Husbands Authority

[Tropical Wilds]

I find this forum’s inability to allow us to put up animated gifs is really, really taking away from my ability to interact on this thread as I’d truly like to.

It is interesting though, that the same people who try to make the husband's real authority disappear NEVER try and make his love for his wife disappear a few verses later in the same chapter. That inconsistency goes to show you that feminist interpretation is not honest. It pays attention to one, and ignores the other.

You mean people ACTUALLY believe the Bible requests men to love and respect their wives and women love and respect their husbands? Get right out of town. Darn those feminists.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I find this forum’s inability to allow us to put up animated gifs is really, really taking away from my ability to interact on this thread as I’d truly like to.



You mean people ACTUALLY believe the Bible requests men to love and respect their wives and women love and respect their husbands? Get right out of town. Well, that’s feminists for you.

Uh, no, you misread that. Feminists show their inconsistent thought by ignoring that authority of the husband, yet never trying to deny the command that he love his wife just a few verses later. They are both next to each other and they are both in plain and clear language. The Bible teaches what Christians have always respected -- that the man is the leader and the woman submits to him.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Uh, no, you misread that. Feminists show their inconsistent thought by ignoring that authority of the husband, yet never trying to deny the command that he love his wife just a few verses later. They are both next to each other and they are both in plain and clear language. The Bible teaches what Christians have always respected -- that the man is the leader and the woman submits to him.

The fact you didn’t catch my sarcasm is why I really, really wish we could use gifs. Like I’d put in that Luke Skywalker one from “The Last Jedi” that says “Amazing... Every word of what you just said was wrong.”

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Maybe you would be better at understanding things if you weren't so busy trying to be sacraastic. You should care what the truth is, and it is a telling thing that the feminist view has to try and erase one verse about the wife's submission and then doesn't bother erasing the next verse about the husband's love. It shows that they do not have intellectual integrity and are not understanding correctly. However, I tend to think they do not really mean to understand anyway, but simply wish to write their worldview into the Bible, where it does not exist. A normal person knows how to read a text, and the Bible teaches submission of wife to husband, just as it teaches submission to God, government, etc. One has to do some really odd stuff to try and avoid that. Odd and dishonest.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Maybe you would be better at understanding things if you weren't so busy trying to be sacraastic. You should care what the truth is, and it is a telling thing that the feminist view has to try and erase one verse about the wife's submission and then doesn't bother erasing the next verse about the husband's love. It shows that they do not have intellectual integrity and are not understanding correctly. However, I tend to think they do not really mean to understand anyway, but simply wish to write their worldview into the Bible, where it does not exist. A normal person knows how to read a text, and the Bible teaches submission of wife to husband, just as it teaches submission to God, government, etc. One has to do some really odd stuff to try and avoid that. Odd and dishonest.

Oh, I understand what’s going on here pretty well... And since you are the only person in a Christian Forum that has arrived at this rather unique worldview that God compels women to have sex whenever it is requested of her by her husband without question, I feel very little motivation to go and break down just how completely wrong you are for twisting the Bible to justify muting sexual consent. I think your being alone on your limb goes a looooong way to show that your interpretation is a fringe interpretation that excuses your being too lazy to have a relationship that cultivates sexual respect with a wife. Or maybe it’s not laziness, but a fear of rejection, or insecurity. Either way, you come off too passive and meek for it to be about control and domination, so my money rests on fear of women/insecurity, with a sprinkle of laziness.

Regardless, maybe it’s all that silly estrogen that muddles my clearly fragile sensibilities, but I honestly can’t be bothered to get wrapped up or invested in a discussion with somebody who comes from that place of fear/insecurity/laziness. You won’t listen, you won’t change either because you believe what you say or because you’re doing that thing that rhymes with “scrolling,” and you’re not coming at the topic in a way where people can take you seriously. My sarcasm is a reflection of my inability to take you seriously and my insomnia.

 

[tall73]

Some people who argue husband authority also tend to leave out Scripture that clearly speaks to equality.

The main difficulty is we see it consistently listed one way, across different contexts, by at least two inspired authors, and Peter's text even refers to the past in Abraham's time which is another context.

We see in multiple places the text calling for wives to submit to husbands. But we never see a statement that says the opposite in the same wording, husbands submit to wives.


Col 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1Pe 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,

Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Tit 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,
Tit 2:4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children,
Tit 2:5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.


There are legitimate limits to a husband's authority. First of all his authority is from God and he answers to Him. So his command does not overrule that of God. If he commands something that goes against God's command he has no legitimate authority.

The statements of husbands to love their wives and lay down their lives as Christ did should show that this is not authority just to lord it over the person. It is responsibility for the whole family and care for his spouse. Now to me this is where you rule out such things as in the other thread such as insisting on oral sex if your wife hates it. That is hardly laying down your life for your wife.

And has been noted before both are co-heirs of salvation, so it is not a relation of inherently superior and inferior. But it is one of roles.

Now, the reality is if a husband is constantly having to pull rank, he is not doing it right. Because Christian leadership is not about ordering people around, and Christian submission is not about toeing the line like a robot. That is why the apostle encourages each to accept their role and work together.

 

[ValleyGal]

Ah, the complaint then, is that "feminists" ignore the scripture to love and respect their husband, while chauvinists ignore the scripture to love and respect their wife. I see. All the while ignoring the verses that also suggest that men do not have authority over their own selves, but the wife also has authority over him, just as he does her. Hmm. I see how it works. And of course the feminists are to blame for trying to level the playing field.

Here it is plain and simple. Men do not have authority over their wives. That's not how submission works. Submission is a matter of the heart of the one who is submitting. You can't force someone to be humble; in the same way, you can't force someone to submit, though men who think they have some God-given right to "authority" are actually trying to use a perceived social position to force wives to submit. Not gonna happen, since submission comes from HER heart - just as in reverence for Christ, men ought to submit to their wives, per Eph 5:21.

That does not negate that wives should submit to their husband's best interest, just as husbands should submit to their wives' best interest. It's all there - summed up in Eph 5:21: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. You men who assume you have authority didn't read my earlier post. Let me recapture that for you:

#30
The line of authority does not move. It is up to us to decide whether we want to submit. But man has no authority over his wife, the same as a wife has no authority over her husband - 1 Cor. 7:4. Spiritually, Jesus has given his authority to his bride, the church - which is made up of male and female where we are all told to submit to one another out of reverence for Jesus - Eph. 5:21. Submitting to Jesus means submitting to one another. Iow, we are on the same playing field; no man has authority "over"... in fact, he needs to yield to her and place himself under her, if he is going to love her like Jesus loves the church as per Eph. 5:25; Philippians 2:3-8.

 

[tall73]

Here it is plain and simple. Men do not have authority over their wives. That's not how submission works. Submission is a matter of the heart of the one who is submitting. You can't force someone to be humble; in the same way, you can't force someone to submit, though men who think they have some God-given right to "authority" are actually trying to use a perceived social position to force wives to submit. Not gonna happen, since submission comes from HER heart - just as in reverence for Christ, men ought to submit to their wives, per Eph 5:21.

Women are to submit to their husbands. The man is called the head. It is authority. However, that does not mean men should compel obedience. Submission is freely given, which is why the apostle urges them to do that.

As to Eph. 5:21 it is the summary statement spelled out in the next sections. They are to submit to one another within the context of the roles they find themselves in. Wives submit to husbands, children obey parents, slaves submit to masters, etc. And within that were cautions, husbands love your wives and give yourself up for them, fathers do not exasperate your children, masters do not threaten, etc. The cautions were necessary because they did have authority. But they were not to lord it over the people they had authority over.

Moreover we see it in multiple contexts. We never see the opposite:

Col 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1Pe 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,

Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Tit 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,
Tit 2:4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children,
Tit 2:5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

The line of authority does not move. It is up to us to decide whether we want to submit. But man has no authority over his wife, the same as a wife has no authority over her husband - 1 Cor. 7:4.

It is strange that you say the exact opposite of what the text says. In the context of sexual relations, where both is to meet the need of the other, they both have authority over the body of the other, in the one flesh relationship:

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.


4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.


5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

In both cases you are ignoring the context. In Ephesians 5:21 the nature of the submission is spelled out in the next sections. In I Corinthians 7 it is clearly in the context of sexuality. And here both have some authority over the other because both have sexual needs, and both have an obligation to try to meet the needs of the other.

In none of these cases should it be compelled. On that we agree. But authority does not cease to be authority because it does not force itself on another.

in fact, he needs to yield to her and place himself under her, if he is going to love her like Jesus loves the church as per Eph. 5:25; Philippians 2:3-8.

Jesus put the interest of the church ahead of His own. That in no way means he placed her in authority over himself. He is always Lord. Someone can act sacrificially in love, and still be in authority. A parent who gives his life for his child did not put the child in charge. He put the interest of the child first. The child may be too young to even have a clue what is happening. It is not a matter of authority but of love.

 

[Dave-W]

According to the Bible, as a normal human being reads a text, the husband has authority over his wife.

By "normal human being" you mean a western male from the 21st century, and not a 1st century Jew from the Middle east. Unfortunately, 21st century western men did not write the NT, those pesky middle east Jews from the first century did.

Here are words from another 1st century Jew:

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.​

IF you want your wife to submit to you or obey you, you had better be the example by submitting to your congregational leaders (pastor, elders, deacons) to the same degree (or even more) than you expect her to submit to you.

 

[ValleyGal]

Dave, I might include this to your text. God initiated relationship with mankind by sending Jesus. Jesus pursues and pursues because he longs to be with us, so much that he died to his "authority" as part of the godhead, to humble himself and become a man himself. He ended up dying for her best interest, pouring himself out of his own ego [self] for her sake. Iow, he submits to her... and then just as the church responds to this overwhelming pursuit of love - THAT is when the wife responds to submission... putting her husband ahead of herself, just as the church seeks first the Kingdom and his righteousness. That is headship... Headship is NOT some god-given positional authority like so many husbands like to think it is. True headship is a husband serving and washing his wife's feet, just as Jesus came to serve and wash the disciple's feet.

 

[mkgal1]

Maybe you would be better at understanding things if you weren't so busy trying to be sarcastic. You should care what the truth is, and it is a telling thing that the feminist view has to try and erase one verse about the wife's submission and then doesn't bother erasing the next verse about the husband's love.
I̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶w̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶l̶l̶e̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶g̶r̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶c̶o̶r̶r̶e̶c̶t̶l̶y̶.
However,̶ I̶ ̶t̶e̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶w̶a̶y̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶i̶s̶h̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶w̶r̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶l̶d̶v̶i̶e̶w̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶i̶b̶l̶e̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶.̶ ̶A̶ ̶n̶o̶r̶m̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶s̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶e̶x̶t̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶c̶h̶e̶s̶ ̶s̶u̶b̶m̶i̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶w̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶u̶s̶b̶a̶n̶d̶,̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶c̶h̶e̶s̶ ̶s̶u̶b̶m̶i̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶G̶o̶d̶,̶ ̶g̶o̶v̶e̶r̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶,̶ ̶e̶t̶c̶.̶ ̶O̶n̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶o̶d̶d̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶f̶f̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶v̶o̶i̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶.̶ ̶O̶d̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶h̶o̶n̶e̶s̶t̶.̶

Since you're a new poster here...I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the forum rules (especially this sub-forum for "marrieds"). I'll help you you out a bit and make note of what I see right off the bat. There's no need (and it's against forum rules) to flame (making ad hominem remarks) another poster.

 

[ValleyGal]

Not to mention submission is not to be debated on this forum. I know, I know. I just couldn't help myself. I feel very strongly about this, and I have poured a lot into my studies about it. So yes, colour me guilty!

 

[tall73]

Not to mention submission is not to be debated on this forum. I know, I know. I just couldn't help myself. I feel very strongly about this, and I have poured a lot into my studies about it. So yes, colour me guilty!

Is that still in the rules? I guess I need to re-read them again. They had that test thing for a while. I guess it didn't work out.

Kind of makes it hard to discuss issues without it though, because whatever your view of what it means it is certainly referenced quite a bit in relation to marriage.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Since you're a new poster here...I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the forum rules (especially this sub-forum for "marrieds"). I'll help you you out a bit and make note of what I see right off the bat. There's no need (and it's against forum rules) to flame (making ad hominem remarks) another poster.

I did not make ad hominem remarks, but did my best to describe accurately what is going on. Did you make the same comment to others who made similar remarks in my direction? Or no?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is that still in the rules? I guess I need to re-read them again.

Kind of makes it hard to discuss issues without it though, because whatever your view of what it means it is certainly referenced quite a bit in relation to marriage.

How is it that submission is not to be debated when a variety of the posts themselves relate directly to that subject? Those posts then would have to disappear for submission not to be debated.

 

[tall73]

How is it that submission is not to be debated when a variety of the posts themselves relate directly to that subject? Those posts then would have to disappear for submission not to be debated.

The larger issue is a number of Scriptures directly relate to them. But that was historically a rule due to the fighting over the topic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

By "normal human being" you mean a western male from the 21st century, and not a 1st century Jew from the Middle east. Unfortunately, 21st century western men did not write the NT, those pesky middle east Jews from the first century did.

Here are words from another 1st century Jew:

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.​

IF you want your wife to submit to you or obey you, you had better be the example by submitting to your congregational leaders (pastor, elders, deacons) to the same degree (or even more) than you expect her to submit to you.

No, you are reading something into the text that nowhere exists. It never says IF i want my authority respected I have to do this that or the other thing. Never says that.

My authority is not conditional. In fact, 1 Peter 3 specifically deals with a husband who does not obey God, and it affirms that the wife is to be meek and submissive to him. Again, you would NEVER try this kind of logic with authority of employers, government, parents or God. You are only trying it with husbands because you want to attack the representative of Christ in the home. That is the husband.

My authority rests on being a husband, not on being excellent at it. Same thing goes for any husbands reading this. Yo do not have to be perfect to have authority. You only have to be a husband.

 

[tall73]

Submission will only be discussed in the separate forums for married men's/women's personal topics. UPDATE: Trial Thread found HERE. Please only discuss submission in that thread or in the married men's/women's personal topics.

They need to update it. The thread is now gone altogether but is still referenced in the rules.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Women are to submit to their husbands. The man is called the head. It is authority. However, that does not mean men should compel obedience. Submission is freely given, which is why the apostle urges them to do that.

As to Eph. 5:21 it is the summary statement spelled out in the next sections. They are to submit to one another within the context of the roles they find themselves in. Wives submit to husbands, children obey parents, slaves submit to masters, etc. And within that were cautions, husbands love your wives and give yourself up for them, fathers do not exasperate your children, masters do not threaten, etc. The cautions were necessary because they did have authority. But they were not to lord it over the people they had authority over.

Moreover we see it in multiple contexts. We never see the opposite:

Col 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1Pe 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,

Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Tit 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,
Tit 2:4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children,
Tit 2:5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.


It is strange that you say the exact opposite of what the text says. In the context of sexual relations, where both is to meet the need of the other, they both have authority over the body of the other, in the one flesh relationship:

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.


4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.


5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

In both cases you are ignoring the context. In Ephesians 5:21 the nature of the submission is spelled out in the next sections. In I Corinthians 7 it is clearly in the context of sexuality. And here both have some authority over the other because both have sexual needs, and both have an obligation to try to meet the needs of the other.

In none of these cases should it be compelled. On that we agree. But authority does not cease to be authority because it does not force itself on another.



Jesus put the interest of the church ahead of His own. That in no way means he placed her in authority over himself. He is always Lord. Someone can act sacrificially in love, and still be in authority. A parent who gives his life for his child did not put the child in charge. He put the interest of the child first. The child may be too young to even have a clue what is happening. It is not a matter of authority but of love.

No, you confusing two DIFFERENT kinds of authority. Authority in the home rests in ONE place -- the husband. Read Ephesians 5 about three times over again, as well as 1 Peter 3.

However, in speaking of sharing of bodies, both husband and wife belong to one another and have no right to deny the other their body. This is speaking of ownership of body, not of authority in the home. That should help out your confusion. Just as I have a "right" to certain things from the government, but the government still rules and passes laws that I have to obey. Similar concept.

Again, it's interesting that NONE of these people attacking the Christ figure in the home, the husband, try to attack the right of governments to have authority, or of parents or of employers. They only go after the lord of the home. That should tell us something of where their worldview actually comes from.

 

[Paidiske]

The point being, you want to talk about submission, take it to the separate men's and women's forums.

The problems which gave rise to that rule were before my time as a mod, so I can't comment on the history, but in the present... let's just say there's a reason I worked to get the Egalitarian forum set up.