Roles for Husbands & Wives in Marriage

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't mind being the one getting rough with you, and I don't care if you don't appreciate it...

I liken it to giving another believer a good spanking. Sometimes that's what 'cha gotta go.

.....it's like an evil clown; you know, where what is supposed to be pleasant, enjoyable and entertaining, is actually out to kill you......it's creepy.

It's kind of like the 'John Wayne Gacy' of doctrinal beliefs.

 

[handy]

I'm not sure exactly where I said submission isn't the same as obedience on this thread, but I do say that a lot because it's perfectly true.

Obedience comes from those who are lower than another... a child is lower than his parents, thus the need for obedience. A slave is lower than his master, thus the need for obedience.

Submission is when there are two equals, but one is charged with leadership. The other submits to the leadership of the leader, but nonetheless is in now way lower than him.

Women are to submit to their husbands leadership within the family, a part of her job as helpmeet. He shouldn't look at her as a subordinate, but as a partner who will help carry out his plans. She shouldn't look at him as some kind of overlord, but as a partner whose plans she will help carry out.

When one looks at the Greek one will see that the word "submission" is connected with military men carrying out the orders of a general. The word "obey" as in children obey your parents and slaves obey your master, is never used in connection between a husband and wife.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Again, why is that you never mention divorce but the verse clearly mentions it? We aren't speaking about divorcing the first and marrying another (just for clarification if you had misunderstood) but having another wife while the first is still a wife - just like Jacob with Leah and Rachael.

Divorcing is not the point. Divorce or no divorce, Jesus said the man who marries another "commits adultery against her" (Mark 10:11 NASB). The divorce is not what makes having another woman adultery. Think about it. If you were correct and that it really is okay to marry more than one woman, I would not be committing adultery if I married another woman after a divorce. But as it is, Jesus said I would be. And so would she be, if she remarried after a divorce.


Felix, I noticed early on in my participation in this forum that you seem to be bent on bashing the Western church, and what they do, and what they believe, and what Bible(s) they use. This is just another example of it. These are not good signs--even in your Bible (I think).

 

[NinaMMitchell]

I'm not sure exactly where I said submission isn't the same as obedience on this thread, but I do say that a lot because it's perfectly true.

Obedience comes from those who are lower than another... a child is lower than his parents, thus the need for obedience. A slave is lower than his master, thus the need for obedience.

Submission is when there are two equals, but one is charged with leadership. The other submits to the leadership of the leader, but nonetheless is in now way lower than him.

Women are to submit to their husbands leadership within the family, a part of her job as helpmeet. He shouldn't look at her as a subordinate, but as a partner who will help carry out his plans. She shouldn't look at him as some kind of overlord, but as a partner whose plans she will help carry out.

When one looks at the Greek one will see that the word "submission" is connected with military men carrying out the orders of a general. The word "obey" as in children obey your parents and slaves obey your master, is never used in connection between a husband and wife.

I don't think you've said it in this thread, but like you said, you've said it several times in other threads. And I agree with everything you just said. My example has always been this. A team works together and every member is equally important, but every team has a leader (or captain in sports teams) b/c someone has to make the decisions when an agreement can't be reached. That's how marriage is. And even if the wife doesn't agree with her husband's final decision, God will bless her for supporting him anyway.

 

[NinaMMitchell]

Oh, and not to mention, Jesus does say something along the lines of "Isn't a parent greater than the child? Isn't a master greater than his slave?" It's funny He didn't pose the question "Isn't a husband greater than his wife?" Probably because he isn't. I don't know the exact verse that I'm talking about, but I don't think even Felix can deny that Jesus said this, it's a pretty commom passage.

 

[Mike]

Felix, you strike me as a man who is above reproach and will not allow your iron to be sharpened by other iron. Perhaps it's your culture, the father you were brought up with, your church bend or something else. Do you know how I'm thinking about that misused scripture to support their very unbiblical stance? The Ku Klux Klan. If you don't know them from your country's perspective, they firmly believed in white superiority. Arguing scripture with them was the ultimate act of futility.

You say you want scripture, but you dismiss what's given you. Such support for polygamy has always been reserved for cults and fringe separatists.

As a whole, the Body of Christ rejects such a beliefs, and I'm glad for it. I'd be concerned if the global Church began listening to fringe separatists

 

[felix]

Danus,

Just for clarification, I wasn't trying to fit scripture the way I wanted but showed what the scripture actually says. However, it was you who started the conversation with me with "0" scripture reference just pushing you personal agenda.

 

[felix]

Felix, you strike me as a man who is above reproach and will not allow your iron to be sharpened by other iron. Perhaps it's your culture, the father you were brought up with, your church bend or something else. Do you know how I'm thinking about that misused scripture to support their very unbiblical stance? The Ku Klux Klan. If you don't know them from your country's perspective, they firmly believed in white superiority. Arguing scripture with them was the ultimate act of futility.

You say you want scripture, but you dismiss what's given you. Such support for polygamy has always been reserved for cults and fringe separatists.

As a whole, the Body of Christ rejects such a beliefs, and I'm glad for it. I'd be concerned if the global Church began listening to fringe separatists

Mike,

• You must not forget it was God who told David that He will give more wives if it was lacking for him when he committed adultery.
• You must also not forget that the laws for multiple wives in the law was set by God Himself.

These verses which I point are spoken and given directly by God. I don't had to "misuse" anything because, it is not I who had to interpret but it is plainly and simply there for anyone to read and understand themselves.

You too try to personalize the attack by pointing out my background, culture, father etc. However, Martin Luther who is not my culture or background, supported multiple wives.

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The law also commands how one is to exact eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. Yet Jesus tells us not to. Same for divorce and having more than one wife. So how is using what the law allows, but which Jesus then says not to do (and explains why), a valid argument to defend doing those things?

If you were correct and that it really is now okay to marry more than one woman, I would not be committing adultery if I married another woman after a divorce. But as it is, Jesus said I would be. And so would she be, if she remarried after a divorce.

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12 NASB)


You can see he's plainly making the distinction between the adultery of the man for taking another wife, and the adultery of the woman for taking another husband--he's not, as you suggest, saying the woman's adultery is imputed to the man because he divorced her and caused her to commit adultery.

If it was okay to have more than one wife, Jesus would not have said the man who marries another woman after a divorce commits adultery himself by doing that. Him marrying another wife, and being guilty of adultery for doing it, has nothing to do with what the ex-wife does.

 

[felix]

When one looks at the Greek one will see that the word "submission" is connected with military men carrying out the orders of a general. The word "obey" as in children obey your parents and slaves obey your master, is never used in connection between a husband and wife.

(1Pet 3:5-6) For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

 

[felix]

Divorcing is not the point. Divorce or no divorce, Jesus said the man who marries another "commits adultery against her" (Mark 10:11 NASB). The divorce is not what makes having another woman adultery. Think about it. If you were correct and that it really is okay to marry more than one woman, I would not be committing adultery if I married another woman after a divorce. But as it is, Jesus said I would be. And so would she be, if she remarried after a divorce.


Felix, I noticed early on in my participation in this forum that you seem to be bent on bashing the Western church, and what they do, and what they believe, and what Bible(s) they use. This is just another example of it. These are not good signs--even in your Bible (I think).

Why do you quote scripture wrongly?

 

[felix]

It's funny He didn't pose the question "Isn't a husband greater than his wife?" Probably because he isn't.

(Eph 5:23) For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

(1Pet 3:7) Husbands, likewise, dwell with [them] with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as [being] heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

Which Bible are you reading?

 

[felix]

The law also commands how one is to exact eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. Yet Jesus tells us not to. Same for divorce and having more than one wife. So how is using what the law allows, but which Jesus then says not to do (and explains why), a valid argument to defend doing those things?

If you were correct and that it really is now okay to marry more than one woman, I would not be committing adultery if I married another woman after a divorce. But as it is, Jesus said I would be. And so would she be, if she remarried after a divorce.

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.†(Mark 10:11-12 NASB)


You can see he's plainly making the distinction between the adultery of the man for taking another wife, and the adultery of the woman for taking another husband--he's not, as you suggest, saying the woman's adultery is imputed to the man because he divorced her and caused her to commit adultery.

If it was okay to have more than one wife, Jesus would not have said the man who marries another woman after a divorce commits adultery himself by doing that. Him marrying another wife, and being guilty of adultery for doing it, has nothing to do with what the ex-wife does.

Jesus wasn't speaking about "marrying another" without divorce about but "divorcing and marrying another" as we see in Mark 10:9, the previous verse.

 

[felix]

To answer your first question, the person who said submission is not the same as obedience, I believe was Handy. But since she's a woman, I suppose you'll disregard that.
Second, maybe wives are supposed to submit to their husbands the way the church submits to Christ, but don't forget, the husband is not actually God. Men are just as likely to make mistakes as woman are (and believe it or not, it actually is possible for the wife to be the smarter or wiser party between the two people in the marriage) which is why wives SHOULD voice their opinions. I've gone to church my entire life, and not a single one of them has endorsed polygamy or taught that woman should be obedient and stay in their place. They've preached a loving marriage between ONE man and ONE woman, and they've preached wives submitting to their husbands when an agreement can't be reached. But I guess you're wiser than they are, right?
Oh yeah, and you conveniently didn't respond to the questions I addressed you with, and I'm really interested to know your answers.

I did not disagree with you on this. Most problems arise between husbands and wives because wives disagree with husbands and often don't accept his decision. This is why I said the deciding factor must be husband and he must not despise the authority given by God over women. While his love must be shown by even giving his life, this does not mean he has to submit to women. This is what I warned about. I did not deny there has to be discussions. Just as the church speaks to Christ and Christ eager to listen to church, husbands must listen to their wives - not obey them.

Polygamy is entirely a different thing. As I mentioned on another post, I am not wanting everyone to marry another, but just to make it clear, it is not a sin and man under some exceptional circumstances, has the liberty to marry another.

Imagine a man aged 23 marries a wife, who for some medical reason cannot have sex anymore and requires daily medical attention. So, what will the man do? Today's men will be inclined to simply divorce and marry another because the law allows only this. This is the reason I was saying polygamy is acceptable because, the man can still take care of the first and still marry another.

Also, image a war where most of the male population died (like Germany after marriage) and there wasn't enough males to give to marriage, what will you do? Look into all the Post World War II sex ratios in Europe will tell you the story.

Just because we are in a much more comfortable time period does not mean it will last forever. There will be situations just like post war Germany where it had 7 million more females not able to find a husband.

 

[Chris.]

LOL, Felix another wife??

Let me think..

I can be nagged twice as much!

I can go shopping twice as much!


I can tell two women they aren't really getting fatter, and I truly did notice their
new haircuts.

I can watch twice as many chick flicks.


I don't care what the bible or anything says about second wives...


NOT FOR ME!!!!

I love my one wife.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jesus wasn't speaking about "marrying another" without divorce about but "divorcing and marrying another" as we see in Mark 10:9, the previous verse.

I had the feeling you wouldn't get it.

Divorce has nothing to do with what Jesus said that when a man marries another woman HE is committing adultery. Not his ex-wife. Not he himself somehow becoming guilty of adultery because his ex-wife got remarried (if she did), but because HE got remarried. It's right there in Mark 10.

Come to your senses, man!

 

[felix]

I had the feeling you wouldn't get it.

Divorce has nothing to do with what Jesus said that when a man marries another woman HE is committing adultery. Not his ex-wife. Not he himself somehow becoming guilty of adultery because his ex-wife got remarried (if she did), but because HE got remarried. It's right there in Mark 10.

Come to your senses, man!

He is committing adultery only if he divorces and marries another. God clearly defined in old testament who is a bastard child and he cannot come into the assembly of God even until the 10th generation. If your case is true, then most of the children of second wife are bastards including the children of Rachel.

 

[empathologicalism]

Jethro

Setting aside whether I agree with felix or not, you are somehow missing his point about the "marrying another woman"....I cannot get why you continue to assert something other than what felix is saying. Please read his posts again and maybe set aside feelings about the larger issue, because he is technically correct is what he is saying about AFTER DIVORCE, marrying another woman, technically correct in that that's exactly what the sentence says. It does not say what you keep asserting.

As to the issue of submission, I always wonder what value to rebuke "but the husband is not God" really has. That's 100% true....he isn't, nor is he an aardvark or a space shuttle, but the scripture says what it says, and it doesn't say "unless you can show that the husband is not God"


[why am i still being held in moderation? the message said it would be once and done?] [also, why is the site kicking me off every 2 minutes, is there a setting i need to look at ----its not my PC or inet connection, thats all fine]

 

[NinaMMitchell]

As to the issue of submission, I always wonder what value to rebuke "but the husband is not God" really has. That's 100% true....he isn't, nor is he an aardvark or a space shuttle, but the scripture says what it says, and it doesn't say "unless you can show that the husband is not God"

I didn't say that wives should submit "unless they can show that the husband isn't God". My point was that since the husband is capable of making an unwise decision, the wife should voice her opinion, being that she's a thinking, adult indicidual. I said nothing about the wife not submitting in the end. God, on the other hand, knows what is best in any situation and our opinions aren't going to give Him a different viewpoint because He already knows what's best. That's the difference.

 

[empathologicalism]

First, I can't understand why you wrote this: ""the wife should voice her opinion, being that she's a thinking, adult indicidual""

No one has asserted otherwise, so why argue a point that the opposing view is not being argued? Its a sincere question and I see this all the time in mixed gender discussions of submission. Its like most if not all are agreeing but the women want to either have the last word or have the thing stated a very very certain way in their words. Can you help me understand why you stated that?

The husband isnt God thing comes up in almost every submission discussion, so I said what I said because of that, not only to you