To Lauren, thank you for transcribing the passage from Numbers! I had totally forgotten about it, altho' I think it was gently warming on the back-left-burner that is my mind. I knew I'd been influenced thru Scripture to see Eve as a bit of an air-head (which says nothing of Adam being a coward), and I believe that was the passage.

Kevin, I know of some Apcrophal literature that teaches that such was indeed the case with Adam's FIRST wife, "Lillith", who became the "mother" of witches and other female apparitions of the Evil One. Don't know if Google might have something to offer on that.

And, finally, dear LQ, you may call me "Tum-tum" any time! ;-)

A great delineation between Biblical submission and its corrupt substitutes. It's also sad that many times there are dangers for wives submitting to husbands who are not submitted to Christ and therefore willing to lay down their lives for them per Eph. 5. And its also sad that this aspect of marriage is too often under emphasized from the pulpit when the other is preached.

I've wondered myself what would have happened if Adam hadn't followed Eve in eating from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and I think Numbers 30:10-15 might shed some light on the issue of how Adam's headship would have applied to the rebellion Eve entered into with Satan: “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will release her. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt.” (This may also contain the answer for why Adam is held responsible for the sin of the human race: His headship, and his late nullification of the contract. Of course, the Bible also says that Eve was deceived, while Adam was not.)

If Adam had refused to join Eve in her rebellion, and she had been willing to repent, Adam could have annulled the deal she'd entered into, and the Lord would have released her from it.

The boorishness of some men who want their wives to submit is tangential to the theological question, Lee.

Jason and Carol, I now have tunes from a certain Broadway musical running around in my head. Thanks. ;-)

Worse, yesterday I heard a presiding judge (the one who in this county assigns the other judges to particular trials) describe her job as "mostly administrative, like herding cats - very **smart** cats."

But per the topic I'll note that men who want their wives to submit also tend to misinterpret the injunction for husbands to love their wives sacrificially. In their terms, as I've experienced it, "sacrifice" tends to not encompass golf, hunting, fishing, watching football, working on cars, surfing the Internet, etc. So it's not just that they get the wife's role wrong; they get *both* of them wrong.

Kevin, it's been a while since I read "The Silence of Adam" by Dr. Larry Crabb (who, along with many others, rode the wave of the Promise Keepers movement). But as I recall, that book makes special mention of Adam's duplicity, and tries to build the case that therefore men have extra responsibility to lead - rather than following, as Adam did. On the other hand, I think you're onto something - anyone who would enslave their wife would need to do so from a superior position, wouldn't they? (I watched the William Wilberforce movie "Amazing Grace" again recently, and the shocking bit is the assumption by many Englishmen that those with dark skin were inherently inferior. And of course, this works with gender, also - from within a non-Biblical worldview.) But if both are sinners, then *neither* is superior...

The other day as I was reading it in my quiet time and came to 3:17, I had the idle thought, "How would things have been different had Eve succumbed to temptation but not Adam?" That would have been an interesting marriage (and world), don't you think?-- one partner fallen and in need of a Savior, the other not so? (Or is that kind of a picture of Christ and His Church, His bride?)

Well politeness doesn't really work with cats either. But at least they will obey the order to get off one's bed if you don't want them there.

Jason, I have 3 cats, none of whom are any better at taking orders than yours. However, I find that if I ask politely, and explain why I need them to do something, they will usually comply. Let me know how that works for you.

As for the submission thing, I'm surprised that no one (so far) has brought up the most obvious reason! Go back to Genesis: it was EVE who was deluded, manipulated, and fell for it hook-line-and-sinker. Does that mean that all men make good and holy decisions, and all women never do? Of course not! In my old age, I have come to realize the depths of how differently men and women think, and the differences are remarkable. As President Truman reportedly said, "The buck stops here". It's got to stop somewhere.

I know a few people who interpret these verses as saying that submission is only required of a wife who is loved as Christ loved the Church. That's a very romantic idea, but I don't think it gets off the ground. Or, maybe, it does and that explains the current divorce rate.

In any case, the human reaction to this verse certainly is telling. What it tells us is that we are definitely seeded with original sin!

For whatever the reason, the Bible does in fact say what it says and that is an explanation for why it in fact does so. If you must know I cannot imagine being overbearing to be among my vices, seeing that the only creature I have ever given orders to on a regular basis was my cat and cats are notoriously mutinous.

(Glad you're still around, Ben. My condolences on the loss by the Steelers; I'd hoped you'd bite on the Tebow/Roethlisberger post, but this one will do just fine.)

The Message renders Ephesians 5:22-24 thusly:
"Wives, understand and support your husbands in ways that show your support for Christ. The husband provides leadership to his wife the way Christ does to his church, not by domineering but by cherishing. So just as the church submits to Christ as he exercises such leadership, wives should likewise submit to their husbands."

And you're correct (as usual) Jason, but note that all the social changes arising from the foundation of Christianity included social changes in husband/wife relationships. Essentially, everything was open to question. So I interpret Paul as saying (rather like Ben indicates) "Don't abuse your freedom, ladies. You've been freed from the near-slavery of traditional marriages, but you need to develop relationships that are winsome to new converts, outsiders, and society as a whole."

For us in the USA, this is almost the norm; it's rather shocking to see a woman behaving like a doormat toward her husband (as I have observed in some fundamentalist couples, whether Christians, Mormons, or Muslims).

For those in the First Century Middle East and Europe, it must have been shocking to see husbands treating their wives as equals. One can certainly understand how the wives might not know quite how to react.

Personally, whenever I see someone try to use a Bible verse to restrict another person's freedom (versus, say, restricting *their own* freedom), I become suspicious. At this website, http://www.goodnewsdispatch.org/erwin.html , the "Dealing with Manipulators" video by Gayle Erwin nails this in the first 3 minutes (in the first minute, in fact), but is well worth the investment of time. (As I've said before, Gayle answers the "What would it be like to have Rolley as my Sunday School teacher?" question.)

And I'll note that today, the majority of the student bodies of most college campuses are women. I'd suggest that therefore it would be more prudent for *men* to do the submitting to the more educated gender, if I wasn't aware of what tends to be taught in college classes... but I don't want to hijack Kim's post.

"As for why a wife should submit, well the logical answer is that someone has to submit to someone or nothing will get done."

Hmm. I don't think I've ever had a time where my wife and I disagreed on a course of action where eventually we couldn't settle it with calm discussion. So, there hasn't been a time where one of us actually needed to submit to the other, but if we did - am I really going to be right more than 50% of the time? We might as well roll a dice to see who gets to decide.

Keeping the attitude of "we're partners" helps me keep from getting cocky and overconfident, and forces me to consider my wife's opinion carefully, even when I'd maybe rather not.

Quite true. Women are not called upon to submit to "men" as a group, which would, just to start with make Great Britain look rather odd. I doubt Good Queen Vicky would have been amused at the idea.

As for submitting to husband I always assume it means that the wife is to be a first officer or consigliere. That wasn't quite the case in Paul's time when the Meditterranean gender-role model would have been in effect(though even then a strong-willed matron had a lot of clout). But it has been that way in much of Christian and pre-christian civilization, from the notoriously sharp-tongued Icelandic wives to the Frontier wives in Westerns who bear a distinct resemblance.

As for why a wife should submit, well the logical answer is that someone has to submit to someone or nothing will get done. Also that authority says nothing about the virtue of the commander or the obeyer.

One side-note that might be mentioned is that in many societies the age gap between husband and wife was traditionally greater and therefore it is more understandable.