“Wives submit to your husbands”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is weird. This only works if the man basically is being a good person and asking the woman what she wants. Which is basically an egalitarian marriage anyway.

Exactly. Basically men were in charge of making money and keeping people safe. Women should have listened to them on these topics. Not on how to cook if that wasn't the guy's job. Honor whatever you spouse is contributing positively to the marriage. Of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

The issue here isn’t about imposing arbitrary, cultural stereotypes on the text—it’s about understanding Scripture in its full historical and theological context. The Bible is clear that submission is mutual in marriage (Ephesians 5:21), grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love. The passage in question doesn’t diminish the bride; it calls both spouses to reflect Christ in their relationship. Lydia, Deborah, and Junia are excellent examples of strong, faithful women—but their stories don’t negate or contradict Paul’s teachings on marriage; they affirm that each role in the Body of Christ has purpose and dignity.

If we strip away the context of biblical passages and insert modern frameworks like “Jesus Feminism,” we risk distorting the text to fit fleeting cultural trends instead of wrestling with the actual meaning it offers. I’d encourage a deeper dive into biblical theology rather than assigning modern narratives onto the “Word of God”. The text is challenging enough without the need for additional layers of interpretation that reduce its depth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

The issue here isn’t about imposing arbitrary, cultural stereotypes on the text—it’s about understanding Scripture in its full historical and theological context. The Bible is clear that submission is mutual in marriage (Ephesians 5:21), grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love. The passage in question doesn’t diminish the bride; it calls both spouses to reflect Christ in their relationship. Lydia, Deborah, and Junia are excellent examples of strong, faithful women—but their stories don’t negate or contradict Paul’s teachings on marriage; they affirm that each role in the Body of Christ has purpose and dignity.

If we strip away the context of biblical passages and insert modern frameworks like “Jesus Feminism,” we risk distorting the text to fit fleeting cultural trends instead of wrestling with the actual meaning it offers. I’d encourage a deeper dive into biblical theology rather than assigning modern narratives onto the “Word of God”. The text is challenging enough without the need for additional layers of interpretation that reduce its depth.

But it's not the word of god, it's the word of men.

[Anonymous]

Project 2025
“Men head of household “

Welcome to the new order maga women you signed your rights away

You also signed no more births in hospitals with doctors or payment for maternity care.

Aren’t you smart ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

The issue here isn’t about imposing arbitrary, cultural stereotypes on the text—it’s about understanding Scripture in its full historical and theological context. The Bible is clear that submission is mutual in marriage (Ephesians 5:21), grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love. The passage in question doesn’t diminish the bride; it calls both spouses to reflect Christ in their relationship. Lydia, Deborah, and Junia are excellent examples of strong, faithful women—but their stories don’t negate or contradict Paul’s teachings on marriage; they affirm that each role in the Body of Christ has purpose and dignity.

If we strip away the context of biblical passages and insert modern frameworks like “Jesus Feminism,” we risk distorting the text to fit fleeting cultural trends instead of wrestling with the actual meaning it offers. I’d encourage a deeper dive into biblical theology rather than assigning modern narratives onto the “Word of God”. The text is challenging enough without the need for additional layers of interpretation that reduce its depth.

But it's not the word of god, it's the word of men.

That’s precisely the point I’m making. To truly understand the text, you must approach it on its own terms—analyzing it within the framework of its context, purpose, and perspective, rather than imposing your own assumptions onto it. This is something as basic as what you learn in middle school literature classes: interpreting a work requires understanding it from the author’s perspective, not your own. Without doing so, you misunderstand its meaning entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Project 2025
“Men head of household “

Welcome to the new order maga women you signed your rights away

You also signed no more births in hospitals with doctors or payment for maternity care.

Aren’t you smart ?

Are you equating people who practice a religion with MAGA? Because the actual maga crowd is fake religious. Be clear about that. They are distorting religious text (held upside down no less) for personal power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

What do you mean it’s “interesting?” It’s not trivia, it’s a piece of context that puts the entire authority of these texts into question. And it puts whether you should take them literally into question at the very least.

The biblical texts are documents that were chosen in a very specific time and place by a very specific group of people with their own agendas. They didn’t fall out of the sky. Christianity does not require turning off your brain in such a profound way that you ignore context completely. No church determines my relationship with Christ- my own mind and soul do.

Not even sure why you suggest telling the bride and groom anything.

As to your last sentence, this whole thread is about a Bible verse read at a wedding.

To your broader point, that the epistles were determined to be authoritative by a specific group of men in a specific group of time, you are correct. But that’s also true of the Gospels.

If the contextual process for selection into the New Testament undermines the authority of the epistles (a perfectly logical position to take), it does the same for the Gospels and you kind of have a bigger problem to deal with then what Paul may or may not have actually authored and the substance of what the epistles say.

If only your own mind and soul determines your relationship with Christ (perfectly fine position to take) perhaps you can stop telling everyone else what their relationship with Christ and the New Testament scriptures should be?

dp.. the entire Bible was put together by a bunch of men who decided which books they wanted to be in the Bible and which they didn't. They were "inspired" by God to do so, but that doesn't make them infallible.

BTW, the Gospels don't talk about wives submitting to their husbands. They mostly talk about what happened with Jesus and what He said.

It was Paul, a zealot, who wrote that in the letters.

So do Christians live by Paul’s words? I know many fundamentalists do but others don’t? I’m genuinely curious

What do you mean by "live by"? You study, listen, learn, meditate on various religious texts, searching for meaning and what meaning it may have in this age, in your community, and in your life. It's not all one thing to all people in all times. There is a whole lot of writing in the Bible, with many translations, and much contradiction and vagueness. It's not like a recipe to follow. It's a process of living and learning and doing your best to figure out what your role is in this life and what comes next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

What do you mean it’s “interesting?” It’s not trivia, it’s a piece of context that puts the entire authority of these texts into question. And it puts whether you should take them literally into question at the very least.

The biblical texts are documents that were chosen in a very specific time and place by a very specific group of people with their own agendas. They didn’t fall out of the sky. Christianity does not require turning off your brain in such a profound way that you ignore context completely. No church determines my relationship with Christ- my own mind and soul do.

Not even sure why you suggest telling the bride and groom anything.

As to your last sentence, this whole thread is about a Bible verse read at a wedding.

To your broader point, that the epistles were determined to be authoritative by a specific group of men in a specific group of time, you are correct. But that’s also true of the Gospels.

If the contextual process for selection into the New Testament undermines the authority of the epistles (a perfectly logical position to take), it does the same for the Gospels and you kind of have a bigger problem to deal with then what Paul may or may not have actually authored and the substance of what the epistles say.

If only your own mind and soul determines your relationship with Christ (perfectly fine position to take) perhaps you can stop telling everyone else what their relationship with Christ and the New Testament scriptures should be?

dp.. the entire Bible was put together by a bunch of men who decided which books they wanted to be in the Bible and which they didn't. They were "inspired" by God to do so, but that doesn't make them infallible.

BTW, the Gospels don't talk about wives submitting to their husbands. They mostly talk about what happened with Jesus and what He said.

It was Paul, a zealot, who wrote that in the letters.

So do Christians live by Paul’s words? I know many fundamentalists do but others don’t? I’m genuinely curious

What do you mean by "live by"? You study, listen, learn, meditate on various religious texts, searching for meaning and what meaning it may have in this age, in your community, and in your life. It's not all one thing to all people in all times. There is a whole lot of writing in the Bible, with many translations, and much contradiction and vagueness. It's not like a recipe to follow. It's a process of living and learning and doing your best to figure out what your role is in this life and what comes next.

the Bible is so hard to figure out that I don't know why people bother with it, except that it's supposed to be a holy book, written by God, when actually it was written by people many years ago in foreign languages that are now often defunct. Things change so much, but the Bible doesn't. It your job to figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

The issue here isn’t about imposing arbitrary, cultural stereotypes on the text—it’s about understanding Scripture in its full historical and theological context. The Bible is clear that submission is mutual in marriage (Ephesians 5:21), grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love. The passage in question doesn’t diminish the bride; it calls both spouses to reflect Christ in their relationship. Lydia, Deborah, and Junia are excellent examples of strong, faithful women—but their stories don’t negate or contradict Paul’s teachings on marriage; they affirm that each role in the Body of Christ has purpose and dignity.

If we strip away the context of biblical passages and insert modern frameworks like “Jesus Feminism,” we risk distorting the text to fit fleeting cultural trends instead of wrestling with the actual meaning it offers. I’d encourage a deeper dive into biblical theology rather than assigning modern narratives onto the “Word of God”. The text is challenging enough without the need for additional layers of interpretation that reduce its depth.

Keep thinking about that. Learn Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. Get back to us in ten years when you’ve finished a divinity degree (If your husband and JD Vance let you).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

The issue here isn’t about imposing arbitrary, cultural stereotypes on the text—it’s about understanding Scripture in its full historical and theological context. The Bible is clear that submission is mutual in marriage (Ephesians 5:21), grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love. The passage in question doesn’t diminish the bride; it calls both spouses to reflect Christ in their relationship. Lydia, Deborah, and Junia are excellent examples of strong, faithful women—but their stories don’t negate or contradict Paul’s teachings on marriage; they affirm that each role in the Body of Christ has purpose and dignity.

If we strip away the context of biblical passages and insert modern frameworks like “Jesus Feminism,” we risk distorting the text to fit fleeting cultural trends instead of wrestling with the actual meaning it offers. I’d encourage a deeper dive into biblical theology rather than assigning modern narratives onto the “Word of God”. The text is challenging enough without the need for additional layers of interpretation that reduce its depth.

Keep thinking about that. Learn Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. Get back to us in ten years when you’ve finished a divinity degree (If your husband and JD Vance let you).

Resorting to sarcasm and condescension only highlights the lack of a serious argument. You don’t need a divinity degree or fluency in ancient languages to understand that interpreting any text requires context, logic, and intellectual honesty. Dismissing the conversation with childish jabs says more about your unwillingness to engage meaningfully than it does about the point being made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

The issue here isn’t about imposing arbitrary, cultural stereotypes on the text—it’s about understanding Scripture in its full historical and theological context. The Bible is clear that submission is mutual in marriage (Ephesians 5:21), grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love. The passage in question doesn’t diminish the bride; it calls both spouses to reflect Christ in their relationship. Lydia, Deborah, and Junia are excellent examples of strong, faithful women—but their stories don’t negate or contradict Paul’s teachings on marriage; they affirm that each role in the Body of Christ has purpose and dignity.

If we strip away the context of biblical passages and insert modern frameworks like “Jesus Feminism,” we risk distorting the text to fit fleeting cultural trends instead of wrestling with the actual meaning it offers. I’d encourage a deeper dive into biblical theology rather than assigning modern narratives onto the “Word of God”. The text is challenging enough without the need for additional layers of interpretation that reduce its depth.

Keep thinking about that. Learn Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. Get back to us in ten years when you’ve finished a divinity degree (If your husband and JD Vance let you).

Resorting to sarcasm and condescension only highlights the lack of a serious argument. You don’t need a divinity degree or fluency in ancient languages to understand that interpreting any text requires context, logic, and intellectual honesty. Dismissing the conversation with childish jabs says more about your unwillingness to engage meaningfully than it does about the point being made.

Why bother, though. Really - why try so hard to interpret this ancient text when there is so much modern, scholarly wisdom to be had?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

The issue here isn’t about imposing arbitrary, cultural stereotypes on the text—it’s about understanding Scripture in its full historical and theological context. The Bible is clear that submission is mutual in marriage (Ephesians 5:21), grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love. The passage in question doesn’t diminish the bride; it calls both spouses to reflect Christ in their relationship. Lydia, Deborah, and Junia are excellent examples of strong, faithful women—but their stories don’t negate or contradict Paul’s teachings on marriage; they affirm that each role in the Body of Christ has purpose and dignity.

If we strip away the context of biblical passages and insert modern frameworks like “Jesus Feminism,” we risk distorting the text to fit fleeting cultural trends instead of wrestling with the actual meaning it offers. I’d encourage a deeper dive into biblical theology rather than assigning modern narratives onto the “Word of God”. The text is challenging enough without the need for additional layers of interpretation that reduce its depth.

Keep thinking about that. Learn Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. Get back to us in ten years when you’ve finished a divinity degree (If your husband and JD Vance let you).

Resorting to sarcasm and condescension only highlights the lack of a serious argument. You don’t need a divinity degree or fluency in ancient languages to understand that interpreting any text requires context, logic, and intellectual honesty. Dismissing the conversation with childish jabs says more about your unwillingness to engage meaningfully than it does about the point being made.

But you are literally depending on someone else’s context, logic and intellectual honesty.

All people proven to not be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

The issue here isn’t about imposing arbitrary, cultural stereotypes on the text—it’s about understanding Scripture in its full historical and theological context. The Bible is clear that submission is mutual in marriage (Ephesians 5:21), grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love. The passage in question doesn’t diminish the bride; it calls both spouses to reflect Christ in their relationship. Lydia, Deborah, and Junia are excellent examples of strong, faithful women—but their stories don’t negate or contradict Paul’s teachings on marriage; they affirm that each role in the Body of Christ has purpose and dignity.

If we strip away the context of biblical passages and insert modern frameworks like “Jesus Feminism,” we risk distorting the text to fit fleeting cultural trends instead of wrestling with the actual meaning it offers. I’d encourage a deeper dive into biblical theology rather than assigning modern narratives onto the “Word of God”. The text is challenging enough without the need for additional layers of interpretation that reduce its depth.

Keep thinking about that. Learn Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. Get back to us in ten years when you’ve finished a divinity degree (If your husband and JD Vance let you).

Resorting to sarcasm and condescension only highlights the lack of a serious argument. You don’t need a divinity degree or fluency in ancient languages to understand that interpreting any text requires context, logic, and intellectual honesty. Dismissing the conversation with childish jabs says more about your unwillingness to engage meaningfully than it does about the point being made.

Why bother, though. Really - why try so hard to interpret this ancient text when there is so much modern, scholarly wisdom to be had?

Because ancient texts like the Bible have shaped civilizations, philosophies, and moral frameworks for thousands of years. To dismiss them in favor of only modern wisdom is to ignore the foundations upon which much of that modern thought is built. Engaging with both ancient and contemporary literatur, including the Bible, offers a richer understanding of humanity, culture, and truths (if there is any). I enjoy reading the Bible alongside modern and classical works because each contributes uniquely to a deeper perspective on life.

Outside of that, I also believe in God, which might not be the case for you. However, if you want to understand the Bible, you need to approach it through the lens of those who have studied and analyzed it in its proper context. You don’t have to agree with what is written, but dismissing it without context or study isn’t meaningful. It’s like trying to analyze Dostoevsky’s work as if it were part of the neoclassical period instead of understanding it within the realism he portrays in the Romantic era.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

I really recommend you to go to a bible study.

And I believe you could benefit from one as well. Sarah Bessey’s Jesus Feminist is a great jumping off place.

"I'm not quite sure when the Church decided that 'biblical' was the perfect adjective for subjective roles and situations. I don't think it's helped us. Usually when people use that phrase, they are thinking more about June Cleaver than the early church's Lydia, described as being 'diligent in business,' or perhaps a sanitized sitcom society that never actually existed instead of Deborah, the military strategist of Israel, let alone Junia, a respected apostle alongside Paul."

The issue here isn’t about imposing arbitrary, cultural stereotypes on the text—it’s about understanding Scripture in its full historical and theological context. The Bible is clear that submission is mutual in marriage (Ephesians 5:21), grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love. The passage in question doesn’t diminish the bride; it calls both spouses to reflect Christ in their relationship. Lydia, Deborah, and Junia are excellent examples of strong, faithful women—but their stories don’t negate or contradict Paul’s teachings on marriage; they affirm that each role in the Body of Christ has purpose and dignity.

If we strip away the context of biblical passages and insert modern frameworks like “Jesus Feminism,” we risk distorting the text to fit fleeting cultural trends instead of wrestling with the actual meaning it offers. I’d encourage a deeper dive into biblical theology rather than assigning modern narratives onto the “Word of God”. The text is challenging enough without the need for additional layers of interpretation that reduce its depth.

Keep thinking about that. Learn Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. Get back to us in ten years when you’ve finished a divinity degree (If your husband and JD Vance let you).

Resorting to sarcasm and condescension only highlights the lack of a serious argument. You don’t need a divinity degree or fluency in ancient languages to understand that interpreting any text requires context, logic, and intellectual honesty. Dismissing the conversation with childish jabs says more about your unwillingness to engage meaningfully than it does about the point being made.

But you are literally depending on someone else’s context, logic and intellectual honesty.

All people proven to not be honest.

t’s true that I read analyses by scholars and theologians, but that doesn’t mean I rely on them blindly. Their work provides valuable context; such as historical events, cultural influences, and linguistic insights; that I use to inform my own understanding. Engaging with their research doesn’t replace personal study; it enhances it. The Bible is the most analyzed book in the world, and for good reason, its impact on history, culture, and philosophy is unparalleled. Just as you’d study history by referencing primary sources alongside expert interpretations, the same applies to the Bible.