Revering Makes Submitting Successful

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I have two questions in this for those of you in this thread.

First, if the position is perfect love will always produce obedience then what should we think of Christ who perfectly loves his bride yet we do not always perfectly submit? If a man and his woman are the symbolic image of Christ to the church and if we say that if a man loves his woman right she will always submit to that type of love how does that correspond to Christ who certainly always loves perfectly but even so his bride sometimes does not submit to him?

Secondly, what are we to do with the text in 1 Peter 3 where the woman is taught by the word to submit even when her man is not submissive to the word so that by her submission she might win over the man?

How do these two things align with the view that if a woman is unsubmissive that it is because her head has failed to be submissive? Is it not better to say there are exceptions to the general rule? In other words, is it not possible a man is doing what is right and he is loving his woman rightly but in some cases the woman, like Christ's bride, is in sin and is stubbornly refusing to respond to the love?

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Dr. Allen wrote:

How do these two things align with the view that if a woman is unsubmissive that it is because her head has failed to be submissive?

The main point I am trying to get across is that a man who is not truly submitted to the Lord has no right to expect his woman (or women) to submit to him, since the man should lead by example. I'm not trying to give the ladies a "pass" on this; a man who is not submitted to the Lord is not an excuse for his woman, especially if she professes to be a born-again believer, to be unsubmissive, but an unsubmissive man is being hypocritical if he complains about his unsubmissive woman.

Each of us will answer to God for how we followed His Instruction Manual, including such passages as 1 Peter 3:1-2 (for the ladies) and Ephesians 5:25-33 (for the men.) That is part of the "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw" that will be tested by fire and determine the degree of reward we receive. (See 1 Corinthians 3:12-15.)

IMHO, a man who constantly beats his woman over the head with the various "wife submission" passages is, himself, not totally submitted to the Lord. And not one of us will be able to perfectly submit all the time. So far, Jesus of Nazareth is the only person who has been able to do that.

There are cases when a man is trying his best to be what God wants him to be but his woman wants no part of it. (And often, it's the other way around.) That's where 1 Corinthians 7:15 comes into play. And, in fact, that is exactly what happened to my first marriage (yes, it was a legal-according-to-pagan-Greco-Roman-Catholic&Protestant-tradition marriage). After God finally got me cleaned up (I was trying to be an atheist, which is worse than being a drug addict in many ways) and got me headed down His path instead of the path I had chosen, my now-ex-wife continued in her rebellion.

But her rebellion was something I had passively encouraged before God set me straight, so I can blame myself at least as much as I can blame her. True, she will answer to God for her actions, but I was totally unsubmitted to the Lord (not just in some areas, but in nearly everything) for the first 18 years of that marriage. I was supposed to be the head, but had abdicated my responsibility as such. If I had been obedient to God very early in that failed marriage, would things have been different? I think yes, but only God knows for sure. But since I was not submitted to the Lord, I had no right to expect her to be submitted to me. And before you ask, yes, I was hypocritical about that.

So when I say that men should look in the mirror to see the problem, I am speaking from bitter experience. Yes, it is possible that a man can do everything right and his wife will still rebel. But:

John 8:7b NKJV He...said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

Brothers, let us lead in love.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Pastor John wrote:

Remember, the original scenario, Eve first, then Adam in transgression.

Eve ate the "apple" first. Two observations about that:

• 1. Adam just stood there watching, not being the leader he was supposed to be. There is not one word said by him, according to the Biblical record. He should have instructed his woman to obey God, not listen to the serpent's lies and half-truths.
  
  2. Nothing happened until Adam ate the "apple." Then their eyes were opened.
  
  3. Adam blamed his woman for the sin he committed, but God didn't "buy" his excuse.

(Oops...there are three types of people in this world. People who can count, and people who can't.)

Therefore, I conclude that Eve's sin was Adam's responsibility, not Eve's. Eve was still punished for disobedience, but Adam was the responsible party. Had Adam told his woman not to eat the "apple" and she ate it anyway, the responsibility would have been hers, not Adam's.

Ezekiel 33:6 NKJV But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.'

As I said in my answer to Dr. Allen, women do not get a "pass," but it is we men who are responsible to see to the spiritual welfare of the lovely ladies that God has entrusted to our care. And to properly discharge our responsibilities, we absolutely must be totally submitted to the Lord.

 

[porkchop]

Hi Ladies!

If you are content to be ornaments on the arms of your men then do so. I choose to contribute ALL of my strengths to a marriage and that includes my reason, judgement, and my own will if my mate is asking me to do something that is contrary to the welfare of my family.

3 cheers for women who are truly 'helpers and and partners' in their marriages- I'm that way too. I've talked a lot to my husband about what he likes and he said 'someone who I can trust to point out the good and also the bad if I'm way off track on something, I get things wrong sometimes, ya know''. We're hardly ever in total agreement on much, but we both love working together to make decisions that are good for our family. He said he's not attracted to women that say 'what ever you want' all that time as if they don't feel important enough to contribute to the conversation and decisions.

 

[porkchop]

Secondly, what are we to do with the text in 1 Peter 3 where the woman is taught by the word to submit even when her man is not submissive to the word so that by her submission she might win over the man?

, is it not possible a man is doing what is right and he is loving his woman rightly but in some cases the woman, like Christ's bride, is in sin and is stubbornly refusing to respond to the love?

Is it not also possible that a wife submit all the way to her death bed and her husband not be won over by her submissiveness? Why do the 'exceptions' get so much 'air time'? I don't find dealing in extremes all that helpful.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Is it not also possible that a wife submit all the way to her death bed and her husband not be won over by her submissiveness? Why do the 'exceptions' get so much 'air time'? I don't find dealing in extremes all that helpful.

I would press not for an extreme or over extension on either side. I think the goal is balance. Sometimes man can be leading right and the lady is in sin. Sometimes the man is in sin but the woman is in the right and is holy in submission.

I have found some men who beat themselves up and are always saying well if I would just love her more she would not be in her rebellion when in reality he was a coward and too afraid to really sit down and talk to her about her sin that was the issue. On the other hand, I have seen women who were justifying their disobedience on the fact their man was living in sin. In neither case does the man or the woman have the right to act as they are. The man must submit to Christ. The woman must submit to the man. The man must not be a coward and cover that up his fear of leading with the ole poor poor poor me attitude if I would just love more she would not live in such sin. The woman must not cover up her license under the cloak that the man is unsubmissive to Christ the head. Even so the Word gives her guidance on how to live and relate to her man and even to live an overall righteous life.

Do men need to submit first to Christ? yes absolutely!
Do women need to submit to the man as the church is to unto Christ? Yes Absolutely.
Will the man who submits to Christ generally have a more submissive lady? Yes
Will the woman who submits to the Word and shows respect to her man when he is in sin have a better relationship with more potential for winning him over? Yes.
Should a woman justify her disobedience under the guise of her man who is in sin? No?
Should the man justify not addressing sin in his lady's life due to fear or cowardly actions of it is not his job to do but to only love more because if he really did she would submit? No.

Balance is the key without taking or latching onto any one of those to the neglect of others.

 

[sola scriptura]

The Bible plainly states what a woman is to do if her husband is not a believer or not living a Godly life.

1 Cor 7:13-14
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.

1 Peter 3:1
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.

God has "covered all the bases", so to speak. A believing woman is to be submissive to her husband, just as the Church is to submit to Christ. It doesn't matter how good or bad he is, whether he's making good or bad decisions, whether he is godly enough or loving enough. It doesn't matter, because we're not submitting for him (the husband), we're submitting because of our love for God and our ultimate submission to our Creator.

There are a multitude of extremes on each side of the equation. I was an unsubmissive wife for years because my husband wasn't godly "enough", and I was more godly than him, therefore I certainly couldn't trust his judgement . I don't know where I got my godly-meter, but I sure thought it was accurate!

Men are most definitely responsible for their wives' spiritual condition, but I'm in agreement with Dr. Allen and Pastor Whitten that a woman is completely responsible to God for her own sin, and she has no free pass just because her husband didn't treat her as well as he should have.

On another note: A wife who just agrees all the time, saying "whatever you want" is not necessarily in submission to her husband. She's also not doing her God-ordained job of being a help meet. The true test of submission is when you think your husband is making a wrong decision, you respectfully tell him so, and you still submit to his decision joyfully.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

SS your points of:

On another note: A wife who just agrees all the time, saying "whatever you want" is not necessarily in submission to her husband. She's also not doing her God-ordained job of being a help meet. The true test of submission is when you think your husband is making a wrong decision, you respectfully tell him so, and you still submit to his decision joyfully.

Very true and on target! The doctrinal term we use if complementarianism, i.e. the woman is there to help or complement the man and that means at times talking about another idea to see if the man has considered it. He may have not and if he is wise he will consider and ponder a suggestion from his closest associate in life. He may find it to be the best idea and go with it. Or after thinking and praying he may decide to still go in a different way and in such cases the true test of a woman's godliness is rather she will submit to it even when she differs and still do so with the joy of the Spirit in her. A man or woman who just submits when they agree with the one asking for the obedience is good but the harder test is indeed when the man or woman differs with the request. A man who submits to a boss at work even when he differs with the request is being godly and submissive. If he can do it with joy that is even greater. The same applies to a woman too with her man as her head. If she submits even when she differs that is being godly and submissive. If she does it too with joy that is even more godly.

 

[Jim]

God has "covered all the bases", so to speak. A believing woman is to be submissive to her husband, just as the Church is to submit to Christ. It doesn't matter how good or bad he is, whether he's making good or bad decisions, whether he is godly enough or loving enough. It doesn't matter, because we're not submitting for him (the husband), we're submitting because of our love for God and our ultimate submission to our Creator.

There are a multitude of extremes on each side of the equation. I was an unsubmissive wife for years because my husband wasn't godly "enough", and I was more godly than him, therefore I certainly couldn't trust his judgement . I don't know where I got my godly-meter, but I sure thought it was accurate!

Men are most definitely responsible for their wives' spiritual condition, but I'm in agreement with Dr. Allen and Pastor Whitten that a woman is completely responsible to God for her own sin, and she has no free pass just because her husband didn't treat her as well as he should have.

On another note: A wife who just agrees all the time, saying "whatever you want" is not necessarily in submission to her husband. She's also not doing her God-ordained job of being a help meet. The true test of submission is when you think your husband is making a wrong decision, you respectfully tell him so, and you still submit to his decision joyfully.

This hits the nail right on its head! And, a wifes submission has nothing to with her husband, it's between her and God. But at the same time God has placed a huge responsibility onto the husband, he has elected the husband to the office of leadership in the home. (Anyone that has managed people in the business world knows very well how difficult that can be) Which not only includes the responsibility for making sure his family is provided with the basics of life, but also with the spiritual things. Eph.5:25-31.

We all struggle at times, but God still does hold each one of us accountable to what we know and do. But always remember, God has a plan, or blueprint as John said, for us, and if we DO NOT build upon HIS plan, the HOME we build will surely FALL.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not buying the theory that a woman's submission to her husband is based on her husband's submission to God. Obviously, it will be much easier to submit to a husband who is a good and godly man....but if the opposite is true, it doesn't excuse the wife from being submissive anyway (as long as her husband isn't asking her to do something sinful or physically abusing her..in those cases, she needs to flee to safety).

I think the story of Abigail and Nabal is a good example of the point I'm trying to make. Nabal was a foolish man and he made a stupid decision...yet Abigail's actions saved him and their household from being completely destroyed by David. I would think a truly rebellious wife might of welcomed Nabal being slaughtered.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Pluralfamilies.net]

have u guys read the book love and respect?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Dr. Eggerich has written a superb book. He handles the issue of love and respect very well. It is one of the best books in the field on this subject.

Too, Shaunti Feldhahn (I think, can't recall how to spell last name) has some great books on this as well. Her book: "For Men Only" and "For Women Only" are excellent resources as well.

 

[Anonymous]

From PolyDoc,

Remember, the original scenario, Eve first, then Adam in transgression. (JLW)

Eve ate the "apple" first. Two observations about that:

1. Adam just stood there watching, not being the leader he was supposed to be. There is not one word said by him, according to the Biblical record. He should have instructed his woman to obey God, not listen to the serpent's lies and half-truths.

2. Nothing happened until Adam ate the "apple." Then their eyes were opened.

3. Adam blamed his woman for the sin he committed, but God didn't "buy" his excuse.
(Oops...there are three types of people in this world. People who can count, and people who can't.)

Therefore, I conclude that Eve's sin was Adam's responsibility, not Eve's. Eve was still punished for disobedience, but Adam was the responsible party. Had Adam told his woman not to eat the "apple" and she ate it anyway, the responsibility would have been hers, not Adam's.

May I suggest another scenario that I feel is typical of human nature as we see it today?

1. Adam just stood there watching, not being the leader he was supposed to be. There is not one word said by him, according to the Biblical record. He should have instructed his woman to obey God, not listen to the serpent's lies and half-truths.

Though Adam is (as the federal head of humanity) responsible for the initiation of sin into the world, I for one am weary of taking the blame for a wife's lack of submission to husband and God because of a failure on his part. I, too, used to teach that it was ultimately Adams fault that she partook of the fruit, however, I have learned somethings in 44 years of being married to the same wonderful woman. #1. She's not always wonderful, (any woman) can at times be bitchy beyond measure and in moments be angelic in nature. You may have declared your love and dedication a hundred ways and yet she craves your additional devotion. #2. You may have instructed her in the way of righteousness, hundreds of times, with clarity and example but she will still choose based on her own will, not your instructions and teaching. According to the text, Adam had instructed her, she already knew the will of God and her husband, yet she made her own choice, based upon her own understanding and will. What more was Adam to do, violate her free will and enslave her physically? If her love for God and her husband was not enough to motivate her to right living, nothing else would do it. That being the case I have to question the depth of her love. #3. We do not know that Adam even heard the conversation from the serpent. How many of our temptations take place in the silent recesses of our mind? I am not suggesting that men are superior to women or that women are lesser in quality to men, but I do agree that the Bible teaches that men and women are different in authority and opportunity to each other.

2. Nothing happened until Adam ate the "apple." Then their eyes were opened.

Absolutely correct. Throughout the scripture we are told that it is the "sin of Adam" that is the problem (assuming that it is referring to the individual rather than the race), the sin that is inherited by all of us is that of Adam, motivated, not by his desire for the fruit, but by his willingness to listen to his wife rather than God. When God judged Eve and Adam after their disobedience, He declared to Eve that her husband shall rule over her. When Adam was judged it was clearly spelled out that the reason was because he had hearkened unto the voice of his wife. Adam was accountable to God and Eve was accountable to Adam.

Therefore, I conclude that Eve's sin was Adam's responsibility, not Eve's. Eve was still punished for disobedience, but Adam was the responsible party. Had Adam told his woman not to eat the "apple" and she ate it anyway, the responsibility would have been hers, not Adam's.

I disagree, Eve's sin was her own responsibility. She had knowledge, intelligence and volition, she made the wrong choice on her own, therefore she and all women are under the authority and leadership of their male federal head (father/ brother/ husband). The human race is not in sin because of her actions, her consequence of sin is being subject to her husbands authority. The human race is sinful because Adam listened to her instead of God.

I know I am flying in the face of modern thought, theology and society, but I do it anyway. In our world today, as born-again children of God, through faith in Jesus Christ the messiah it is the job of every man to listen to and obey the voice of God through the Word and the still small voice of the Holy Spirit, even if his sweet wife disagrees or feels superior in knowledge or experience to him. It is the job of every woman to listen to the voice of her father or husband as he declares the Word and will of God to you, whether you understand and agree with him or not. He is responsible before God for you, not you yourself. I know there are always going to be those who want to voice the problem of the exceptions to the rule, but that is generally a means to avoid the major issue. Let's not get caught in that trap and let us face this head on and become compliant to the Word of God.

 

[steve]

The human race is sinful because Adam listened to her instead of God.

may i suggest a slightly different wording?

The human race is sinful because Adam acted upon her suggestion instead of obeying God.

our job as husbands is to spend hours listening...............and then do the right thing.

steve running for cover

 

[Anonymous]

Steve, no need to duck and cover. :lol: This is what I based my wording on: "Gen 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,...".
Now don't force me to admit to the possibility of being wrong, I'll deny it every chance I get.

 

[steve]

our job as husbands is to spend hours listening...............and then do the right thing.

i am a lot more afraid of the women than i am of you, brother

steve really scuttling now

 

[Anonymous]

:lol:

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Pastor John and Dr. George,

Might it be there is a difference in the definition to the word responsibility?

I think it is true that Adam was responsible for Eve if by that term of responsibility we mean that Adam had the duty and obligation to be her head and guide and leader. But if by that term we mean that he controlled her choices and was the one to effect her actions then I would not see it that way.

It looks like it boils down to how we define our terms in that area. Adam was certainly her head, was placed over her to guide her, lead her, and to work with her in the fulfillment of the divine plan from God. Too, when he sinned he as the head ruined her and all of the human race (Romans 5 makes that absolutely clear I think). So in that sense his responsibility or duty to obey God had implications and connections to all people.

Yet too I would agree that a woman can go astray even if the man is living righteously. If we see the parallel between Christ and his bride like a man and his woman then how can we not but see the opportunity for a man to be loving and walking in the truth yet the woman choose to go her own way? After all, does not Christ love perfectly yet we, his bride, sometimes go our own way as well? It seems to me that just like Christ who loves perfectly can still have an erring bride so too a man can be loving rightly and still his bride choose to live in error.

Would that not be a balanced perspective on the matter?

 

[Jim]

Adam and Eve both had a free will. It seem that before the fall, everything was good, besides Adam being a little lonely. Adam had been given his job in the garden and had been warned not to touch the tree of good and evil. Then God created Eve with a free will also, warning her also not to touch the tree of good and evil. It wasn't until the serpent crossed paths with Eve that the problems began. Before that it seems that Adam and Eve were equal, she wasn't required to submit to him. Therefore when she had been tricked by the serpent, disobeyed God and did eat from the tree of good and evil, she was fully to blame. God held each, the serpent, the woman Eve, and the man Adam resposible for their own actions. Adam was in no way responible for what Eve did, only what he participated in. It wasn't until after the fall when God said "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." It started with Eve's transgression not Adams, he cannot be blamed for being a bad leader of Eve.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Adam and Eve were equal, she wasn't required to submit to him.

Jim,

This would not align well with the OC or NC. First, in the OC God created Eve as Adam's helper. This therefore does show she had a functional role. Equal to Adam in that she was also human as he was human? Yes! Were they both equal and loved by God? Yes! Were they just as important and valuable to God? Yes both were equal in value and importance. But Eve was created for a specific purpose, and that assignment was to follow Adam and be a help to him in the original commission he had been given. This is also what we find taught in the NC writings. Paul stated it very explicitly as to why a woman was created. Paul said: "a woman is the glory of a man . . . man was not made for the woman but the woman was made for the man" (1 Cor. 11:7,9). Though highly unpopular in egalitarian circles if we accept the absolute inspiration of the text we are left that Eve was created for Adam and she was assigned to be his helper, not his leader or not in the same role as Adam. Equal? Yes. With different roles? Yes. the comment about ruling over Eve was not anything new other than now after sin there would be conflict in the roles as sin had disrupted the harmony. Does that make a woman less valuable? Not at all. If this is true then every employer who has employees is demeaning the employees for they too have a different assignment and role than the employer. Plus, it would mean that within the Godhead there is degradation as well. The Holy Spirit is also the Helper by Jesus Christ. Jesus, who though he was also God in the flesh, submitted to God the Father. Does that make Jesus less valuable than the Father? Certainly not! Does it make the Holy Spirit less valuable because the Spirit is called the Helper like Eve was called Adam's helpmate? Certainly not. Functional roles can be different even when all members are equal.

he cannot be blamed for being a bad leader of Eve.

I understand what I think you are trying to communicate. Adam did not control Eve and he did cause her to eat. But, it is not true that Adam was in the same type of sin as Eve. If you will read 1 Timothy 2 closely we find that God says Eve was deceived. Adam's sin was not one of deception but one of purposeful rebellion. And clearly Paul in Romans 5 places the blame for mankind's fall into sin directly on the shoulders of Adam. In chapter 5 verses 12 and following Paul said it three or four times that sin entered the universe through Adam, not through Eve. Adam stood as the covenant head of the human race. Thus Eve experience her fall into sin when Adam deliberately disobeyed God's order.