Wives submit to your husbands

[phoebe]

Ok, looks to me that enough has been said.  MMbuddy is just repeating his assertion without evidence and not dealing with the evidence of rebuttals.

Perhaps he just needs our attention?


V

No,  I have a wife for that.

Really. I thought you were a teenager.

[kensington]

Now... FINALLY.. something interesting is said. 

[Volkmar]

Ok, looks to me that enough has been said.  MMbuddy is just repeating his assertion without evidence and not dealing with the evidence of rebuttals.

Perhaps he just needs our attention?


V

No,  I have a wife for that.

Hey bro,

You got the quotes thing right!  Did your wife help with that?


V

[WileyClarkson]

Posted by: emilylauren

I'm not "offended" or "appalled" that wives would be asked to submit to their husbands, but I do tend to have a negative 'knee-jerk' reaction to the idea that husbands simply need to love their wives but ultimatly have "authoritarian rule" and as long as they do so "lovingly" they are obeying God. This, I fear, places wives towards the level of children. And it is the idea of leaving ones parents only to, essentially, have a second father that many women (myself at least) are "offended" over.
Wiley added emphasis)

Well, you are very close to the way life was for women in the mid 1st Century.  It wasn't quite as bad in the Jewish marriage but worse in the Roman/Greek marriages.  Women in the Roman world were actually closer to just one step up from slavery and children had no rights at all, even less than male slaves, who actually had some special rights for doing the master's business that the wife was never given.  Exposure of female babies to let them die was a common practice and abortioin was legal and could be demanded by the husband. The wife was legally required to do exactly what the husband said to do or could be severly punished.  The husband, under certain conditions, could terminate the wife's life legally with out fear. 

You are quite correct in how you feel when someone puts the wives must submit to the husband in everything view in the church's teaching and practice or tells you this how it must be.  It is a view that treats women as inferior to men and places the wife in the category of a "modern legal slave."  I, for one, cannot understand how Christians can go along with this view of marriage.  When placed in its proper historical perspective, Paul is really just giving advice as to how women could survive the marriages they were in until a better understanding and practice comes into practice.  What I continue to find amazing is that, after 2000 years, we still can't seem to get a grasp on what Paul was saying and change our ways!  Then again, we still haven't gotten a grasp on the idea that, as
Christians, we are to submit to each other, so it doesn't surprise me so much that we can't grasp the idea of mutual submission in the marriage!

[Mystery Man]

Ok, looks to me that enough has been said.  MMbuddy is just repeating his assertion without evidence and not dealing with the evidence of rebuttals.

Perhaps he just needs our attention?


V

No,  I have a wife for that.

Hey bro,

You got the quotes thing right!  Did your wife help with that?


V

No -- My dog

[Mystery Man]

Posted by: emilylauren

I'm not "offended" or "appalled" that wives would be asked to submit to their husbands, but I do tend to have a negative 'knee-jerk' reaction to the idea that husbands simply need to love their wives but ultimatly have "authoritarian rule" and as long as they do so "lovingly" they are obeying God. This, I fear, places wives towards the level of children. And it is the idea of leaving ones parents only to, essentially, have a second father that many women (myself at least) are "offended" over.
Wiley added emphasis)

Well, you are very close to the way life was for women in the mid 1st Century.  It wasn't quite as bad in the Jewish marriage but worse in the Roman/Greek marriages.  Women in the Roman world were actually closer to just one step up from slavery and children had no rights at all, even less than male slaves, who actually had some special rights for doing the master's business that the wife was never given.  Exposure of female babies to let them die was a common practice and abortioin was legal and could be demanded by the husband. The wife was legally required to do exactly what the husband said to do or could be severly punished.  The husband, under certain conditions, could terminate the wife's life legally with out fear. 

You are quite correct in how you feel when someone puts the wives must submit to the husband in everything view in the church's teaching and practice or tells you this how it must be.  It is a view that treats women as inferior to men and places the wife in the category of a "modern legal slave."  I, for one, cannot understand how Christians can go along with this view of marriage.  When placed in its proper historical perspective, Paul is really just giving advice as to how women could survive the marriages they were in until a better understanding and practice comes into practice.  What I continue to find amazing is that, after 2000 years, we still can't seem to get a grasp on what Paul was saying and change our ways!  Then again, we still haven't gotten a grasp on the idea that, as
Christians, we are to submit to each other, so it doesn't surprise me so much that we can't grasp the idea of mutual submission in the marriage!

Here is the problem.   People down play the role of the husband and elevate the role of the woman.

When Jesus told us that the husband is to "love" his wife "as" Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.  < That is the love Jesus was talking about.   

Wives submit ---- Husbands -- Love and give yourself for his body.

[grace]

Wives submit ---- Husbands -- Love and give yourself for his body.

AMEN!

[yogi bear]

I agree with emilylauren on this. That is what i was trying to point out. It is equal LOVE in the marriage. While it is true that the husband is the head of the house it does not mean that he is King and all others are servants. He is love just as equal as she is to love. he is to give her just as much as she is to give him. They are to be as one as God and Christ are one and we are one in them. Just because the husband is placed as the head of the house does not give him the right to be demanding and have it all his way. He is to love and respect his wife just as she is to him. They are equal cause they are one. His body is not just his but hers to as hers is not just hers but his to and neither are to keep from the other with out mutual agreement and only for a spell then to come together as before with out denying one or the other. We become one when we marry neither is mightier than the other but one and equal cause one is one not two working separately.

Well I guess that I am doing a poor job of trying to express what I think the text was teaching but I do think that some of us have not been taught the complete thought that was to be expressed with the text. Long story short even though the roles are set in the text I think we miss understand the point that was being made. One is not higher than the other but are one in the marriage and are to love equally. Even though the husband is said to be the head of the house does not give him power to treat his spouse as an unequal. Even Jesus does not do that he said we are one in him what is his is ours.

[kensington]

Nice...  and true.

[Volkmar]

Ok, looks to me that enough has been said.  MMbuddy is just repeating his assertion without evidence and not dealing with the evidence of rebuttals.

Perhaps he just needs our attention?


V

No,  I have a wife for that.

Hey bro,

You got the quotes thing right!  Did your wife help with that?


V

No -- My dog

So, your dog receives more deference than your wife?

[Volkmar]

I don't think anyone here has been arguing for a wife over her husband style marriage. If you are trying to argue against a "husband over his wife" marriage, where is the logic of trying to promote the opposite?

Rather, I believe the biblical idea is that the husband's love, agape, self-sacrificial love mirrors his wife's submission and respect. That is, she "submits" to him and seeks to make him happy just as he "submits" to her and tries to have her happy.

And I think that, given the state of "traditional" marriages today you have to knock the husband down a few pegs and elevate the wife up a little. In this way, both become equal. I'm not arguing to elevate a wife above her husband-- just to the level of him.

Right.  Good perspective.


V

[Volkmar]

I agree with emilylauren on this. That is what i was trying to point out. It is equal LOVE in the marriage. While it is true that the husband is the head of the house it does not mean that he is King and all others are servants. He is love just as equal as she is to love. he is to give her just as much as she is to give him. They are to be as one as God and Christ are one and we are one in them. Just because the husband is placed as the head of the house does not give him the right to be demanding and have it all his way. He is to love and respect his wife just as she is to him. They are equal cause they are one. His body is not just his but hers to as hers is not just hers but his to and neither are to keep from the other with out mutual agreement and only for a spell then to come together as before with out denying one or the other. We become one when we marry neither is mightier than the other but one and equal cause one is one not two working separately.

Well I guess that I am doing a poor job of trying to express what I think the text was teaching but I do think that some of us have not been taught the complete thought that was to be expressed with the text. Long story short even though the roles are set in the text I think we miss understand the point that was being made. One is not higher than the other but are one in the marriage and are to love equally. Even though the husband is said to be the head of the house does not give him power to treat his spouse as an unequal. Even Jesus does not do that he said we are one in him what is his is ours.

Bill,

With all respect toward you brother, ...  Where/when has Jesus or the Apostles told us that "the husband is the HEAD of the house"?  (I know that "culture" has said that...)


V

[kensington]

Well, he is the head over the wife and they have to live somewhere...  So the house makes sense to me.  Or the cave, the boat, the apartment, the tent, the tree ... where the marriage dwells, the husband is the head.  I hope this helps, I know Bvag did not intend to confuse you.

[Volkmar]

Well, he is the head over the wife and they have to live somewhere...  So the house makes sense to me.  Or the cave, the boat, the apartment, the tent, the tree ... where the marriage dwells, the husband is the head.  I hope this helps, I know Bvag did not intend to confuse you.

LOL!!   

Bill hasn't confused me.  We speak the same language seein' hows we live nearly the same neck of the woods ;o)  And, I'm sure that Bill is quite capable of providing an explanation.

Kensington, what is somewhat confusing is your statement that the husband is "head over the wife."  I did two searches in two commonly used translations and in both instances the only time  "head over" is used is in reference to Christ being the "head over".  (Eph. 1:22; Col. 2:10)

If a man is put in the position of being the "head over the wife", then the husband is supplanting the rightful place of Christ.  Hmm....


V

[yogi bear]

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Eph 5:23 (KJV)

V,
I am working off the above passage and the way the "culture" is defining it today. Even with the definition it has been given today it still falls short of the lesson being taught in the text I think.

The way I see it even if it is taken as Head over the house and wife submits it does not give man more power over the woman to treat her as he pleases. It is hard to work with all the different opinions of what verse 22 & 23 means without dealing with it on the level it is being talked about.

[Volkmar]

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Eph 5:23 (KJV)

V,
I am working off the above passage and the way the "culture" is defining it today. Even with the definition it has been given today it still falls short of the lesson being taught in the text I think.

The way I see it even if it is taken as Head over the house and wife submits it does not give man more power over the woman to treat her as he pleases. It is hard to work with all the different opinions of what verse 22 & 23 means without dealing with it on the level it is being talked about.

Thanks Bill.  Gotcha.

Once again, allow me to point out that in our culture when we see the word "head" used in the Epistles we reflexively provide the word "over", just as Kensington did in the post above my prior post.  However, in the culture in which Paul lived and wrote "head" (kephale) did not inherently carry the meaning of "over" or "ranking above" as "leader" or "chief". 

(Actually, as I've argued earlier with MMbuddy, only the Eph. 1:22 passage actually has the word "over" [huper] in the text; the Col. 2:10 passage does not have any word which could translate "over", rather, the translators were interpretive and supplied the word "over" so the passage would read more like they thought it should read.)   

"Kephale" ("head") denotes "source" or "origin" or "first principle", and in some places it is used to refer to the physical head that is attached to our neck.

The awkward thing is that since the word "head" in English has the meaning of "leader" and the Greek word kephale did not have that meaning, we are stuck with the realization that even by translating kephale as "head," we are not using an equivalent.

It is a tricky thing to find a conversation about men and women that is not infused with the notion that the man is the leader or servant leader. And yet, women throughout scripture and throughout the history of the church have acted on their own moral judgement and God's calling without a male leader. We must not commit to a meaning for a word that denies the scriptures as well as moral and ethical realities.

English Bibles blog


V

[Mystery Man]

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Eph 5:23 (KJV)

V,
I am working off the above passage and the way the "culture" is defining it today. Even with the definition it has been given today it still falls short of the lesson being taught in the text I think.

The way I see it even if it is taken as Head over the house and wife submits it does not give man more power over the woman to treat her as he pleases. It is hard to work with all the different opinions of what verse 22 & 23 means without dealing with it on the level it is being talked about.

Thanks Bill.  Gotcha.

Once again, allow me to point out that in our culture when we see the word "head" used in the Epistles we reflexively provide the word "over", just as Kensington did in the post above my prior post.  However, in the culture in which Paul lived and wrote "head" (kephale) did not inherently carry the meaning of "over" or "ranking above" as "leader" or "chief". 

(Actually, as I've argued earlier with MMbuddy, only the Eph. 1:22 passage actually has the word "over" [huper] in the text; the Col. 2:10 passage does not have any word which could translate "over", rather, the translators were interpretive and supplied the word "over" so the passage would read more like they thought it should read.)   

"Kephale" ("head") denotes "source" or "origin" or "first principle", and in some places it is used to refer to the physical head that is attached to our neck.

The awkward thing is that since the word "head" in English has the meaning of "leader" and the Greek word kephale did not have that meaning, we are stuck with the realization that even by translating kephale as "head," we are not using an equivalent.

It is a tricky thing to find a conversation about men and women that is not infused with the notion that the man is the leader or servant leader. And yet, women throughout scripture and throughout the history of the church have acted on their own moral judgement and God's calling without a male leader. We must not commit to a meaning for a word that denies the scriptures as well as moral and ethical realities.

English Bibles blog


V

Does not the head "tell" the hand what to do ?  Does not the head "tell" the feet where to walk ?   

The word "head" also means truth within the Word of God.  Where on the flip side, the tail deals with lies.

[grace]

[
Does not the head "tell" the hand what to do ?  Does not the head "tell" the feet where to walk ?   

The word "head" also means truth within the Word of God.  Where on the flip side, the tail deals with lies.

Yes! and how is Christ the head of the church? What authority does He have over the church?

[WileyClarkson]

Without the body that contains the heart  (and, if I'm not mistaken, the ancients actually believed the heart to be the source of life, love, feelings, etc,) the head would be dead and not the head of anything!  It takes both the head and the body for anything to happen and the head cannot make a decission without the body accepting the decission!

The head used in the sense of the source for the body, IN THAT TIME FRAME, was the idea of "the woman draws life from the man." That was very true in the 1st entury.  Women were at the mercey of men--period.  Their very lives (existence) depended on men.  A woman on her own had trouble surviving!  The male was the source of body strength, which it took to make a living in the hard life of the 1st Century.  The female, not having the physical strength, was at the mercy of the male in a life where physical strength was everything!  The cruelty that could occur directed at females, which was quite legal in those societies, is replecated in today's world in the Taliban society!  The standard life practice for men over women in today's world is replicated in the Arab society, and in numerous other societies in the world today where females have no worth.  

We miss very important teaching if we assign control roles as in I (husband) control my wife (body) because I am the head of the wife and the wife MUST submist to the husband!  It takes both in submission to each other as a single entity, the head sending the signal to beat and the heart willingly beating for the body to live or the body to move.  If a part of the heart dies to some form of cruelty, excess, etc, the head and the body will die oe suffer irrepairable damage!  When the head does not give the signal to beat and the heart does not beat,  both will die.  The head draws life from the heart in the same manor as the heart looks to the head for the signal to beat, so it also draws life from the source.  If the heart refuses to beat when the signal is sent, regardless of how many pulses (commands) are sent to the heart to beat, then both will die.  It takes mutual submission to each other for the life of both.  When we marry, we step from being two independent people who have absolutely no control over each other, possessing our own heads and hearts, to become one person, joined by God, to become a whole single person, as God has intended right from the beginning.  The body of one does not decapitate itself because it joins another that has a head.  Neither does the other amputate the body at the neck because it is getting the body of another.  Neither is lesser than the other and neither is over the other just because they go from being 100% separate to being 100% combined!  We are male and female wholes individually and become a husband and wife whole with 1/2 being male and 1/2 being female to form a single whole unit, which has its representation in Adam before Eve was taken out of him, and then is represented in Adam and Eve being recombined to make a marriage and whole unit again.  Eve was not made lesser in the Garden just because she was taken out of Adam.  She was equal in all ways to Adam.  To be a suitable helper for Adam, she could not be a lesser persoln than Adam!  She had to be an equal to Adam.  Adam said, This is bine of my bone and flesh of my flesh!"  To make her lesser would make Adam a lesser being than God created!  There is no head as in the idea of the boss of the marriage, having 51%, 75%, or 100% of the control.  It is 50% plus 50% to make a single 100% unit.

Because we do NOT teach what marriage was really like for women from after leaving the Garden through the time of Christ, and up to the present time frame for that matter, and only in recent years has the church begun to recognize the importance of teaching marriage in a more appropriate context, most people get the entirely wrong idea of what Paul is saying, IMO.  We just say someone was married and that is it!  As a result, we still can't seem to get a grasp on the true impact of what Paul says in Ephesians, Galations, and Corinthians regarding marriage.  We still have a considerable problem of seeing Greek words translated in a way that acurately reflects their true intent, especially when dealing with gender issues and marriage issues.

As Christians, a husband and wife are required to be in submission to each other.  As men and women who are Christians in the church we are required to be in submission to each other.  That is the impact that Gal 3:26-28 has on us.   We all stand equal under Jesus Christ when we are his followers and it is something that also goes into the marriage as an overiding principle.  We are to be in submission to each other as Christians as we are to submit to Christ.  That also plays into the the idea of female Christians being eldersor whatever in the church.  Elders are not rulers of our lives.  They are shepherds who lead from a servant position.  Servant means someone who serves others.  Leadership by serving from the low position of servant is open to all if they possess certain qualities that make them servant leaders.

As I said in a previous post, Paul was telling the readers of THAT TIME FRAME, especially the FEMALES, how to survive the customs of the day.  The same held true for men, only I believe he was telling men that they were to be above the customs and practices of their time frame in how they had to "love" their wives in a totally self sacrificing way--something that was not understood or practiced by most Christians and non-Chirstians of the 1st Century and I would say it is basically unchaned today--which is one of the reasons for the divorce rate skyrocketing in the church in modern times!  That totally totally self sacrificing way of loving puts the husband in mutual submission to the wife! There is no where in the NT where either is told to be the ruler over the other.  In fact, just the opposit is said!  And ss we misunderstand marriage in this century, we also misunderstand gender in the church itself!

[grace]

Without the body that contains the heart  (and, if I'm not mistaken, the ancients actually believed the heart to be the source of life, love, feelings, etc,) the head would be dead and not the head of anything!  It takes both the head and the body for anything to happen and the head cannot make a decission without the body accepting the decission!

The head used in the sense of the source for the body, IN THAT TIME FRAME, was the idea of "the woman draws life from the man." That was very true in the 1st entury.  Women were at the mercey of men--period.  Their very lives (existence) depended on men.  A woman on her own had trouble surviving!  The male was the source of body strength, which it took to make a living in the hard life of the 1st Century.  The female, not having the physical strength, was at the mercy of the male in a life where physical strength was everything!  The cruelty that could occur directed at females, which was quite legal in those societies, is replecated in today's world in the Taliban society!  The standard life practice for men over women in today's world is replicated in the Arab society, and in numerous other societies in the world today where females have no worth.  

We miss very important teaching if we assign control roles as in I (husband) control my wife (body) because I am the head of the wife and the wife MUST submist to the husband!  It takes both in submission to each other as a single entity, the head sending the signal to beat and the heart willingly beating for the body to live or the body to move.  If a part of the heart dies to some form of cruelty, excess, etc, the head and the body will die oe suffer irrepairable damage!  When the head does not give the signal to beat and the heart does not beat,  both will die.  The head draws life from the heart in the same manor as the heart looks to the head for the signal to beat, so it also draws life from the source.  If the heart refuses to beat when the signal is sent, regardless of how many pulses (commands) are sent to the heart to beat, then both will die.  It takes mutual submission to each other for the life of both.  When we marry, we step from being two independent people who have absolutely no control over each other, possessing our own heads and hearts, to become one person, joined by God, to become a whole single person, as God has intended right from the beginning.  The body of one does not decapitate itself because it joins another that has a head.  Neither does the other amputate the body at the neck because it is getting the body of another.  Neither is lesser than the other and neither is over the other just because they go from being 100% separate to being 100% combined!  We are male and female wholes individually and become a husband and wife whole with 1/2 being male and 1/2 being female to form a single whole unit, which has its representation in Adam before Eve was taken out of him, and then is represented in Adam and Eve being recombined to make a marriage and whole unit again.  Eve was not made lesser in the Garden just because she was taken out of Adam.  She was equal in all ways to Adam.  To be a suitable helper for Adam, she could not be a lesser persoln than Adam!  She had to be an equal to Adam.  Adam said, This is bine of my bone and flesh of my flesh!"  To make her lesser would make Adam a lesser being than God created!  There is no head as in the idea of the boss of the marriage, having 51%, 75%, or 100% of the control.  It is 50% plus 50% to make a single 100% unit.

Because we do NOT teach what marriage was really like for women from after leaving the Garden through the time of Christ, and up to the present time frame for that matter, and only in recent years has the church begun to recognize the importance of teaching marriage in a more appropriate context, most people get the entirely wrong idea of what Paul is saying, IMO.  We just say someone was married and that is it!  As a result, we still can't seem to get a grasp on the true impact of what Paul says in Ephesians, Galations, and Corinthians regarding marriage.  We still have a considerable problem of seeing Greek words translated in a way that acurately reflects their true intent, especially when dealing with gender issues and marriage issues.

As Christians, a husband and wife are required to be in submission to each other.  As men and women who are Christians in the church we are required to be in submission to each other.  That is the impact that Gal 3:26-28 has on us.   We all stand equal under Jesus Christ when we are his followers and it is something that also goes into the marriage as an overiding principle.  We are to be in submission to each other as Christians as we are to submit to Christ.  That also plays into the the idea of female Christians being eldersor whatever in the church.  Elders are not rulers of our lives.  They are shepherds who lead from a servant position.  Servant means someone who serves others.  Leadership by serving from the low position of servant is open to all if they possess certain qualities that make them servant leaders.

As I said in a previous post, Paul was telling the readers of THAT TIME FRAME, especially the FEMALES, how to survive the customs of the day.  The same held true for men, only I believe he was telling men that they were to be above the customs and practices of their time frame in how they had to "love" their wives in a totally self sacrificing way--something that was not understood or practiced by most Christians and non-Chirstians of the 1st Century and I would say it is basically unchaned today--which is one of the reasons for the divorce rate skyrocketing in the church in modern times!  That totally totally self sacrificing way of loving puts the husband in mutual submission to the wife! There is no where in the NT where either is told to be the ruler over the other.  In fact, just the opposit is said!  And ss we misunderstand marriage in this century, we also misunderstand gender in the church itself!

But can't our hearts also decieve us?

[chosenone]

Wives submit ---- Husbands -- Love and give yourself for his body.

AMEN!

That is EXACTLY  it in 10 easy words. It is what those of us who believe in what the Bible says to wives are actually saying again and again. Husbands loves your wives and give yourself to them,wives respect and submit to your husbands. I honestly cant see the big problem with this teaching. it seems so very simple and uncomplicated and wise.

[yogi bear]

Yes Grace that is true our hearts can decieve us and so can the head that is why for it to work they have to work together as one as they have been joined by our Father. If they do not then the marriage is hurt bad or dead but for it to be healthy both heart and head have to work together in harmony.

[grace]

Yes Grace that is true our hearts can decieve us and so can the head that is why for it to work they have to work together as one as they have been joined by our Father. If they do not then the marriage is hurt bad or dead but for it to be healthy both heart and head have to work together in harmony.

I agree they have to work together! But the church is the body and Christ is the head, in this illustration the head will not decieve us. We are to submit to the leadership of Christ, because He has our best interest...He died for us(sacrifice)...He loves us! It is our call to submit to get under His authority and to follow what He leads us to do.

I know that husbands and wives are not perfect like Jesus..but He set an example for us in His relationship to the Father and also as the church's relationship to Christ. Even though God and Jesus are equal He still obeyed what the Father told Him. As a bride to Christ we are to obey Him by submitting to Him as the head of the church. As a wife we are to follow the lead of our husbands...yes! we work together, but not as two heads...we compliment each other and are there to bring out the best in each other.

A question to all those that do not believe their husband is the head....When you come to a place that you both do not agree..who gets the final say?

[Mystery Man]

Yes Grace that is true our hearts can decieve us and so can the head that is why for it to work they have to work together as one as they have been joined by our Father. If they do not then the marriage is hurt bad or dead but for it to be healthy both heart and head have to work together in harmony.

What this is not -- This is not about a wife and a husband agreeing then the decision is made.

What this is ---- This is about the husband listening to the wife, and then the man , if he is a believer, takes it to God, and then makes a decision.   The husband should be able to explain to his wife the reason for his decision and that he talked with God.   The love of the husband for his wife, should be a part of the decision.

Then once the husband makes the decision, the decision is final.

[Volkmar]

A question to all those that do not believe their husband is the head....When you come to a place that you both do not agree..who gets the final say?

And that is really the issue that you're focused upon--"who gets the final say?"  In so focusing on that the real point is missed.

We find ourselves using the same words yet speaking a different language.


V

[grace]

A question to all those that do not believe their husband is the head....When you come to a place that you both do not agree..who gets the final say?

And that is really the issue that you're focused upon--"who gets the final say?"  In so focusing on that the real point is missed.

We find ourselves using the same words yet speaking a different language.


V

So you avoid the question....

[Volkmar]

A question to all those that do not believe their husband is the head....When you come to a place that you both do not agree..who gets the final say?

And that is really the issue that you're focused upon--"who gets the final say?"  In so focusing on that the real point is missed.

We find ourselves using the same words yet speaking a different language.


V

So you avoid the question....

No, not avoiding the question...it's actually been addressed more than once, especially by Phoebe and similarly by Wiley.

The way in which you have posed the question makes it somewhat awkward for me to answer because I can only answer from the perspective of a husband.  Do you want me to answer from that perspective, or would you rather refer back to Phoebe's answer?


V

[grace]

A question to all those that do not believe their husband is the head....When you come to a place that you both do not agree..who gets the final say?

And that is really the issue that you're focused upon--"who gets the final say?"  In so focusing on that the real point is missed.

We find ourselves using the same words yet speaking a different language.


V

So you avoid the question....

No, not avoiding the question...it's actually been addressed more than once, especially by Phoebe and similarly by Wiley.

The way in which you have posed the question makes it somewhat awkward for me to answer because I can only answer from the perspective of a husband.  Do you want me to answer from that perspective, or would you rather refer back to Phoebe's answer?


V

Just answer!

[fanuvmxpx]

A question to all those that do not believe their husband is the head....When you come to a place that you both do not agree..who gets the final say?

I'll take a stab at the answer...whoever is more proficient in the subject requiring an answer. For example, if I want hamburger but my wife wants chicken...and the reason she wants chicken is because she doesn't want to cook hamburger...she gets final say because she's cooking. I still want a hamburger, but she's cooking so I'll eat chicken.

Can you give me an example of a situation where a man and woman would disagree, and both choices are right according to the Word? The only way I can see myself having to choose alone is if I were forced too. What theoretical are we drawing up that a man would have to make the final decision alone?

[Hehealedme]

.

[WileyClarkson]

Grace and Mystery Man,

Since the position that the husband makes the decision is the correct one for both of you, here is a situation to see who makes the decision:

Wife:  Honey, I'm pregnant again.  How are we going to be able to afford it?
husband:  We can't.  You will need to get an abortion.
wife: No, I can't do that!
Husband:  I am the head of this family and my decission stands!  Our church has said it isn't wrong because it not a living person.  So the decission stands!

This is a complementarian marriage of the type you each seem to accept.  Who's decission is it going to be in this case that prevails?  By your standards, even if the husband goes to God in prayer, then says it still has to be an abortion,  the wife must submit to the abortion.

Just so you will know, that is exactly the situation that commonly existed in the 1st Century when wives were to submit unconditionally to the husband.  Abortions could be ordered by the husband and the wife had to comply.  Children, after they were born, could be left out in the heat or cold to die of exposure and under Roman law, if another couple or person were to take the child in and raise it in order to prevent it from dieing, that person/s who did this could be put to death!  It really discouraged taking in children (mostly female because of the value of a male) who were put out and marked for death.  In writings of the early part of the 2nd century, the issue of abortion and exposure are addressed but they are not addressed in the NT and the prevailing thought in the 1st Century was that the baby did not receive a soul until birth.

[grace]

A question to all those that do not believe their husband is the head....When you come to a place that you both do not agree..who gets the final say?

I'll take a stab at the answer...whoever is more proficient in the subject requiring an answer. For example, if I want hamburger but my wife wants chicken...and the reason she wants chicken is because she doesn't want to cook hamburger...she gets final say because she's cooking. I still want a hamburger, but she's cooking so I'll eat chicken.

Can you give me an example of a situation where a man and woman would disagree, and both choices are right according to the Word? The only way I can see myself having to choose alone is if I were forced too. What theoretical are we drawing up that a man would have to make the final decision alone?

As far as the chicken/hamburger choice....We can be a selfish lover or a servant(submissive) lover.
The husband gives in to the wife because of love....but did the wife submit to the wants or needs of her husband? Was she selfish and demanding her own wants/needs?
In My case I would probably cook the hamburger to please my husband. But if my husband thought I wanted chicken, he would probably go for chicken too.

I believe if the woman submits to her husband....God will bless it!

[grace]

Wives submit to your husbands

I haven't read all the other posts and it would take too much time to do so...but I still wanted to ask...how can a wife possibly submit to her husband when her husband clearly won't submit to God in the first place?!?...

What way are you speaking of submitting?

[grace]

Grace and Mystery Man,

Since the position that the husband makes the decision is the correct one for both of you, here is a situation to see who makes the decision:

Wife:  Honey, I'm pregnant again.  How are we going to be able to afford it?
husband:  We can't.  You will need to get an abortion.
wife: No, I can't do that!
Husband:  I am the head of this family and my decission stands!  Our church has said it isn't wrong because it not a living person.  So the decission stands!

This is a complementarian marriage of the type you each seem to accept.  Who's decission is it going to be in this case that prevails?  By your standards, even if the husband goes to God in prayer, then says it still has to be an abortion,  the wife must submit to the abortion.

Just so you will know, that is exactly the situation that commonly existed in the 1st Century when wives were to submit unconditionally to the husband.  Abortions could be ordered by the husband and the wife had to comply.  Children, after they were born, could be left out in the heat or cold to die of exposure and under Roman law, if another couple or person were to take the child in and raise it in order to prevent it from dieing, that person/s who did this could be put to death!  It really discouraged taking in children (mostly female because of the value of a male) who were put out and marked for death.  In writings of the early part of the 2nd century, the issue of abortion and exposure are addressed but they are not addressed in the NT and the prevailing thought in the 1st Century was that the baby did not receive a soul until birth.

I can not answer for MM, but as for me I would have to obey God over man.

[Mystery Man]

Grace and Mystery Man,

Since the position that the husband makes the decision is the correct one for both of you, here is a situation to see who makes the decision:

Wife:  Honey, I'm pregnant again.  How are we going to be able to afford it?
husband:  We can't.  You will need to get an abortion.
wife: No, I can't do that!
Husband:  I am the head of this family and my decission stands!  Our church has said it isn't wrong because it not a living person.  So the decission stands!

This is a complementarian marriage of the type you each seem to accept.  Who's decission is it going to be in this case that prevails?  By your standards, even if the husband goes to God in prayer, then says it still has to be an abortion,  the wife must submit to the abortion.

Just so you will know, that is exactly the situation that commonly existed in the 1st Century when wives were to submit unconditionally to the husband.  Abortions could be ordered by the husband and the wife had to comply.  Children, after they were born, could be left out in the heat or cold to die of exposure and under Roman law, if another couple or person were to take the child in and raise it in order to prevent it from dieing, that person/s who did this could be put to death!  It really discouraged taking in children (mostly female because of the value of a male) who were put out and marked for death.  In writings of the early part of the 2nd century, the issue of abortion and exposure are addressed but they are not addressed in the NT and the prevailing thought in the 1st Century was that the baby did not receive a soul until birth.

This is an incomplete scenario.   First you portray the husband in the light of an unbelieving husband.  Then there is the possibility "if" both were believers, that they could ask an elder . So your scenario being incomplete, does not do justice to the discussion at hand.

Time to change denomonations !  Leave the    church, and come to a knowledge of truth.  Then they will see eye to eye and love one another that God opened up the womb.  Love will prevail -