Husbands Authority

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

There are no contradictory texts here. ALL the texts speak of wives submitting to the authority of the husband. The one relating to bodies does not have to do with overall authority but ownership and rights over what you own.

Authority on earth does INDEED have limits, such as not being able to command another to do evil. I would completely agree with that. However, the fact all earthly authority has limits, does not mean it is not real authority or that we do not need to obey.

Does the fact that the government cannot demand I do evil mean that I don't have to generally obey the laws of the land? The husband's authority with his wife is similar, and in nearly 9 years of marriage I have not run into ANY situation in which she would have to refuse do to a command because it was evil.

We have peace, happiness and productivity that way. I feel sorry for the families that ignore this path God has given us. It truly is good.

 

[tall73]

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.

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.

Your going to have to spell out your particular disagreement. Because I was arguing for the wife submitting to her husband, and cited more than just the two texts you referenced.

 

[tall73]

There are no contradictory texts here. ALL the texts speak of wives submitting to the authority of the husband. The one relating to bodies does not have to do with overall authority but ownership and rights over what you own.

Authority on earth does INDEED have limits, such as not being able to command another to do evil. I would completely agree with that. However, the fact all earthly authority has limits, does not mean it is not real authority or that we do not need to obey.

Does the fact that the government cannot demand I do evil mean that I don't have to generally obey the laws of the land? The husband's authority with his wife is similar, and in nearly 9 years of marriage I have not run into ANY situation in which she would have to refuse do to a command because it was evil.

We have peace, happiness and productivity that way. I feel sorry for the families that ignore this path God has given us. It truly is good.

I am not sure where you are disagreeing. I was noting that it always says the wife submits to the husband. It never says the opposite.

IE. I was agreeing with your position. The limits to authority do not negate authority. But it is a further indication that is is authority, because caution is expressed in its use.

The point was to address why it says submit to one another--because it spells out the nature of such in the following sections, in different areas of life.

Just as you have used the example of government, so wives are to submit to husbands, children are to obey fathers, and slaves were to submit to masters.

And cautions are given in each of those situations to make sure the authority is in line with the overall purpose, reverence for Christ.

 

[tall73]

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.

As the original poster is female, then you may need to move it to the appropriate section.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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?

As admirable as “she did it too” (?) is as a defense, I’ve known Mkgal on here for like 10 years. She’s never shied away from calling me on to the carpet for me getting out of line. Worry less about sub posting the people who challenge your thinking and worry more about you.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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.

Them’s the rules, kiddo. And I have to say you’ve managed to link every topic to women submitting to men. I feel like I could put up a post asking about good places to go eat and you’d find a way to tie it back to women submitting to men. I have never seen anybody make that connection as frequently as you on such a range of topics. Generally not talking about it hasn’t been an issue.

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.

Probably because most of us don’t view our spouses as government enforcers, a parent, or an employer, nor would we dream of saying our husbands are “Christ figures.”

 

[Haipule]

At this point, I have to think you’re yanking people’s chains here. Not only did you mansplain the Bible, but you mansplained it incorrectly, and it seems like you manage to interpret every passage to mean that women serve you, your home, and provide you sex whenever, while women are to be something of a cross between a houseplant and a prostitute.

"At this point, I have to think you’re yanking people’s chains here."

For what reason?

"Not only did you mansplain the Bible, but you mansplained it incorrectly..."

How? Because you say so? K'den, I'm a "sinner" with long hair and women should wear hats in church? And that make sense to you?

"...and it seems like you manage to interpret every passage to mean that women serve you, your home, and provide you sex whenever, while women are to be something of a cross between a houseplant and a prostitute."

Yes, women provide me with sex whenever because I'm ridiculously, really, really ridiculously really good looking which is ridiculous! But the rest of that sentence is stupid! Can you 'splain me?

Dude! How did you read all that into my post?

I'm just playing show and tell with God's Word and being as honest with the language as I know how to be!

Gee, I wonder why Paul would tell women to watch what they say in public so as not to dishonor her head(husband), nor disgrace herself? Did Paul say that women should not speak at all? Or, was he giving good advice about public speaking?

 

[Dave-W]

I am not sure where you are disagreeing. I was noting that it always says the wife submits to the husband. It never says the opposite.

I disagree. It is mutual.

 

[Dave-W]

Probably because most of us don’t view our spouses as government enforcers, a parent, or an employer,

More of these men need to start viewing their congregational leaders as having the SAME authority over them personally as they claim to have in their homes.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

"At this point, I have to think you’re yanking people’s chains here."

For what reason?

"Not only did you mansplain the Bible, but you mansplained it incorrectly..."

How? Because you say so? K'den, I'm a "sinner" with long hair and women should wear hats in church? And that make sense to you?

"...and it seems like you manage to interpret every passage to mean that women serve you, your home, and provide you sex whenever, while women are to be something of a cross between a houseplant and a prostitute."

Yes, women provide me with sex whenever because I'm ridiculously, really, really ridiculously really good looking which is ridiculous! But the rest of that sentence is stupid! Can you 'splain me?

Dude! How did you read all that into my post?

I'm just playing show and tell with God's Word and being as honest with the language as I know how to be!

Gee, I wonder why Paul would tell women to watch what they say in public so as not to dishonor her head(husband), nor disgrace herself? Did Paul say that women should not speak at all? Or, was he giving good advice about public speaking?

Unless you forgot to switch who you logged in as, I’m not sure why you think any of that post you quoted was to you... Which brings me back to my theory about the word that rhymes with “scrolling.”

 

[tall73]

I disagree. It is mutual.

I was requesting specific clarification from the other poster as to what he was disagreeing with.

However, you are also welcome to disagree. Please elaborate as to why you think it is mutual. And please explain why we see wives submit to husbands multiple times, but not husbands submit to wives in the text.

 

[tall73]

Unless you forgot to switch who you logged in as, I’m not sure why you think any of that post you quoted was to you...

Because you quoted his post. I think you thought you were quoting Tom Sawyer, but you were not . That is why I wondered how it was saying that as well when you posted it.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Then I apologize. I’m on my phone and it’s not loading well for me. Clearly I’m not keeping track of the various discussions as I thought I was.

 

[Dave-W]

Please elaborate as to why you think it is mutual.

Ephesians 5:21
and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.​

Said BEFORE "Wives, be subject to your own husbands" in the next verse.

And please explain why we see wives submit to husbands multiple times, but not husbands submit to wives in the text.

While not specifically covered in the text in those words, we do see examples of women taking the lead in various NT stories.

 

[tall73]

Ephesians 5:21
and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.​

Said BEFORE "Wives, be subject to your own husbands" in the next verse.

Addressed above in my earlier posts, but I will elaborate.

A. That doesn't address why it never says husbands submit to wives. Why would all of these texts say wives to husbands and never the reverse?

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.

B. Submit to one another is then spelled out in the next three sections, along with warnings on the use of the authority.

- wives submit to husbands (and husbands love your wife and give yourself for her)

- Children obey your parents (and fathers do not exasperate your children)

- Slaves submit to your masters (and masters do not threaten, etc.)

The statement is encouraging them to submit within the roles that they fill in life. Just as you earlier mentioned submission to church leadership. Just as we are to submit to governing authorities. These are times when we submit, out of reverence for Christ.

The cautions are given to avoid ruling over the person in a way that the gentiles rule over each other. In this case authority is given by God but to be used according to the example of Christ, in self-sacrificing love. The husband is not in charge so he can get whatever he wants, but so that he can lead the family forward and do what is best for it, (even if that means not best for him).

While not specifically covered in the text in those words, we do see examples of women taking the lead in various NT stories.

I agree that women taught, prophesied, etc,. in the NT. You can post specific examples if you think they would set aside the numerous statements of wives submit to husbands. But they do not say that a wife should not submit to her husband. And it does not say husbands should submit to wives. It describes women performing ministry in various ways.

Now the question is, why, if it was both submitting to each other in the same way, did it never say husbands submit to wives. And why did he not mention the submitting to one another in the other epistles? Why did Peter not? The statement was an introduction to three specific cases where submission was called for--wives, children, slaves.

Now Jesus' overall words on authority are still relevant to any such role:

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Jesus willingly gave himself. But it did not change his being their Master:

John 13:13 You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.

Being Teacher and Master did not mean selfish rule. He served their needs. And in the same way we are certainly in authority over our children, but serve them often. And if we are in any position of authority as a Christian, we are called to care for those we are in authority over, and serve their needs.

But this does not change the nature of authority. It does not mean that now the disciples were in charge of Jesus. And the disciples were to submit to Christ as their Master. He was still in charge, even if He used that power for their good. He is still the Head of the church, even if He uses that authority to build them up and for their benefit.

 

[tall73]

Then I apologize. I’m on my phone and it’s not loading well for me. Clearly I’m not keeping track of the various discussions as I thought I was.

I think generally you were, just the one quote here that was from the other person. In fairness, I had a hard time understanding what the poster in question was trying to say. But it was not the same as what Tom was saying.

In any case, there are a lot of conversations with similar themes going on, so it can easily happen.

 

[mkgal1]

Unless you forgot to switch who you logged in as, I’m not sure why you think any of that post you quoted was to you... Which brings me back to my theory about the word that rhymes with “scrolling.”

Actually TW .....I do think you'd directed the original post about mansplaining to him (Haipule). Look on this page: Husbands Authority (posts #22 and #36).

Why do posters like this always seem to show up out of the blue in packs, though? I think that's where the confusion comes from.

ETA: Oops. I had this sitting as a draft and missed that Tall already cleared this up in the meantime.

 

[mkgal1]

I did not make ad hominem remarks

You did (they're what I striked through). And TW is correct, it's nothing about the gender of who is posting......I destest comments like that (no matter WHO makes them). Assigning motive to people for their interpretations of Scripture is exactly what caused a LOT of problems around here years ago. We can disagree without getting insulting to each other (in fact....that's just what the rules are for).

If you need an example of how to do that (disagree without getting nasty and insulting)....take note of Tall's posts.

 

[tall73]

You did (they're what I striked through). And TW is correct, it's nothing about the gender of who is posting......I destest comments like that (no matter WHO makes them). Assigning motive to people for their interpretations of Scripture is exactly what caused a LOT of problems around here years ago. We can disagree without getting insulting to each other (in fact....that's just what the rules are for).

If you need an example of how to do that (disagree without getting nasty and insulting)....take note of Tall's posts.

Thank you. Though I cannot say as I have always posted without ascribing motives. But that is what we should strive for. We cannot know the motives of the other person unless they state them. And we should give the benefit of the doubt that we are all trying to serve God as honestly as possible.

While it is true that even in Scripture we see that some do things from wrong motive, we cannot always know motive.

Either way we can address the content of the post, and the arguments made, and rebut them. And leave the motivations to God who will bring every secret thing into judgment.

 

[mkgal1]

as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord

.....and Abraham listened to God (thankfully) when God instructed Abraham to "obey Sarah" (Genesis 21:12).