Have you ever been "that person"?...

[Mojo]

Alpha males aren't typically drawn naturally to the slave/victim/female vibe that typifies so many corporate churches, but some will go for various reasons.

Yes, we have our reasons, even though we aren't always comfortable.
Fortunately, my congregation is still pretty male oriented.

People also act like churchgoers when they're at church, and often have a rather different personality in their natural habitat.

Which is why many in our congregation tend to gravitate towards my family. We seem to be pretty consistent.

 

[Joleneakamama]

There's a big story behind this that I may tell some day, but my household has found that we have better results finding 'the right kind of women' in the churches, and 'the right kind of men' outside the churches. Alpha males aren't typically drawn naturally to the slave/victim/female vibe that typifies so many corporate churches, but some will go for various reasons.

My parents were and still are Mormon. Growing up in 'the church,' in the city, I never met young men that interested me. They all seemed like wimps. Even now men in the LDS church often (but not always, there are rare exceptions) seem less manly to me. I guess the trend is not restricted to a particular denomination.

 

[andrew]

I guess the trend is not restricted to a particular denomination.

Yeah, it has more to do with the overall need for security and safety that institutional religions represent.

 

[Mark C]

This thread seems to have drifted pretty far from the original title (which was admittedly pretty vague, anyway...until we just recently got unlimited 4G internet to replace the B/W-limited satellite connection, I'd never have been able to look at a video anyway)...
but it has elements of a theme that I at least mention each and every week during the announcements phase at our local (very small, the entire population of the nearby area can be counted on fingers) and largely on-line Torah-oriented fellowship (on Paltalk and shoutcheap, HNR, WayToZion, etc).

"Not-Politically-correct warning" for what follows:

To at least some of the point here, we [meaning Shabbat Shalom Mesa, and my "Come out of her" ministry] are NOT a 501c(3) almighty-state chartered, faith-based corporate church of 'another master.' (one variant of my standard announcement).

The 'torah' about women has a number of teachings and commandments that have to do not only with marriage and covenant and vows, but with the fact that "male and female He created them" -- and the idea that "men == women" is ONE of the most asinine claims of the PC Church of This World.

The truly politically-INCORRECT corollary to that is that virtually every aspect of what that particular Big Lie implies can be traced directly to paganism, and the variants of the "mother-of-god", queen of heaven, Ishtar/Astarte/Ashteroth/Easter egalitarian Gaia-worship that goes with it. (On this score, I have much agreement with J. Wesley Stiles, and his seminal work, Eros Made Sacred. If we accept the pagan egalitarian lie, "the entire Gospel" is utterly undermined.)

It is why I emphasize that neither a man, nor a 'church', can "serve two masters." If YHVH is True, and "every man a liar", then what He said about truly hating paganism, and the 'mixing' of the clean and unclean, holy (qadosh) and profane (tameh) must be honored. What fellowship are we to have with demons, and those who tolerate such doctrines?

Back to the thread title, I have often been accused of being "that person". Whatever that means.

 

[enlargeourtent]

This is completely wrong. Numbers 31 makes it clear that God will hold the husband liable for sins that he forces the wife into but that she is to obey her husband or father (if unmarried) regardless. This isn't what this thread is about so I won't pursue it here but if anyone wants to resurrect one of the old submission threads it may be time to go here again.

ZecAustin - Don't worry about "the old submission threads". It won't work on me. Messiah's words are my authority, not man's. What you said about Numbers 31 is a twist of those scriptures. Maybe not intended by you, but it's come to be your belief, regardless of how that came about. Numbers 31 is speaking of vows, not sins. It gives the man, whether husband or father, authority to make void her rash vows. Women have a tendency to speak things and bind themselves without fully thinking through the implications of their words. For example, woman might experience a miracle in her life, and in a moment of emotional gratitude to YHUH, vow to never marry, but live a life devoted to serving YHUH only. Her father may hear that vow and make it void, so that she doesn't have to keep it, knowing YHUH may have other plans for her life, and YHUH has given the father say in who his daughter marries. A married woman might might vow to give her firstborn to YHUH, if only YHUH will give her a child, as in the case of Hannah. Hannah's husband let her vow stand. Another man may have made her vow void, because after all, it would be his child as much as hers and she can't take away his say on what she can do with his son. What's hers is his. A woman can only vow what YHUH or her father or her husband gives her authority to vow. Biblically speaking, she has no possessions other than what they give her, unless she is a prostitute, in which case she would be outside YHUH's house, outside her father's house, outside a husband's house, under no authority but Satan's.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord:

VV76 - You quoted 1 Peter 3. The example here is Sarah and Abraham. Abraham was a faithful man of YHUH. He never commanded her to sin. He never made her choose between him and YHUH. Yes, she called him Master, every believing wife should speak to her husband with respect, regardless of whether he is a believer or not, just as a young woman with an unbelieving father should speak to her father with respect, just as believers should speak to ALL unbelievers with respect, even while rebuking and disagreeing with them. We see throughout the Old Testament that men even called other men, master. That does not mean they were submitting to their orders to sin. Humans should treat one another with respect, regardless of gender, age, financial status, etc...She should obey him in all matters that are in agreement with the Heavenly Father. There is only one way to the Father, gentlemen, and that is through Yahusha Messiah, not her earthly husband. If you don't believe Messiah is the only way for her, if you don't believe she needs to have her own personal relationship withHim, then you are placing yourself as an idol before her and YHUH, and if she obeys you instead of Him, she is placing you as an idol before Him in her life. This would set the marriage up for failure. That Greek word in the text in 1 Peter 3, translated here as conversation, it also means behavior. She can win him over to YHUH's side by her words and behavior. Sin is not light, it is darkness. Man's burdens that are contrary to YHUH's burdens are not light. She should be a light to her husband, to her children, to the world. Obedience to YHUH's commandments is how we are to be a light:

And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but Aluhym hath called us to peace.
For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 1 Corinthians 7:13-16

It seems like the men in this forum are understanding the unbelieving wife can be sanctified by her believing husband, but what most don't seem to get is that they unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, according to the passage above. WOW. That's some power she has there. Think it through. Why would a an unbelieving husband take issue with a believing wife? Why might he be tempted to leave her for that? Obviously because her new faith has caused a change in her words and actions. She once said and did things that were pleasing to him. Now she refuses to commit idolatry with him. Now she prays to a different power than he does. Now she wants to learn more about what the Bible says so she can do it. Her good words and deeds are starting to annoy him. Her light is exposing his darkness. OR, the opposite could happen. He could come to respect her integrity, her desire to do what she believes is right, her commitment to be faithful to YHUH, knowing it means that if she faithful to YHUH, she will be faithful to her earthly husbands as well. He could be attracted to her good words and deeds instead of disgusted by them, it depends on the condition of his heart. If he's turned off, he'll leave and go where he feels free to continue in his sin, and she'll have peace and will be free to obey YHUH, as Yahusha sets free the captive so that they are no longer in bondage to the oppressors who would have His people remain in sin. Her hope would then be that YHUH would deal with her husband so that he would repent and they could be reconciled and be in unity again. A woman can not save her husband by joining him in sin. She can save him by pointing him the One who saved her through her words and deeds.

A man NEVER has the authority from YHUH, to force a child of YHUH to sin against the One who gives man authority in the first place. That's like saying your brother has authority to tell your sister to disobey the father when the father is not present, and the sister is free from blame, though she knowingly, intentionally disobeyed her father and instead obeyed her brother who also ignored your father's commandments. Seriously? So your brother can tell your sister to act like a whore, and force her to do it, against your father's commands? The earthly husband is simply a second in command, who follows the commands of His father. If your brother tells your sister to go against your father's commandments, it's clear your brother has usurped your father's commandments, and is about to get kicked out of the house, he's lost the authority given him by the father. So also would an earthly husband get kicked out of the Heavenly Father's house if he commanded a daughter of YHUH to sin against the Heavenly Father. A chaste, faithful woman of YHUH would not listen to her sinful brother, hence why she is called faithful and chaste. Sin is breaking the Father's commandments, everyone understands that. Right? Yes, the earthly husband is head of the wife, as long as his head is Messiah, but if she perceives her husband is not operating under Messiah, she is to take her protection in Messiah. YHUH will hold her husband responsible, you've got that right, but YHUH will not punish her for disobeying a rebellious husband.

Commanding someone in the body of Messiah to sin would be self-defeating, it would tear the family and the marriage apart, it would be counter-productive to the "family hierarchy". If the woman resists temptation from her husband to sin, she may be a light to him, saving the husband, and ultimately saving the family.

The Pope and the pastors on the street corners have no authority over you or your marriages or your families. Trump doesn't have authority over your marriage or your family, either. Heavenly authorities trump earthly authorities, guys. If you don't get that, you can kiss your plural wives goodbye, because that's an earthly authority making judgements on marriage that is obviously not operating with Messiah as its head. We can obey earthly authorities when they are in agreement with Heavenly authority, and we should, but the Bible does not condone submission to men/authorities giving commands that contradict YHUH's commands:

But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey Aluhym rather than men. Acts 5:29

We see this also in how Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to obey the King and wound up in the lion's den and the fiery furnace for it.

Why a righteous man would fight for the imaginary "right" to lure his wife into sin is beyond me. I would have to question his motives. I know one thing, I would never give me daughter in marriage to a man who insists on his right to lead my daughter into sin. I know that stance might get me banned or peer pressure might be applied, and it has already, but I guess that means I'm "THAT person" again...Praise YaH!

 

[enlargeourtent]

I have not found the definition of "saint" to be summed up in Acts 15:19-21, and I cannot find the term "heavenly husband" or any idea that could be summarized thus anywhere in scripture.

Throughout Scripture, the Father and Son are referred to as our husband, and the body of believers is referred to as the bride. The covenant Israel/believers were/are in with YHUH is understood to be a marriage covenant. When Israel breaks the covenant, YHUH, in the prophets, calls her an unfaithful adulteress. I used the term, "heavenly" to clarify which "husband" I was referring to.

For thy Maker is thine husband, YHUH of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The Aluhym of the whole earth shall he be called. Isaiah 54:5

Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith YHUH. Jeremiah 3:20

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YHUH: Jeremiah 31:32

I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know YHUH. Hosea 2:20

And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now. For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal. Hosea 2:7-8

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Messiah. 2 Corinthians 11:2

Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb... Rev 19:7-9

You have not found the definition of "saint" to be summed up in Acts 15:19-21? No, it doesn't use the word "saints." The context of Acts 15 and the chapters around it is the letter addressing the burdens that should be put on Gentiles in order for the converts to be considered eligible for fellowship with the Jews. Some of the Jewish believers in Messiah were claiming along with the unbelieving among the Jews that the gentiles had not experienced a true conversion if they were not willing to be circumcised in the flesh, and so they could not eat/fellowship with the Jews in their assemblies. Paul and the others assured them Acts 15:19-21 was enough, that they would learn more of Moses as they gathered with them in the synagogues on the Sabbath day. In other words, their turning from gentile ways - eating blood, things strangled, idolatry, sexual immorality- was sign enough that these gentiles did have a real conversion, were being grafted in, would not contaminate the lump with their leaven. Here are some more verses that actually use the word, "saints", and give us a better understanding of who they are.

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of Aluhym. Ephesians 2:13

The saints in the verse above, in context, was understood back then that the saints were believing Jews who kept YHUH's commandments. According to the rest of Ephesians 2, and verse 13 above, the gentiles who donned faith in Messiah and His commandments became fellowcitizens in Israel, no longer strangers and foreigners. They were now grafted in, fellow heirs, Saints, brought near to YHUH, brought into the household of YHUH, brought into the covenant.

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of Aluhym, and the faith of Yahusha. Rev 14:12

Saints are those who keep YHUH's commandments and have the faith of Yahusha, according to Rev 14:12.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Abraham was a faithful man of YHUH. He never commanded her to sin.

Umm. . . He asked her to say that she was his sister instead of his wife which resulted in calamity. He sojourned in Egypt contrary to where God had sent him and she followed willingly by all appearances. I don't know that it was a matter of commandment so much as her following his lead. She could have been obstinate and claimed a superior connection with the Father thereby justifying her refusal to be in subjection to her appointed Adown. And yet she didnt, thus she is commended and held up as an example for other women throughout history. She also could have made the argument against sacrificing Isaac. It could be argued that she didnt know that Abraham was going to do so, but if she had known, and argued against it, even refused to allow her husband to do what he knew God was commanding him to do, would she have been justified in doing so? I'm sure that she knew that God commanded animal sacrifices and that the pagan notion of offering children to appease the gods was abhorrent to Yah.

As so often happens, the argument for the co-authority/responsibility of the household has been taken to the extreme. "Commanding someone in the body of Messiah to sin would be self defeating,". I see no where in Scripture where the husband is "commanding" someone to sin. This follows the hyperbole that is used to argue for abortion, i.e. What about incest? What about rape? Etc. Utilizing the 0.025 % possibility to throw out the other 99.75% probability. In this case, its presented more as, What about if the husband wants the wife to sleep with another man? Or other extreme scenarios that usually have to do with the woman personally and not the household. FWIW, my belief is that she can refuse anyone that she is not in covenant with.
And yet, 1 Peter 3 is specifically commanding the woman to be in subjection (servitude and obedience) to a believer who is not obeying the word. The fact of his obedience is irrelevant to her obedience and subjection to him.
God personally told Eve that Adam would rule over her. Great opportunity to give Eve a caveat.
Paul states that the Husband is the Head of the wife. In the same passage that he says Christ is the Head of the man. Leaving the glaring omission of the woman . . . Under Christ.
Paul also states in Eph.5 that the wife is to be in submission to her husband as if he were the Lord/Christ in everything.
All of these are without caveat!!

"There is only one way to the Father, gentlemen, and that is through Yahusha Messiah, not her earthly husband."

This is entirely true. I'm not aware of anyone trying to say that a woman's salvation is through her husband. The point that has been presented is not of salvation or interfering with a personal communion with the Saviour. The point is on the authority in the home which is an entirely different matter. It is the man who must stand at the door of his "tent" and give account when the Judge comes. It is entirely his responsibility and is never hinted at in scripture that the woman will give account for anything related to the home except how she fulfills her role as helpmeet or accounting for adultery and covenant breaking with her Adown.

"YHUH will not punish her for disobeying a rebellious husband."

As I stated in my earlier post, there is nowhere that I'm aware of, that the woman is given the out that you have mentioned. If you have chapter and verse, please post them, hopefully with 2-3 witnesses. If you do have them, please reconcile them with the passages listed above, from Scripture.

I appreciate that you hold this perspective sincerely, however, I would caution you to examine the end of your conversation. FWIW, I believe this view is one of the cracks in the foundation of the home. Satan comes to Eve and says, "yea, hath God said." Implying that her husband didnt really hear it right from God. God didnt tell them, God told him. For her to tell the Serpent that she wasn't supposed to eat of it, means that Adam had expressly told her not to eat of it. I wonder if her disobedience to her husband was predicated on the idea that she had a better understanding of what God said to him 1 Tim. 2:12-14 makes it very clear that God's reason for placing the structure in the home as it is, is because the woman is more susceptible to deceit, thus, she is not to usurp or attempt to replace her appointed authority. The great part about this is that the husband is entirely accountable. Sucks to be us! Especially if we have disobedient wives and children. And yet that's how He set it up. It's not that the men have set it up this way. God set it up this way. Respectfully, if you truly feel that this understanding is in error, you should have more than logic to present.

For what its worth, this topic or debate does not come close to justify banning.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

From your last post, I fail to see the connection to God being the husband other than to the corporate body. He will be the husband to the widow and fatherless but that's only if/because a man has failed to step up. The next verse (Ps. 68:5,6) talks about how He will then place the solitary back into the same structure that He established in the Garden. The Family, under its Head, the husband.

 

[andrew]

EOT, it is no big news that God or Jesus is referred to as a husband of his people or the assemblies. That has zero to do with the conceit that an individual woman has two husbands, a heavenly one and an earthly one.

And the rest of it is just your explanation of what "saint" means to you together with some proof texts. So noted. You bring that explanation to Acts 15 and see what you expect to see. But that still doesn't mean that the Acts 15 passage provides a working definition of "saint".

 

[Mojo]

@enlargeourtent I want to thank you for your spirited posts. It shows that you love your Savior and are devoted to him. I also want to assure you that, though I am not a moderator, I am confident that you will not be banned for your viewpoints. This is an open forum, and as long as you follow decorum and maintain an open mind to dialogue with other posters, and are willing to see their viewpoints, that you will be welcome on this forum. However, as you may have already found out, you will find that the majority of men and women here hold the headship of the husband in high regard.

I don't want to dwell on specific points that you have made, but would rather just address with your posts on a philosophical basis.

God is a God of order. We find His universe orderly, we find his Torah orderly. We find his design for marriage orderly. We find his plan for families orderly. We are even encouraged to conduct our assemblies decently and in order.

Before I became a husband, I was a son. According to Torah, I am to honor my mother and father. After marriage, I was still a son, but I had a new responsibility as husband. If my mother and father commanded me to abandon my wife, sell my children into slavery and join a commune, which order am I to obey? Torah trumps all does it not? Or does it?

If a wife has a harsh and unbelieving husband who tells her to visit the swap meet with him on Sabbath rather than keeping it holy, does she follow Torah, or honor her husband?

Let's say a wife wants to honor her widowed mother by letting her live with her at her home, but her husband says no. Does she honor Torah, or her husband?

If a wife wants to love her neighbors, and give unto the least if these by giving away free Bologna sandwiches" but her husband refuses, does she obey her Savior, or her husband?

It's possible that an unbelieving husband would order a believing wife to disobey God and commit murder or adultery, but just how many would do that? I would guess very few.

When we speak of headship in marriage, it's not to walk around feeling superior. We realize that we have a huge responsibility that God holds us accountable to. We are to train up our children, love our wives, be sober, and proactive. We are to protect and serve.

The wife of a believing or non believing husband needs to understand a Gods order in salvation and believe it. But, our salvation is really a future thing. We are passed from death unto life, but not until we die. How we live our lives on a Earth before we die, must still be subject to God's order.

Peace to you my friend.

 

[FollowingHim]

@enlargeourtent, the other men have responded to your statements in detail, and I won't rehash that, except to say that I like how clearly you are stating your viewpoint with scriptural references, even if I do not fully agree with your conclusions. I just wanted to make one thing clear for the record:

I know that stance might get me banned or peer pressure might be applied, and it has already, but I guess that means I'm "THAT person" again...

No formal moderation action or informal peer pressure has been asserted against you, nor is there any intention to do so. You are entirely welcome on this forum. I am struggling to understand where you have got this impression, this is a long shot but do you think the recent requirement for forum users to identify their gender was aimed at you? That was something that has been planned for a very long time and was just now able to be implemented since a larger moderation team freed up my time to actually do some complex behind-the-scenes work to make it happen, it was not directed at you. If that isn't what you're talking about, if you have been subject to any direct peer pressure to leave the forum from anybody please let me know so that I can deal with it. You're completely welcome here.

 

[aineo]

The earthly husband is simply a second in command, who follows the commands of His father. If your brother tells your sister to go against your father's commandments, it's clear your brother has usurped your father's commandments, and is about to get kicked out of the house, he's lost the authority given him by the father. So also would an earthly husband get kicked out of the Heavenly Father's house if he commanded a daughter of YHUH to sin against the Heavenly Father. A chaste, faithful woman of YHUH would not listen to her sinful brother, hence why she is called faithful and chaste. Sin is breaking the Father's commandments, everyone understands that. Right? Yes, the earthly husband is head of the wife, as long as his head is Messiah, but if she perceives her husband is not operating under Messiah, she is to take her protection in Messiah. YHUH will hold her husband responsible, you've got that right, but YHUH will not punish her for disobeying a rebellious husband.

Commanding someone in the body of Messiah to sin would be self-defeating, it would tear the family and the marriage apart, it would be counter-productive to the "family hierarchy". If the woman resists temptation from her husband to sin, she may be a light to him, saving the husband, and ultimately saving the family.

There has been a lot of spirited debate around this topic on the forum, and my opinion is different than some others, but I believe it is based in scripture.

Ephesians 5:22 (NASB) Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (NASB) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
​

I see this as a hierarchy, that the Father is the head of all, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. Wives are told to be subject to their husbands in everything, but the obvious question posed by you is legitimate to ask: what if the husband is commanding the wife to sin? There are number of passages in the Bible that command us to not sin, so certainly the woman could point to those scriptures and say that she is not going to obey her husband if he commands her to sin because she, as a created being, is commanded to not sin, but how does that reconcile with her recognizing the headship of her husband?

I tend to lean toward the wife having the ability to disobey her husband's command if it is clear that she is being commanded to sin, but I also think this is shaky ground to walk on and should be relied upon rarely and judiciously.

I am reminded of Abigail and Nabal in 2 Samuel 25, and while she didn't disobey Nabal directly, I do not think anyone could make an argument that she felt Nabal would approve of her actions, yet it seemed she did the right thing.

That said, if she defers to the headship of her husband, I think the sin will fall upon her husband, not her.

Here's where I have a problem reconciling this though. What if the husband and wife have different interpretations of scripture, or what if the husband says he has heard from God to do something and the wife believes she has heard from God that this same thing should not be done? Can she disobey her husband because she disagrees with what she feels God has said? I think this is beyond shaky ground and is dangerous.

I am not going to claim to be an expert on this topic. I've read many of the threads mentioned by Zec, and, frankly, I think both sides are so entrenched that it is hard for much progress to happen. I do think the topic is one worth our attention though, and while I have my opinions, I am open to learning more.

 

[andrew]

@aineo, how do you square 1 Peter 3 with that? I'm not asking you to try to "prove" anything to my or anyone else's satisfaction. I'm just asking how you see it. Tell me your story.

It seems to me that if a woman is encouraged to submit to her unbelieving, unsaved husband, on the ground that her submission to him will teach him something that may even bring him into the kingdom, how much more would that logic apply to a woman whose husband appears to be or claims to be a Christ follower?

(And I don't want anybody to think I'm going somewhere I'm not with this. I'm not an absolutist, and I will stipulate that if a man is telling his woman to do something that is beyond a reasonable doubt an egregious sin, then she needs to do whatever she thinks Holy Spirit is telling her to do. Submit or balk, I'm not her judge. I'm addressing the vast majority of real day-to-day cases, where there is simply a difference of opinion about what God wants the family to do, and the woman believes on the basis of her direct connection with God that she can second-guess her husband or join the executive committee as an equal with her husband.)

 

[The Revolting Man]

The question becomes when does a wife get to declare her husband in sin and so no longer in charge? Can you she step out of authority if she thinks God gave her a personal Word that contradicts her husband?

This is the feminist slippery slope. A woman can obey or she can leave and remain single. Those are her only Biblical options.

 

[andrew]

The question becomes when does a wife get to declare her husband in sin and so no longer in charge?

Zec, you just triggered two thoughts for me with that "declare her husband in sin" phrase. Funny how the human brain works....

You'll appreciate this: Think about Request Mast in the Corps. The wife never has the authority to "declare" her husband in sin, but she may have a right of appeal to higher authority. And because our culture is so fragmented and atomized, we just immediate skip over any other human authority and go straight to God. But if we had any kind of intermediate authority, say, like the elders of a community, then there might be a place for a woman to make an appeal to those in authority over her husband.

I got to thinking about this because I was thinking about that right of appeal, or at what point does a woman get to cry for help? I thought about military chain-of-command, and how you can bring an action against your immediate superior if you (a) are about 110% convinced you are on rock solid ground with your complaint, and (b) think it's worth the risk in so many different ways that it will end badly for you even if you are 'right'. At first I was thinking about a woman's appealing to directly to God, but see where that leads? In our individualist, egalitarian culture, we don't even see the need for additional human authority, but doesn't the NT clearly line out a system of authority within the churches, with men expected to submit to church leadership? Food for thought....

We men like to think we report directly to Christ, but the minute we try to operate in groups there will be leadership—and everybody here can identify what the NT teaches about that and do the math.

Second thought is about remedies. I agree with this—

A woman can obey or she can leave and remain single. Those are her only Biblical options.

—but I do not feel sorry for women, and do not overemphasize the word "only", because those are two powerful remedies.

We know from Peter that obedience can teach the husband a thing or two. We know from experience that when a woman is predictably obedient we are more careful with our leadership, and responsibility weighs more heavily, and when a woman is predictably more rebellious it makes every decision a conflict of wills and a matter of 'winning'. And the thought of leaving is a great litmus test for the priority of the issue: Is this worth leaving him over?

What a woman cannot do is stay in the home, be a chronic adversary for the husband and bad example for the children, and stand on some theory that what she hears from God is more important than (or even as important as) what he hears from God.

 

[Joleneakamama]

What I like to point out to women, is that Sara is lifted up as the example of a godly woman. Her story is found in Genesis at the beginning of our Bibles. As far as we know she didn't have a Bible to read, or any such creature as a pastor or other minister to listen to, or idolize, in place of her husband, and I think it's safe to assume there were no women's bible studies, or prayer meetings for her to attend.
Her generation was fairly close to Noah's, and may as a result of that had a healthier dose of respect for the order YHWH established, and a less confused view of His purpose in creating women.

She was asked to claim familial relationship with her husband, not marital, and this resulted in her being taken into the kings household for long enough that the shutting up of all the wombs in the kings household was mentioned. Was it long enough to be observable, as in noticed? Just how long was she there? There is no mention of her spilling the beans, or in any way hinting at the fact that she was Abraham's woman. You can also tell from that story, that adultery was a death penalty offense back then, and that means she knew at any time she could be faced with a misinformed king pursuing intimacy with her.....which would be adulterous. She must have had a lot of faith to wait on YHWH, And trust her husband's judgment and decision in this matter!

I read an excellent booklet once titled "Me, obey him?" That laid out a beautiful case scripturally for why a woman can and should submit to, and obey her husband, and then destroyed it at the end with a statement like "So we can see a woman can and should obey her husband, unless he asks her to do something contrary to the bible." This "unless" makes the woman the man's constant judge, always questioning the morality of his decisions. And where was Sarah's Bible? I know a woman personally who was pushed into sexual relationships with her stepson, and father, by her husband. I think it is a huge comfort to know that that sin is his, not hers. If the man has full authority, he is also fully accountable. It is wise to marry a man who is God fearing, and lets truth and law rule his actions, but a woman who is loyal and obedient to her man, is within God's purpose for creating women.
I have read super inspiring true stories of women who's loyalty and godly submission won their man to the Lord. I doubt her refusal to obey, or judgment of him, would have had the same effect.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What I like to point out to women, is that Sara is lifted up as the example of a godly woman. Her story is found in Genesis at the beginning of our Bibles. As far as we know she didn't have a Bible to read, or any such creature as a pastor or other minister to listen to, or idolize, in place of her husband, and I think it's safe to assume there were no women's bible studies, or prayer meetings for her to attend.
Her generation was fairly close to Noah's, and may as a result of that had a healthier dose of respect for the order YHWH established, and a less confused view of His purpose in creating women.

She was asked to claim familial relationship with her husband, not marital, and this resulted in her being taken into the kings household for long enough that the shutting up of all the wombs in the kings household was mentioned. Was it long enough to be observable, as in noticed? Just how long was she there? There is no mention of her spilling the beans, or in any way hinting at the fact that she was Abraham's woman. You can also tell from that story, that adultery was a death penalty offense back then, and that means she knew at any time she could be faced with a misinformed king pursuing intimacy with her.....which would be adulterous. She must have had a lot of faith to wait on YHWH, And trust her husband's judgment and decision in this matter!

I read an excellent booklet once titled "Me, obey him?" That laid out a beautiful case scripturally for why a woman can and should submit to, and obey her husband, and then destroyed it at the end with a statement like "So we can see a woman can and should obey her husband, unless he asks her to do something contrary to the bible." This "unless" makes the woman the man's constant judge, always questioning the morality of his decisions. And where was Sarah's Bible? I know a woman personally who was pushed into sexual relationships with her stepson, and father, by her husband. I think it is a huge comfort to know that that sin is his, not hers. If the man has full authority, he is also fully accountable. It is wise to marry a man who is God fearing, and lets truth and law rule his actions, but a woman who is loyal and obedient to her man, is within God's purpose for creating women.
I have read super inspiring true stories of women who's loyalty and godly submission won their man to the Lord. I doubt her refusal to obey, or judgment of him, would have had the same effect.

Well Jolene, I've been pretty strident with you on other topics and I reserve the right to be so again but this is beautiful and deep. Well done.

 

[andrew]

Dang, @Joleneakamama... crushed it.

I'm also familiar with Me? Obey Him?, going back to my mother's teaching ministry in the '70s-'90s. Like you said, great overall with a big weakness, but I think still for a lot of women a good introduction to the basic principle.

It is wise to marry a man who is God fearing, and lets truth and law rule his actions

This is a great point. Wherever we draw the line on rules (or 'guidelines'), we encourage some behaviors and discourage others. And to the extent we raise the bar on our expectations of men and women, we also raise the 'barriers to entry' for marriage, as sane and rational people get choosier about whom they commit themselves to for life.

Like a lot of misguided do-gooders, we see the results of bad decisions and want to alleviate the consequences. That's a slippery slope that leads to more bad decisions and more bad consequences. In this case, as in virtually every case where we or some group wants to challenge the prevailing (typically downward) trends of our culture, we're going to have to accept that the 'turnaround' generation is going to bear a disproportionate burden of consequences for decisions that were permitted or even approved by a more lax culture. Ideally, we suck it up and do what we must and hope for a better environment for our children and grandchildren.

And let's not kid ourselves. When the topic is female submission, it's all about "OMG, what if the husband wants the wife to do something she thinks is wrong?". But for every woman who married a guy that is now not the leader she thought he would be (if she was thinking about that when they got married), there is a man who married a woman that is now proving to be incorrigibly strong-willed and self-centered. It's a two-way street. We're all going to have to try harder to do better to create the world we want our children to grow up and raise their children in.

 

[The Revolting Man]

T

Zec, you just triggered two thoughts for me with that "declare her husband in sin" phrase. Funny how the human brain works....

You'll appreciate this: Think about Request Mast in the Corps. The wife never has the authority to "declare" her husband in sin, but she may have a right of appeal to higher authority. And because our culture is so fragmented and atomized, we just immediate skip over any other human authority and go straight to God. But if we had any kind of intermediate authority, say, like the elders of a community, then there might be a place for a woman to make an appeal to those in authority over her husband.

I got to thinking about this because I was thinking about that right of appeal, or at what point does a woman get to cry for help? I thought about military chain-of-command, and how you can bring an action against your immediate superior if you (a) are about 110% convinced you are on rock solid ground with your complaint, and (b) think it's worth the risk in so many different ways that it will end badly for you even if you are 'right'. At first I was thinking about a woman's appealing to directly to God, but see where that leads? In our individualist, egalitarian culture, we don't even see the need for additional human authority, but doesn't the NT clearly line out a system of authority within the churches, with men expected to submit to church leadership? Food for thought....

We men like to think we report directly to Christ, but the minute we try to operate in groups there will be leadership—and everybody here can identify what the NT teaches about that and do the math.

Second thought is about remedies. I agree with this—

—but I do not feel sorry for women, and do not overemphasize the word "only", because those are two powerful remedies.

We know from Peter that obedience can teach the husband a thing or two. We know from experience that when a woman is predictably obedient we are more careful with our leadership, and responsibility weighs more heavily, and when a woman is predictably more rebellious it makes every decision a conflict of wills and a matter of 'winning'. And the thought of leaving is a great litmus test for the priority of the issue: Is this worth leaving him over?

What a woman cannot do is stay in the home, be a chronic adversary for the husband and bad example for the children, and stand on some theory that what she hears from God is more important than (or even as important as) what he hears from God.

This deserves it's own thread, to what extent if any is there a temporal authority that can supercede a husband/father's role in his home? I'll start it if you don't. Excellent line of reasoning.

 

[andrew]

Okay, working on that here.