A wife being under the husband.

[tessiewebb]

The question just struck my mind, I decided to ask.

Actually, I'm not saying it is a crime for women to be submissive. Like Jethro Bodine pointed out in the other thread, a submissive woman captures the heart of the husband. And the husband is ever willing to die for such a woman. He is ever willing to trap 1000 bullets coming the direction if the wife with his heart.


--
I am talking about normal circumstance here and the reason women were called HELPER by God



Or how will a husband like it if his wife, his helper...

It's HELPMATE. Not Helper. As in side by side assistance. And as far as I can tell, both from experience and observation, not that many men are willing to die for their wives, unless it is heroic. The daily dying to self is a whole different matter.

 

[sesantek]

What a surprise! It was not God's original intention that women should be under (submit to) their husbands.

Genesis 3:16 NKJV
To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;

In pain you shall bring forth children;

Your desire shall be for your husband,

And he shall rule over you.â€

There was a reason why God had to say this: Eve sinned against God - and God decided to also punish her. That is to say, If Eve had not sinned God would have not made HIS statement. Both Adam and his honey would have been mutually equal.

My questions.

* Women are to submit to their husbands. Is this a kind of punishment for what Eve did?

* Are women still under this curse (if it's actually a curse)

* Should a woman submit to a man that is not her husband. (office setting, neighborhood, church etc)

I believe in potential difference, though. Two things can't work unless there is a potential difference between them. The more the potential difference the more the degree of agreement. If the man has higher potential then the woman would definitely humble herself before him. If the woman has higher potential....then what (The bible aid?). This is where the unbelievers have a problem.

Potential can mean anything: being the breadwinner, powerful influence etc

Let me quickly point out that God did not curse Adam or Eve, He only said, "cursed is the Ground for your sake to Adam" so many have misinterpreted this to be that God cursed Adam. There is a diference between Adam's ground and Adam. The ground represents his work but Jesus blood touched the ground at Calvary to solve this problem. It was only the serpent that was cursed. God said to the "Cursed are you.." That was a direct statement.

Now to the role of husbands and wives. It was Gods intention right from the beginning that man should be the head. In genesis 1, both Adam and Eve were made in the spirit realm but in genesis 2, God brought Adam in the flesh. In terms of "age and arrival on earth, Adam leads" Eve came and God made us to understand that she is a help meet (many have called it help mate but it is help meet). She is to assist or help Adam in the job God had early given him.

The helper can be at equal pedestal with the "CEO" (Adam).

God is a God of order, He would not create a marriage system where there is no order. If there is leader in any organization there will be no order. Israel always ask for a leader in the old testament. 2ven when they wanted to return to Egypt in the wilderness they asked for a leader.

In the flesh, the husband is the head of the wife. Husbands however must understand that in the spiritual, they are at equal pedestal with their wives (especially when both are born again christians). This way they can be united to fight the spiritual battles against marriage breakers.

You should honor all people(men or women) in the church or office. In your office, if you are the leader, you must take responsiblites.
God does not like leaders who are not responsible even if she is woman leading men.. This is the reason why our women should encourage their husbands to play their leadership role very well in the marriage.

I hope this piece helps.

 

[Classik]

Thanks, sesantek

 

[Seeker]

As a general rule, wherever you have more than one person there will always be disagreement, and therefore there has to be a leader. Now, only a BAD leader is a "dictator", someone very everything-I-say-goes, I-cannot-be-wrong. That is not what it means for a spouse to be obedient. The husband can easily be the leader yet have open communication with the wife, take into account her views and opinions, come to reasonable decisions, etc. After that, unless what he says is contrary to God's commandments, the wife should support those decisions with obedience and remain united.

Does that mean only the husband makes decisions? Well... That wouldn't be realistic at all! Growing up, I always knew my dad was the boss, even though he rarely told us what to do. In fact, I think the fact that he didn't usually tell us off or tell us to do stuff made it even more authoritative :P It was always my mother who ran the house the way a lioness watches her territory - but that doesn't put into imbalance the husband being the leader, not at all. (Btw, I come from a non-Christian background but we have a similar ethos, that - as long as he is providing for the family - the husband should have a degree of authority and responsibility.)

I also think that the husband having the role of leadership is not only something for the wife to act on, but it is evidence that God EXPECTS the husband to provide for the family! He cannot just laze around, tell his wife to earn money and then boss her around all in one!

 

[WIP]

Does that mean only the husband makes decisions?

Being a leader may also include delegating authority in some instances, can't it?

 

[Seeker]

Being a leader may also include delegating authority in some instances, can't it?

Precisely! A good leader at least!

 

[reba]

The rolls for each husband and wife are unique to that couple.

 

[Seeker]

The rolls for each husband and wife are unique to that couple.

That's a very sensible perspective, that is true, but do you think that the Biblical guideline could be just that - a guideline? It's not a fixed "Thou shalt give orders... Wife shall obey", it's just a general principle and there could be any number of balances within that.

 

[reba]

That's a very sensible perspective, that is true, but do you think that the Biblical guideline could be just that - a guideline? It's not a fixed "Thou shalt give orders... Wife shall obey", it's just a general principle and there could be any number of balances within that.

The Biblical guideline is a picture of Christ and the Church. Christ is the head (husband) Church is the body (wife) .

This 'picture' is laid out over and over from Genesis through The Revelation!
Christ didn't do much order giving He lead by example.

 

[Seeker]

The Biblical guideline is a picture of Christ and the Church. Christ is the head (husband) Church is the body (wife) .

This 'picture' is laid out over and over from Genesis through The Revelation!
Christ didn't do much order giving He lead by example.

Pardon me for misunderstanding, but mightn't we say that the reference in the original post is in fact the Biblical guideline?

 

[reba]

The Biblical guideline is a picture of Christ and the Church. Christ is the head (husband) Church is the body (wife) .

This 'picture' is laid out over and over from Genesis through The Revelation!
Christ didn't do much order giving He lead by example.

Lost me Seeker

 

[Milk-Drops]

The Biblical guideline is a picture of Christ and the Church. Christ is the head (husband) Church is the body (wife) .

This 'picture' is laid out over and over from Genesis through The Revelation!
Christ didn't do much order giving He lead by example.

Wasn't it not in the old testament where men were the leaders and women were to be complete submitted to them? Not to mention that men could have multiple wives so the sake of their family seed could be spread? Concubines also being an answer to this? Joshua, David, Abraham, Samson, etc. had either multiple wives, concubines, or both.

The concept of Marriage being between a single man and women is briefly hit on in the new testament when Jesus makes the statement. Paul later would discourage men from marrying because he saw the practice as taking away from the service of God.

So, the Bible dose have guidelines for what men and women's roles are for in marriage, but it wasn't consistent and changed depending on the society the Jews or Christians lived in at the time.

Pre-Jesus, a form property transfer and a means of giving sons and daughters to pass on heredity, family line, and wealth.

During the time of Jesus - A growth of 2 people( or more depending on the denomination interpreting the scripture) in a spiritual walk together.

Time of Paul - Discouraged in the view that it takes away form the direct worship of God.

 

[handy]

Wasn't it not in the old testament where men were the leaders and women were to be complete submitted to them? Not to mention that men could have multiple wives so the sake of their family seed could be spread? Concubines also being an answer to this? Joshua, David, Abraham, Samson, etc. had either multiple wives, concubines, or both.

The concept of Marriage being between a single man and women is briefly hit on in the new testament when Jesus makes the statement. Paul later would discourage men from marrying because he saw the practice as taking away from the service of God.

So, the Bible dose have guidelines for what men and women's roles are for in marriage, but it wasn't consistent and changed depending on the society the Jews or Christians lived in at the time.

Pre-Jesus, a form property transfer and a means of giving sons and daughters to pass on heredity, family line, and wealth.

During the time of Jesus - A growth of 2 people( or more depending on the denomination interpreting the scripture) in a spiritual walk together.

Time of Paul - Discouraged in the view that it takes away form the direct worship of God.

Much too simplistic, Meatballsub (Hi, and I like your username ;) ).

In the ot, many men did have multiple wives and concubines...the thing is, God never commanded nor condoned the practice. The clearest Scriptures directly from God on the matter supports one husband/one wife. The Scriptures aren't whitewashed...God's people have always been a fairly motley crew who disobey Him in many ways. Multiple wives in the OT are most likely to be categorized in the same manner as divorce...something society allowed because of the weaknesses of men.

As for Paul, you only focused on one thing Paul said and he made pains to be sure that it was understood he wasn't speaking for God on this, just giving his own personal opinion.

When speaking on God's behalf and not his own though, there is nothing in Paul's words that detract from God's desire that marriage be between one man and one woman who are equal before the Lord and equally belonging to each other, but with the man in the leadership position and the woman in the submissive one.

I really like how God's_gift said it: "the man is the servant leader and the wife is the servant helper. Both husband and wife are servant of the Lord."

 

[sesantek]

It's HELPMATE. Not Helper. As in side by side assistance. And as far as I can tell, both from experience and observation, not that many men are willing to die for their wives, unless it is heroic. The daily dying to self is a whole different matter.

Please check the Bible very well, and other translations. The original translation is HELP MEET or HELPER and helpMATE.

 

[Classik]

Much too simplistic, Meatballsub (Hi, and I like your username ;) ).

Me too, Dora, I like this username: Meatballsub. Meatballsub is a great username.
----
Gen 2:24:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

It didn't say, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his [size="+3"]"wives":[/size] and they shall be one flesh. It says [size="+3"]wife[/size]

 

[Milk-Drops]

Me too, Dora, I like this username: Meatballsub. Meatballsub is a great username.
----
Gen 2:24:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

It didn't say, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his [SIZE=+3]"wives":[/SIZE] and they shall be one flesh. It says [SIZE=+3]wife[/SIZE]

I'm merely pointing out to Reba that the Bible isn't consistant with the view on marriage from Genesis to Revelations. Only in the passage you just mentioned is the one wife, one husband stance brought up. Samson, David, Joseph, etc. had multiple wives and where extremely powerful and noteworthy to God and to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It wasn't until Roman society in Judea that this rule showed up. I also disagree with Handy on its the weakness of men and divorce. No, it was property transfer, power, and no set rule that there was only one wife. Jesus would adress this in the NT, but until then it was practiced.

 

[Tina]

Only in the passage you just mentioned is the one wife, one husband stance brought up.

Obviously you do not know the Bible well. Jesus clearly promoted one man one wife in the NT. Note that He said "two" , not more.


Matthew 19:4-6

Jesus answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”



Other NT scriptures that discredit polygamy


Titus 1:6
if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination

1 Timolthy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach

1 Timothy 3:12
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Samson, David, Joseph, etc. had multiple wives and where extremely powerful and noteworthy to God and to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Powerful and noteworthy does not indicate approval by God to take on many wives. Sins, including polygamy, were practiced all over the Bible. It does not mean God condoned them.

 

[handy]

I'm not aware of Joseph (either Joseph) having multiple wives. Nor Samson. Samson was married twice, but his first wife was dead when he married Delilah.

Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon all had wives and concubines. But, they were also all sinful, fallen men. Seekers of God and faithful yes, but just as prone to the influences of the world they lived in as we are to ours.

No where do we see God "giving" more than one wife to a man, nor do we see any decrees from God about plural marriage, other than Deuteronomy 17:17 in which God says that kings are not to take many wives as they will turn his heart.

The only thing close to polygamy that God does sanction in the OT is levirate marriage...if a man dies without a child, his brother is to impregnate his wife and the child will then be the heir of the dead husband. This is done, as you say, to transfer property...and to maintain and support the widow, as in that society, she would be unable to inherit her husband's property.

Isn't it ironic that polygamy was so popular with men...but levirite marriage wasn't...so much so that there are guidelines in the law regarding what to do if the dead man's brother refuses to do his duty. The story of Tamar is an interesting story regarding how unpopular levirite marriage was. Deut 5:6-10; Genesis 38.

Other than levirate marriage, I can't think of any other instance where God promotes multiple wives in the OT.

When reading the Bible it's important to always keep things in context. The context of polygamy is always that it was what men did...not what God decreed. God set the standard of one man, one wife...and, with the exception of levirate marriage, there is no other decree from God that changes that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Just thought I'd pop in and see what's going on in this thread...

The only thing close to polygamy that God does sanction in the OT is levirate marriage...if a man dies without a child, his brother is to impregnate his wife and the child will then be the heir of the dead husband.

Thank God the people of God are no longer under that covenant! No, really...THANK GOD.

Isn't it ironic that polygamy was so popular with men...but levirite marriage wasn't...

Maybe it's because you had a choice of who to take as a wife in polygamy.

...so much so that there are guidelines in the law regarding what to do if the dead man's brother refuses to do his duty.

Something about only having one sandal and getting spit in the face...might be worth it in some cases (?)

Other than levirate marriage, I can't think of any other instance where God promotes multiple wives in the OT.

Why do you call it 'levirate' marriage?

 

[handy]

Why do you call it 'levirate' marriage?

Because that's what it's called. :p

As to why it's called levirate marriage...it's a Latin term meaning husband's brother.

As it's a Latin term, I'm not sure if the Hebrew's had a specific word for it.


Jethro, why do I get the idea you wouldn't want to be saddled with your sister-in-law!?!