Wifely submission/subjection doesn't come up in the Ten Commandments (which is interesting, what with the way it's proclaimed by some to be the answer to societal woes). Children are to obey parents in the Big Ten, but wives (and slaves) are not commanded to obey. Apparently, their subjection wasn't important enough to rate inclusion, but why, I wonder?I would posit that it's because children are in a state of needing someone wiser and older to obey. The obedience of children makes sense: the toddler isn't aware that running in front of the car is dangerous. He needs a shepherd to guide him into maturity.
As an adult, he will respect his parents for what they did for him, but he will no longer obey them as a child. In fact, if things run their course, it will one day be the parents "obeying" the child, as he gently leads them to finely chopped meals and helps them clean themselves when bodily wastes emit.
In otherwords, the obedience of a child is a temporary thing in order for the child to grow into a competant capable adult. Interestingly, this is also how authority in church leadership is defined by Paul, as a temporary thing in order to get those "younger" to a place of equal or greater maturity than that of the leader (see Ephesians 4:11-13).
As is the case with children, are women literally in need of a masculine authority to obey in order to be safe, in order for them to walk in wisdom (whether in the home or in the church)?
If so, when does the woman get to grow into maturity? And why does both the authority of the parent and the church leader act as a tool to aid the "younger" to grow to a place of maturity (and thus the authorities "job" is to work him/herself out of a job, as it were), but the authority of the husband (in the complementarian framework) remain something the woman must always be subject to?
In other words, why does female subjection not seem to make good common sense (to me, anyways) when so many of the other commands do?
