Submission is tough, the spirit of God should intervene & save us a great deal of confusion. Pilate's wife sent a msg to her husand who at that time was judging Christ

Firstly, we must accept the whole Bible as a message from God that can NEVER go out of date. If the Bible says a man survived for three days and three nights in the belly of a fish, then that is exactly what happened. How can anyone claim to be a Christian if they do not believe that? Such a claim would certainly be fraudulent. Jesus himself confirmed that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and nights (Matthew 12:29-41). There is no way that anyone can be a genuine Christian if they reject the teachings of Christ, i.e. Jesus, the son of God. Secondly, there have been comments in regard to the word “submission” in the Bible actually referring to respect or love, and not to obedience. Ephesians 5 seems to be a quote people keep going to, so let’s take a look at it. Verse 21 states the overall principle that EVERYONE has the responsibility to submit to each other. Verses 22-33 continue on with an explanation of how that principle should be followed by each participant in the marriage. The responsibility of everyone to submit to each other, shown in verse 21 does not render verse 22 meaningless. Verse 22 states the particular responsibility of the wife to submit to her husband. There is no passage anywhere in the Bible that explicitly states that a husband is to submit himself to his wife. In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul forbids a woman (possibly a wife specifically) to exercise authority over a man (possibly a husband specifically). The submission of the wife toward the husband in Ephesians 5:22 is a clarification of how verse 21 should be applied by the wife in a marriage. Jesus (who the husband represents in a marriage) certainly did serve and minister to his disciples (who the wife represents in a marriage). Nevertheless, he was still their Lord and Master (John 13:13). Because he is their Lord, they have the responsibility to do the things that he says (Luke 6:46). The service and ministry of Christ to his disciples cannot neutralise his authority over them. Returning to Ephesians 5, verse 23 explains why the wife is to submit to her husband, as to the Lord. It is because he is her head, just as Christ is the head of the church. This is where the authority comes in. The husband is the head, i.e. God has appointed him to a position of authority over the wife, just as He has appointed Christ to a position of authority over the church. Notice, though, that the passage says that she is to submit HERSELF. The husband does not have the right to have a submissive wife, just as the wife does not have the right to have a loving husband. Both have their own responsibilities to fulfil, NOT their own rights to enjoy. People do not have God-given rights – only God-given responsibilities. If either party does not fulfil their responsibility, God will deal with them as He sees fit. 1 Peter 3:7 states that if a man does not treat his wife appropriately, his prayers will be hindered. This is very serious indeed. If he cannot effectively pray for the forgiveness of his sins, he is in serious danger of condemnation at the judgement. In some cases it may be necessary for the church to intervene in a domestic situation, and it is their responsibility to do so when appropriate. Nevertheless, a person’s responsibility to fulfil their own role within the marriage is independent of their spouse’s fulfilment (or lack of fulfilment) of the other role. The reason given in Ephesians 5 for the wife’s submission to her husband is that he is her head, NOT that he is a wonderful man who loves her with an amazing, self-sacrificing love (Greek: agape) to which she has naturally responded with said submission. 1 Peter 3:1-7 is a commentary on the marriage of Abraham and Sarah. Sarah is commended for having such an attitude of submissiveness, that she called Abraham “lord” in her heart. Peter does not specify that she did this in her heart, but it is shown in the record in Genesis 18:12. This word “lord” was ...

The moral limits of wifely submission is illustrated in the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The wife was given the opportunity to defy her husband for the sake of the truth and be judged as her own person. In fact, Peter expected her to tell a different story than her husband when questioned ouside of his presence or he wouldn't have asked her separately. Yet many Christians still interpret selective portions of Scriptures to mean that the husband has the final moral say in the marriage, coming even between a woman and God. This is the Greek view of marriage, and it should have been buried with Ananias and Sapphira centuries ago.

Christine perhaps! Agreed! I just remember your comment well because it made me laugh - and boy do we need to laugh sometimes! :)

Ann - I made the train wreck comment, and apparently it's not appropriate to make a tongue-in-cheek comment on here even though I did not engage in any of the name calling and outright nastiness I have often read on this site. (see comment above by Joanne) Perhaps it wasn't cynical enough?

Moral of the story is - 1. Only marry a Christian man you can follow and submit to who also thinks godly advice from his wife is a blessing not a burden to his leadership. 2. In a Christian marriage, the husband is not the highest authority. Jesus is, then the govt, then the church leaders. If a husband is breaking laws of the bible and laws of the country (within reason), then we become first and foremost are Christians before wives, and it is our responsibility to rebuke gently and lead them to repentance, if that doesn't work, you take it to church Elders for mediation or discipline action, and if they have committed a crime you call the police. Simple.

Where were the train wreck comment and other comments gone? Some of them made some good and valued points though short. Yes I believe the author of this article was trying their best and gave in a way some good fodder for thinking in a way and I can see where they were trying to come from but to remove the comments of others who object to this blog post and why they did is a bit of a stretch? Let the people have their say - wow. They weren't calling anybody names of anything.... some had some good points - At least four posts but have been removed? I thought the one about how you can't compare Christianity and Islam and use the same approach in addressing how this lady may or may not be acting towards her husband as they are so far from each other is not an ideal thing to do. And the other suggestions regarding how there is no real insight into how it is for ladies in this culture portrayed through this article in their opinion. There is nothing wrong with that or them saying that! That is IMPORTANT. There wasn't anything wrong with that post besides someone saying their view. wow Why would they be removed? I can't believe you guys have removed posts. I am a bit in shock. There was no name calling or being rude in some that were removed 0_0 I guess this comment will be removed as well probably. Do you not understand that some of your readers are viewing some of the posts you do as being against God's Word? Why do you keep covering that up and hiding it when it does happen? Please let us know by what criteria you are removing posts so I can careful for now on to not cross that line but to honey coat what I have to say.... Anyway.... Thanks Joanne

Ann with the Christianthinktank quote is right on. As for this '[submission] It means duck so when God swings a punch it misses you.' ????I can't wrap my mind around this kind of teaching and that women follow it.

Respectfully, I found this article to be both poorly written and reasoned. Firstly, while we are told of Lady Asma's beauty, and her acts of charity which are obligatory for any First Lady, we hear nothing of her beliefs or her motivations. We therefore have no basis for knowing why or if she even has a reason for "standing up" to her husband. Secondly, there is an unmentioned, but quite deceptive comparison of the faith of the Assads with Christianity. The jump from Alma's support for her husband to that of unity in Christian marriage is like jumping from a burka to a bikini. The religious, cultural, legal and social differences are too numerous to mention. We would have to know what is there in the Assad's faith that would give the First Lady grounds for "standing up" to her husband. Thirdly and finally, if any woman married to a dictator or tyrant has ever had any influence on his war-mongering I am yet to be enlightened about it. Both women and marriage are complex as well as the reasons why women marry and stay married to dynastic dictators like Assad. What may be relevant, however is the old adage that power is attractive and seductive and that it corrupts. The longer one has it, no matter how acquired, the more one wants to hold on to it. In my experience I have never known this not to be true, unfortunately, not even in Christian circles.

On what basis do you believe Assad to be the villain and the rebels to be those in the right? Do you know what the goals of the rebels are? Freedom is a great ideal, but freedom for what -- freedom for terror and Islam at its worst? On what basis do you justify the rebels? Their methods have certainly not been without violence. Pilate's wife spoke up, but Jesus was still killed. Unverified emails are cited while to post on your site to reduce spam, verification is needed. Be careful of your sources, and be sure you consider sources from both those basicly in favor of whatever situation/ person involved and those who are basicly against. Most likely somewhere in between the two you'll find truth. Do you really believe that the majority of media reporting is unbiased, perfectly objective?! Wake up to reality. The tip of the iceberg of what's happening in Syria is barely visible. I wonder with what part of Syrian life the author is truly familiar and what caused her to choose Asma as a subject for her article!!