The Power Struggle

Today in my class of the history of marriage in America, I couldn't help but notice that our topic of discussion always seems to revolve around who had power in a marriage back in the day. The man had explicit power over his wife during that time period and the wife was expected to subject to his authority over her and "submit" to his leadership. Women, on the other hand, did, or at least could, have a great deal of power behind the scenes in the way of manipulation and essentially in destroying her husband's character. Divorce wasn't really a common option and in order to obtain one, it was a very lengthy and expensive process that required proof of adultery. As a result, in order to get out of an unhappy marriage by other means, the wife, usually, or sometimes the husband would just run off and leave their spouse and children behind. So then the discussion became, who gained or kept power in the marriage in these situations?

Who cares!

No one should have power in that marriage. That's probably why they failed so often or why the people were so unhappy in their marriage. Of course, that shows why marriage back in the day was so messed up--men were seen as superior, seen as masters over their wife--but then I left questioning, so why is marriage so messed up now?

It seems like there has been an increase in issues, in general, over the past few hundred years such as pollution, global climate change, population growth, broken families, and of course marriage. You look at the graphs and you see a steady increase until the past 50-100 years and, BAM, a huge rise in each of these areas. Why?

I wish I knew...

I was flipping through the stations on the radio on my way home from this class and heard the word "submission" on a Christian radio station and stopped. I listened to the discussion about the relationship between men and women in a marriage relationship and how submission plays a role in that. Submission. What a word with a strong connotation in today's society. Is it because we mishandled it back in the 1600-1800's?

Submission. What does it really mean? When Paul was talking about the roles of a husband and wife in Ephesians 5, he referred to the husband as the Greek word "kephale"--the head of his wife. "Kephale" is an interesting word and one that Paul chose wisely to prove his point. It is a military term that denotes the first into battle. It doesn't have the meaning or connotation that we give the word "head" in today's society. It doesn't mean that the man controls or rules over his wife, it means that he is to proceed her into battle. Paul specifically did not use the Greek word "archae" which would denote a leadership relationship or a ruler over someone or something. When he is speaking of the wife he uses the word "hupatasso" which means "to subject to" if used in the verb form. Here, Paul uses the imperative form when talking to the wives. If you're like me and can't exactly remember literary terms, the imperative form is the command form of a word. Here Paul is telling women to humbly subject themselves to their husbands--NOT out of fear or obedience but out of the knowledge that her husband is going first into battle and is bringing useful and beneficial knowledge back to protect her and lead her along. After all, the verse before Paul tells women to submit to their husbands he tells wives and husbands to submit to each other. How can two people submit to each other while one is supposed to be in charge and the other the follower (5:21-22)? How can two parts equally join together to make one whole when one of the parts is superior to the other? Oh wait...they can't ;)

Paul is a wise guy and I think it's no coincidence that he starts off this area of talking about marriage relationships with instruction to men, then to women, then to children, then to the slaves. He does this in order of importance, in my opinion. The men are first into battle, the women are next in line and are fighting alongside him, the children come last and are protected by both parents and the slaves come at the end to round up the troop. Right after talking about this family relationship, Paul then goes into talk about the spiritual armor we are to use in our lives. Coincidence that so much vocab is of military origin? I think not. I think Paul is specifically laying it out for us how we are to go into spiritual battle that we face every single day. The men are our warrior heroes on the front lines, followed by their faithful wives, then children, then slaves to cover the back end. He closes this all up with how we protect and guard ourselves during this time. Real Life.

Wow.

Paul flipping rocks and I have to say, I think we have it all wrong in our society and in actuality, always have. Things in marriage aren't necessarily getting worse, just the outcomes of the flaws are carried out differently. Divorce is more acceptable in today's society so people go into marriage with a mindset of the possibility of a quick out if things should go awry, not considering the full effect of the term commitment.

Times really haven't changed, just the form of the outcome has. Hmm, what will they think of next?