry, I don't take any stock in Dr. Joseph Murphy's explanation as you quoted him.

  Are you an idiot?
  Weren't you merely questioning people about the interpretation?
  
  You should appreciate/thank first to my having taught you my interpretation, IMO.
  I think that it is a lie that you said you were merely asking a question.

  On page 486 he adds:
  "A number of passages could be easily misunderstood as mere permission in most English translations [...]
  The Greek is stronger than a mere option, engaging the volition and placing a requirement on the individual:...
  Eph 5:33..."

  You have ignored the part of the words which I emphasized.
  That is, "in most English translations."
  That is "Bible versions" which you consider as "ultimate authority."

  possible
• 

  possible-san

  Wonderment.

  On page 486 he adds:
  "A number of passages could be easily misunderstood as mere permission in most English translations [...]
  The Greek is stronger than a mere option, engaging the volition and placing a requirement on the individual:...
  Eph 5:33..."

  Since I felt that this explanation in that literature you quoted is strange, I investigated it by myself.

  This is an "explanatory note" (footnote) in that book (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel B. Wallace).
  The Scriptures which he is referring to are as follows.

  "1 Tim 4:12", and "Matt 5:31, 37; 11:15; 13:9, 43; 16:24; 18:17; 19:12; Mark 4:9; 8:34; Luke 16:29; Acts 1:20; 2:14; Rom 14:5; 15:11; 1 Cor 1:31; 3:18; 4:1; 7:3, 9 (probable); 11:6; 2 Cor 10:17; Gal 6:4; Eph 5:33; Phil 4:5, 6; Col 2:16; 1 Tim 2:11; 3:10; 4:12; 5:16, 17; Heb 1:6; 13:1; Jas 1:4-6, 9; 5:14, 20; Rev 2:7; 3:22; 13:18."

  And, he has stated like this in the text to which this footnote is attached.
  

  "the third person imperative is normally translated Let him do, etc.
  This is easily confused in English with a permissive idea.
  Its force is more akin to he must, however, or periphrastically, I command him to ...
  
  (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel B. Wallace. p. 486)

  That is, he (Daniel B. Wallace) is talking about the "imperative mood."
  Therefore, "Eph 5:33" which he referred to is the explanation regarding "agapato" (imperative mood).

  I feel that such a deceitful citation is unpardonable.

  possible