Wives submit to your husbands

[phoebe]

To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

How can you say their definition is wrong, and then post what it is, and the two definitions match exactly ?

<shaking my head in disbelief>

I think you missed the full definition on the last line:

"to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror. "

The definition doesn't say to submit to one who respects, supports and loves you, as indicated in the Eph. 5 passage. It says "to the power or authority of another", "submit to a conqueror". I don't see in any place in Scripture when the husband is to have "power" or "authority" over his wife, or is the "conqueror" of his wife.

These are important, even critical, distinctions.

Forgot one. "to be subjucated" is involuntary, forced submission.

[chosenone]

To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

How can you say their definition is wrong, and then post what it is, and the two definitions match exactly ?

<shaking my head in disbelief>

I think you missed the full definition on the last line:

"to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror. "

The definition doesn't say to submit to one who respects, supports and loves you, as indicated in the Eph. 5 passage. It says "to the power or authority of another", "submit to a conqueror". I don't see in any place in Scripture when the husband is to have "power" or "authority" over his wife, or is the "conqueror" of his wife.

These are important, even critical, distinctions.

Forgot one. "to be subjucated" is involuntary, forced submission.

I have never actually been forced to submit to anyone, I choose to do it if and when neccessary in obedience to God whether I want to or not.

[Mystery Man]

To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

How can you say their definition is wrong, and then post what it is, and the two definitions match exactly ?

<shaking my head in disbelief>

I think you missed the full definition on the last line:

"to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror. "

The definition doesn't say to submit to one who respects, supports and loves you, as indicated in the Eph. 5 passage. It says "to the power or authority of another", "submit to a conqueror". I don't see in any place in Scripture when the husband is to have "power" or "authority" over his wife, or is the "conqueror" of his wife.

These are important, even critical, distinctions.

Forgot one. "to be subjucated" is involuntary, forced submission.

I didn't miss a thing, as usual.  In battle, you can sumbit or be killed.  It is still voluntary.  It is a choice !

[phoebe]

To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

How can you say their definition is wrong, and then post what it is, and the two definitions match exactly ?

<shaking my head in disbelief>

I think you missed the full definition on the last line:

"to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror. "

The definition doesn't say to submit to one who respects, supports and loves you, as indicated in the Eph. 5 passage. It says "to the power or authority of another", "submit to a conqueror". I don't see in any place in Scripture when the husband is to have "power" or "authority" over his wife, or is the "conqueror" of his wife.

These are important, even critical, distinctions.

Forgot one. "to be subjucated" is involuntary, forced submission.

I have never actually been forced to submit to anyone, I choose to do it if and when neccessary in obedience to God whether I want to or not.

With all due respect, chosenone, we can't base an interpretation of Scripture on personal experience. Just because you "have never actually been forced to submit to anyone" doesn't mean that other wives have not - with this Eph 5 passage being the "authority" for that force. I personally know a missionary who used to beat his wife while quoting this verse. He believed he had the right, as the "head of the household", as the "authority". She was the meekest of the meek. She had been taught to believe that he had the right to beat her, that she could not leave him, could not get a "Scriptural" divorce. Her kids witnessed this, and one son grew up to beat his young wife. They had a baby. He couldn't live with the person he had become, became a drug addict and alcoholic. She divorced him. If your understanding of Scripture is correct, the husband has the right to do this. The instruction, if it is in fact an instruction, does not become invalid because one didn't follow every part of the equation. IOW, just because he didn't treat her with love and respect does not mean that a supposed right as head-of-household becomes invalid. Either is that head and has that authority over her, or he doesn't. It can't be "if" or "when".

It may work for you, but if it doesn't work for everyone there is something wrong with the interpretation/application.

[chosenone]

To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

How can you say their definition is wrong, and then post what it is, and the two definitions match exactly ?

<shaking my head in disbelief>

I think you missed the full definition on the last line:

"to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror. "

The definition doesn't say to submit to one who respects, supports and loves you, as indicated in the Eph. 5 passage. It says "to the power or authority of another", "submit to a conqueror". I don't see in any place in Scripture when the husband is to have "power" or "authority" over his wife, or is the "conqueror" of his wife.

These are important, even critical, distinctions.

Forgot one. "to be subjucated" is involuntary, forced submission.

I have never actually been forced to submit to anyone, I choose to do it if and when neccessary in obedience to God whether I want to or not.

With all due respect, chosenone, we can't base an interpretation of Scripture on personal experience. Just because you "have never actually been forced to submit to anyone" doesn't mean that other wives have not - with this Eph 5 passage being the "authority" for that force. I personally know a missionary who used to beat his wife while quoting this verse. He believed he had the right, as the "head of the household", as the "authority". She was the meekest of the meek. She had been taught to believe that he had the right to beat her, that she could not leave him, could not get a "Scriptural" divorce. Her kids witnessed this, and one son grew up to beat his young wife. They had a baby. He couldn't live with the person he had become, became a drug addict and alcoholic. She divorced him. If your understanding of Scripture is correct, the husband has the right to do this. The instruction, if it is in fact an instruction, does not become invalid because one didn't follow every part of the equation. IOW, just because he didn't treat her with love and respect does not mean that a supposed right as head-of-household becomes invalid. Either is that head and has that authority over her, or he doesn't. It can't be "if" or "when".

It may work for you, but if it doesn't work for everyone there is something wrong with the interpretation/application.

There will ALWAYS be those who take advantage of anything they are told for their own selfish ends, but that doesnt make what they are told wrong. Rules are made for our own good but unfortunately many will break the rules and take advantage of them no matter how good or necessary they are.

[chosenone]

There are also women who take advantage of what the husbands are told. My husbands ex wife was always telling him that WHEN he loved her as Christ loved the church then SHE would respect him as she was told to do.She took advantage of HIS good nature and was bossy and controlling and expected him to do everything that SHE wanted, so it can and does work two ways. Men are used and taken advantage of by women and women are used and taken advantage of by men,. It has always been so and will always be so until Jesus returns.
The men in the examples that you quoted phoebe werent loving their wives as they should, women such as my husbands ex wife werent respecting their husbands as they should, but that doesnt mean that Gods order for marriage is wrong, just that people are disobedient and  sinful. 

[phoebe]

To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

How can you say their definition is wrong, and then post what it is, and the two definitions match exactly ?

<shaking my head in disbelief>

I think you missed the full definition on the last line:

"to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror. "

The definition doesn't say to submit to one who respects, supports and loves you, as indicated in the Eph. 5 passage. It says "to the power or authority of another", "submit to a conqueror". I don't see in any place in Scripture when the husband is to have "power" or "authority" over his wife, or is the "conqueror" of his wife.

These are important, even critical, distinctions.

Forgot one. "to be subjucated" is involuntary, forced submission.

I have never actually been forced to submit to anyone, I choose to do it if and when neccessary in obedience to God whether I want to or not.

With all due respect, chosenone, we can't base an interpretation of Scripture on personal experience. Just because you "have never actually been forced to submit to anyone" doesn't mean that other wives have not - with this Eph 5 passage being the "authority" for that force. I personally know a missionary who used to beat his wife while quoting this verse. He believed he had the right, as the "head of the household", as the "authority". She was the meekest of the meek. She had been taught to believe that he had the right to beat her, that she could not leave him, could not get a "Scriptural" divorce. Her kids witnessed this, and one son grew up to beat his young wife. They had a baby. He couldn't live with the person he had become, became a drug addict and alcoholic. She divorced him. If your understanding of Scripture is correct, the husband has the right to do this. The instruction, if it is in fact an instruction, does not become invalid because one didn't follow every part of the equation. IOW, just because he didn't treat her with love and respect does not mean that a supposed right as head-of-household becomes invalid. Either is that head and has that authority over her, or he doesn't. It can't be "if" or "when".

It may work for you, but if it doesn't work for everyone there is something wrong with the interpretation/application.

There will ALWAYS be those who take advantage of anything they are told for their own selfish ends, but that doesnt make what they are told wrong. Rules are made for our own good but unfortunately many will break the rules and take advantage of them no matter how good or necessary they are.

They aren't "rules", but even if they were, they would have to be followed completely, to the letter, (that's what "rules" are). Not following all of it to the letter wouldn't invalidate the rule. The rule would still apply. "Rules" are inflexible. They don't change or make allowances. If there were disclaimers that would invalidate such a "rule", those would be made clear to us. I.e., it would say somewhere that if the husband were to abuse his wife or abuse his power or authority, she would no longer be under obligation to "submit".

Yes, some are selfish. But if it's a rule for one, it's a rule for all.

Your personal experience with a good man, and his personal experience with a bad woman, do not validate your reasoning. Neither of them make or break the "rule". The "rule" comes before them, not after or because of them.

[chosenone]

The one thing that I have learnt is the we have to be VERY careful about who we marry. I would always advise women not to marry a man unless they can respect him.
I do hear bad stories such as you have quoted but I always think "why did you marry a man like that in the first place?"  many times they will say that he was always like that but they thought that he would change after they married. WRONG. You should never marry someone thinking that. What you see before marriage is what you get after wards and usually worse. We HAVE to allow God to lead us to the person that he has for us and not think that we know best. I would never marry a man who was domineering, bad tempered or difficult to live with. I have had quite enough men like that in my life already.
My husband says now that there were warning signs about his wife before they married but he ignored them sadly and the result was 23 unhappy years. A hard lesson to learn but fortunately, thanks to God,  it has ended well for him.

The examples that I give are not what I have based my beliefs on , they are based on what I see in the Word.

[kensington]

To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

I'm sorry... but you did not ask me what the "Dictionary" says.... you asked me to post what "submit" means to me. 

I don't live my life/marriage by a dictionary, I live by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. 

You can't ask someone what their opinion is and then tell them it's wrong.  Opinions are not wrong, they are personal. 

To give yourself to...  to yield oneself to...  to surrender yourself to...  it's a choice.  You do it yourself, no one does it for you or to you. You choose to live your life in such a way as to promote someone else above you in what you do. 

My whole thinking is the word is designed "PERFECT" and if you read it and meditate on it, the design becomes apparent.  The word "Submit" is not the issue for me.  It is the whole term... "submit yourselves"....  you do it. No one does it to you. BIG DIFFERENCE.

When submit is seen the way it was written rather than the threat it is perceived to be, it's a blessing to walk in it. 
In my opinion. You did ask my opinion.... right? 

PS... God wrote the instruction for marriage... Man wrote the dictionary... after the Bible was written. 

[Arkstfan]

Marrying someone hoping they will change is like buying shoes that are too small and hoping they will fit better when you break them in.

[chosenone]

Thats true kensington, many women do see it as a threat rather than a blessing. That is sad. Also as you said we are told to submit ourselves. No one can force us to willingly submit, it is a choice. Its not always an easy one but its what, in my opinion, we are told to do.
Another thing I would like to add is that if the wife is rebellious, as in a case that I am thinking of right now, the kids are often the same way. In the family I have in mind both of the children (now young adults) are controlling  and rebellious just like their mum. it can be learnt behaviour or it can have a spiritual root which needs to be dealt with.In this case I think it is a bit of both.

[chosenone]

Marrying someone hoping they will change is like buying shoes that are too small and hoping they will fit better when you break them in.

Yeh it doesnt work does it.
Why marry someone if you dont love them the way they are anyway? It seems strange to me.

[kensington]

Marrying someone hoping they will change is like buying shoes that are too small and hoping they will fit better when you break them in.

That is the truth.  I've had some women tell me, they want a husband like mine.  I am not ashamed to tell them... I did not find him in a bar.  

You see that so often...  women marry men they met in a bar, and then get upset when they find out he is a drunker. They want him to stop...  it's a joke.  

My sister married a guy, they had spent two years dating on the party scene, in bars and with friends who drank.  Then when she married him, got tired of the drinking all the time, calls me and wants a "Biblical" out of her marriage.

I said... "Why bring God into it now".... you didn't ask his opinion BEFORE you married him.  Not to be mean... just to be honest.  People don't consult God before they make choices, but think he is supposed to bail them out when it goes badly.  DUH...  

[chosenone]

Marrying someone hoping they will change is like buying shoes that are too small and hoping they will fit better when you break them in.

That is the truth.  I've had some women tell me, they want a husband like mine.  I am not ashamed to tell them... I did not find him in a bar.  

You see that so often...  women marry men they met in a bar, and then get upset when they find out he is a drunker. They want him to stop...  it's a joke.  

My sister married a guy, they had spent two years dating on the party scene, in bars and with friends who drank.  Then when she married him, got tired of the drinking all the time, calls me and wants a "Biblical" out of her marriage.

I said... "Why bring God into it now".... you didn't ask his opinion BEFORE you married him.  Not to be mean... just to be honest.  People don't consult God before they make choices, but think he is supposed to bail them out when it goes badly.  DUH...  

I have also heard women say that people warned them before they married that they werre making a mistake, but they ignored the warnings and guess what, the marriage was a total failure. Sometimes others can see things that we cant.
God has to be the matchmaker, he knows who is best for us.

[Arkstfan]

A great guy at my old church met a lady during his drinking days. He found Jesus and she correctly stated he wasn't the man she fell in love with and divorced him.

[k-pappy]

To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

I'm sorry... but you did not ask me what the "Dictionary" says.... you asked me to post what "submit" means to me. 

I don't live my life/marriage by a dictionary, I live by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. 

You can't ask someone what their opinion is and then tell them it's wrong.  Opinions are not wrong, they are personal. 

To give yourself to...  to yield oneself to...  to surrender yourself to...  it's a choice.  You do it yourself, no one does it for you or to you. You choose to live your life in such a way as to promote someone else above you in what you do. 

My whole thinking is the word is designed "PERFECT" and if you read it and meditate on it, the design becomes apparent.  The word "Submit" is not the issue for me.  It is the whole term... "submit yourselves"....  you do it. No one does it to you. BIG DIFFERENCE.

When submit is seen the way it was written rather than the threat it is perceived to be, it's a blessing to walk in it. 
In my opinion. You did ask my opinion.... right? 

PS... God wrote the instruction for marriage... Man wrote the dictionary... after the Bible was written. 

I did not ask you what submit means to you...I asked you to define it.  We cannot interpret scripture based on our own personal opinions.  We cannot change the meaning of words to make our doctrine make more sense.  If the definition does not fit our interpretation, we must look at the way we are interpreting things.   Plus, as pheobe pointed out the BIBLE does not use the word "submit" but "support."  I noticed you completely glossed over that fact by making rude comments.

In Christ,
KP

[fanuvmxpx]

I did not ask you what submit means to you...I asked you to define it.  We cannot interpret scripture based on our own personal opinions.  We cannot change the meaning of words to make our doctrine make more sense.  If the definition does not fit our interpretation, we must look at the way we are interpreting things.   Plus, as pheobe pointed out the BIBLE does not use the word "submit" but "support."  I noticed you completely glossed over that fact by making rude comments.

In Christ,
KP

Yup. If you say "submit" means something to you, different than the dictionary, than it means nothing. All words/vocabulary are given power/meaning/association by society. If you, as a single person decide to change one, nothing has changed except your own false reality.

That's one of the unfortunate problems with the Bible...you run into trouble because its been interpreted from ancient words that could have multiple definitions. That's looking at it from the logical mind you.

Sometimes I wonder how many would walk away from Christianity if the version of the Bible they fully believed every word of was dis-credited (by both historians & bible producers).

[kensington]

The word "Submit" has gotten a bad rap...  especially since the term "Women's Lib" and the term "abuse" hit the main stream media. 

We can't submit... that is to subvert, and we must be free and equal in all areas of our lives, our jobs, our homes, romance, and in the church. 

I don't buy it. 

I posted two definitions of submit...and was laughed at and accused of ignoring scriptures.  So, please for this discussion, post what you think "submit" means.

Thank you.

In Christ,
KP

K-pappy.... you did ask me to post what I think "submit" means.  Please read your request again.  You did not ask me to give the dictionary deffinition, you asked me to post what I think...  and I did.  Then, you said I was wrong.  When I told you that I answered your question... you accuse me of being rude.

Please read again what you asked of me. 

[Mystery Man]

The word "Submit" has gotten a bad rap...  especially since the term "Women's Lib" and the term "abuse" hit the main stream media. 

We can't submit... that is to subvert, and we must be free and equal in all areas of our lives, our jobs, our homes, romance, and in the church. 

I don't buy it. 

I posted two definitions of submit...and was laughed at and accused of ignoring scriptures.  So, please for this discussion, post what you think "submit" means.

Thank you.

In Christ,
KP

K-pappy.... you did ask me to post what I think "submit" means.  Please read your request again.  You did not ask me to give the dictionary deffinition, you asked me to post what I think...  and I did.  Then, you said I was wrong.  When I told you that I answered your question... you accuse me of being rude.

Please read again what you asked of me. 

Yes, it is like someone asking you to give them an apple.  So you give them an apple.  They reply - But that apple is not an orange.

Reply from the person who asked - the orange is what I wanted.  Reply - but you asked for an apple.   So why now do you want an orange, when you asked for an apple ?

Reply from the person who aksed - Your not suppose to give me what I asked for.  Your suppose to give me what I was thinking.

And of course, there is no confusion here whatsoever.  Yeah, right .

It reminds of this old saying --  "Do as I say, not as I do"