- Dec 17, 2004
- 13,686
- 486
- 33
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
No the word means obey, for sure.
But the man is called to serve his wife- to give himself up for his wife.
So when the wife says: I want to move to Talsa. The husband must go: OK sweetie. I'm called to surrender myself to you, and so you must obey me and move to Talsa. And so the wife goes: Thanks hun for your great leadership.
However, the mans responsiblity is far too often overlooked in favour of the man being able to go I want to move to Talsa, then the wife saying OK sweetie, I'll obey you. She can say "OK but I don't want to move to Talsa." And then he should, according to the literal translation here, surrender his desires for hers and go "OK. We won't move to Talsa then." And then the wife needs to go "OK I'll obey you. Love you hun."
But people won't like that especially the men here who think the woman needs to submit and himself to lead with what he thinks is "best" (which is NEVER the way you were taught to "lead", you were taught to lead entirely selflessly, to put what your wife wants first, as Christ did) and then he must take some "responsiblity"? Such an idea is not Biblical, if you take it literally.
Woman is apparently required to submit everything: man is apparently not required to surrender everything! Hypocritical, dare I say it?
Thats the thing. Take both of these words to these extremes, and I can seriously argue based on the Greek that the man is required to serve his wife. But no, thats not the case because then that could mean you'd have to do way too much. Just like saying the wife is to obey (or to put it in nicer terms: be "subordinate") her husband could mean you'd have to do way too much. In fact, more emphasis is put on the males role here in explaining to him he is to be as self-sacrificing and selfless as Christ was to his wife. But this is taking it too far, but saying the wife is to always (except for moments where it would contradict what God wants) submit is not?
But the man is called to serve his wife- to give himself up for his wife.
So when the wife says: I want to move to Talsa. The husband must go: OK sweetie. I'm called to surrender myself to you, and so you must obey me and move to Talsa. And so the wife goes: Thanks hun for your great leadership.
However, the mans responsiblity is far too often overlooked in favour of the man being able to go I want to move to Talsa, then the wife saying OK sweetie, I'll obey you. She can say "OK but I don't want to move to Talsa." And then he should, according to the literal translation here, surrender his desires for hers and go "OK. We won't move to Talsa then." And then the wife needs to go "OK I'll obey you. Love you hun."
But people won't like that especially the men here who think the woman needs to submit and himself to lead with what he thinks is "best" (which is NEVER the way you were taught to "lead", you were taught to lead entirely selflessly, to put what your wife wants first, as Christ did) and then he must take some "responsiblity"? Such an idea is not Biblical, if you take it literally.
Woman is apparently required to submit everything: man is apparently not required to surrender everything! Hypocritical, dare I say it?
Thats the thing. Take both of these words to these extremes, and I can seriously argue based on the Greek that the man is required to serve his wife. But no, thats not the case because then that could mean you'd have to do way too much. Just like saying the wife is to obey (or to put it in nicer terms: be "subordinate") her husband could mean you'd have to do way too much. In fact, more emphasis is put on the males role here in explaining to him he is to be as self-sacrificing and selfless as Christ was to his wife. But this is taking it too far, but saying the wife is to always (except for moments where it would contradict what God wants) submit is not?
Last edited:
Upvote
0