ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, March 04, 2014

The Churchian elevation of sin

Leave it to the Female Imperative-worshipping feminists to not only turn Biblical doctrine on its head, but actually find a sacred and holy purpose to female sin:
  1. A poor excuse for a man and husband does something (often something mysterious) to make his wife unhaaappy.
  2. As a result, the wife lashes out, very often in a way that threatens the family.
  3. Her sinful actions, while of course not sanctioned, turn out to be just the ticket required to shake her complacent husband into attention and get him to seek out God.
  4. His seeking out God, (triggered by her lack of submission), fixes their marriage, makes him a better man, and brings them both to God.
I'm pretty relaxed about women who are unwilling to submit to their husbands, for much the same reason I'm relaxed about atheists who are unwilling to submit to God. First, because they will inevitably reap the consequences of their foolishness. Second, because they don't have to answer to me concerning their stubbornness, they have to answer to God.

That being said, actively teaching women that being rebellious in marriage is a good and divinely sanctioned act is downright evil. Stay well away from any church or wolf-in-sheep's-clothing who perverts the Bible in this manner.

The answer to the purported dilemma often raised is absolutely simple. Christian women not infrequently to ask: "Do I have to submit to a husband who [insert various moral failing or perceived flaw here]." Yes. Next question.

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
- 1 Peter 3: 1-2 

I understand many, perhaps most, women don't like that. I don't like the fact that I can't split the skull of everyone who annoys me either. But I don't make the rules. If you don't like them, then follow the example of Lucifer and take it up with the Rulegiver.

Labels:

376 Comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 376 of 376
Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 7:38 PM  

You needn't respond to damntull, Sarahsdaughter. He's done here. He clearly has some issues with the way legitimate authority works.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 7:41 PM  

"For whom....

Okay, I'll bite. All married people?"

Only the wife can be divorced for adultery or sexual sin(Lying about a virgin, ect). A husband can't be divorced by his wife for any reason by new testament law.

People react in horror to this idea, but it was the tool used to convert the entire roman world. To a man very little is more valuable than a submissive and faithful wife and christian wives were in very high demand for this reason.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 7:44 PM  

I’ve got stuff to do for a while. This really isn’t that hard.

Yes, wives should submit to their husbands, this is a good rule the VAST majority of the time.

Yes, there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.


Shutterbug, your story hit me in the heart today, I prayed for you and if I was your father you can rest assured your husband would find a way to control himself, one way or another.

“Rage” issues because of “work stress”, I’d show him what rage looked like if you where my daughter.

I’m sorry, hang in there.

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 7:47 PM  

All your appeals have failed, you would either submit to the killing of the child or not, yes or no.

The morally correct thing to do is to kill the child. It amuses me that you think your trick question is a conclusive argument, as this is quite literally the atheist argument against God. I still see atheists pretending to be shocked at my supposed jihad against two-year olds.

Either God has delegated His authority to the husband or He has not. And, just as God can command Abraham to violate His own commandments, the husband can command the wife to violate those commandments as well. Whether he does well to do so or not is another matter entirely.

Of course, note that God was surprised that Abraham was actually willing to obey him. In like manner, it will surprise no one that most wives would rebel when put to such an outrageous test. And the husband will face judgment for his use of his God-given authority. And, speaking of Abraham, was Sarah held responsible for going along with her husband's pretense that she was his sister?

I submit that the answer is to be found there. Abraham sinned, Sarah did right to follow his sinful lead, and God not only did not punish her for her near-adultery, but intervened to prevent her from being forced to suffer the consequences of Abraham's sin.

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 7:49 PM  

A husband can't be divorced by his wife for any reason by new testament law.

Ace has it right. This does not help the "wives should submit, but..." case.

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 7:53 PM  

I submit that the answer is to be found there.

I've been on the fence (leaning towards Vox) only held back by some sort of attempt at rationalization. But that does seem pretty conclusive. Are there any Biblical examples of a wife submitting to her husband and being punished for it?

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:05 PM  

"That is true. And you still haven't found one. Everything you have said is no more meaningful than what the Churchians say."

I'll be happy to provide one.

In the case where the wives are married to unbelievers. The wives are advised to stay with their husbands... and are told that their children are sanctified.

Note the wives are NOT told to believe as the husband does... nor are they told to submit to him in terms of their beliefs.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 8:08 PM  

My husband and I just talked about Sarah and Abraham with regards to this. Sarah went ahead and said she was is sister. Of course I hesitate to confirm the moral answer is "yes" because I don't even want to hear what crap will be thrown at me for saying it (which doesn't help, I know). You are much more comfortable with the accusations of a jihad against two-year-olds. My mediocre IQ fails me when I get knee deep into conversations like this, but I still attempt (while it's likely embarrassing to watch) because it is such a fundamental issue to marriage. I'm learning.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 8:09 PM  

Are there any Biblical examples of a wife submitting to her husband and being punished for it?

Ananias and Sapphira?

OpenID pancakeloach March 04, 2014 8:09 PM  

It occurs to me that Paul was writing to an audience that probably included a large number of adult-conversion, arranged-marriage wives of unbelieving husbands in a pagan culture that actively practiced abortion, infanticide, idolatry, pederasty, polygamy, and ritual prostitution. IIRC. Funny how he never mentions any of that as A-OK "exception" clauses to get out of having to submit when he specifically addresses himself to women with unbelieving husbands. Very odd. Exceedingly strange, even.

And didn't Sarah lie when Abraham told her to? I seem to vaguely recall something like that happening once or twice. I don't remember Sarah catching any flak for obeying her husband when he commanded her to bear false witness, when she certainly does catch it for disrespect. I also vaguely recall something about how breaking one of the big ten means you've broken them all. Something like that, anyway.

Makes me wonder if there's anything else in the early church literature about these "exceptional" cases, you know, from back when infanticide and child abuse were legal and regularly practiced. Because it appears to me that there is not a very good case for arguing that there are exceptions, and that SarahsDaughter has correctly pointed out that there are Biblical role models for women who are trapped in agonizing situations, being delivered through submission and not defiance.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:10 PM  

"The morally correct thing to do is to kill the child. "

That's possibly the dumbest thing you've said... ever. The right of self defense applies to the woman and her child.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:11 PM  

Honestly mate you have gone off the deep end. The child has a right to life period. Full Stop. The husband's wishes are entirely irrelevant.

Anonymous Zion's Paladin March 04, 2014 8:12 PM  

I must admit, that I was initially siding with Nate, rufus and the others on this debate. But the more I think about it, the more I see that Vox and Sarah'sD have it correct. A woman has the right to maker her own judgments, flawed or not, while unmarried. But once she takes those vows, she cedes that to her husband.

As I understand it, marriage would then carry a warning for the husband and the wife:

Wife: Be careful whom you choose to marry, for he shall have authority over you and you must submit to him

Husband: Be careful how you use your authority, for one day you shall answer to God for your choices.

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 8:12 PM  

Ananias and Sapphira?

Could be, but it seems that was more conspiracy than submission.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:14 PM  

" But once she takes those vows, she cedes that to her husband."

Then a woman would be a total retard to get married. wives are not slaves.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 8:15 PM  

"Honestly mate you have gone off the deep end. The child has a right to life period. Full Stop. The husband's wishes are entirely irrelevant."

Kind of hard to square that with Abraham intent to sacrifice isaac.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:17 PM  

"Kind of hard to square that with Abraham intent to sacrifice isaac."

As Vox himself has noted... there is a very big difference between God Himself appearing and giving you an order... and an order coming from some mere human.

Anonymous dw March 04, 2014 8:17 PM  

"The morally correct thing to do is to kill the child"

That's absurd. Murder, idolatry, adultery, rape, theft are all sins regardless of who commands them. Peter told the authorities, whom Paul said we are to submit to, that it is better to obey God than man. If a husband tells his wife to commit a sin, she should obey God in this instance rather than him. It's irrelevant what the churchians think or do regarding this, it's the truth and God will not let slide a wife who knowingly does evil when her husband orders her to. Would God hold us guiltless if the government ordered us to murder two-year olds because we're told to submit to the government?

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:17 PM  

All of that said... its a fantastic reminder that VP is far... far... from the Warren.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 8:18 PM  

Kind of hard to square that with Abraham intent to sacrifice isaac.

Not really. Direct command of God and all that.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 8:19 PM  

"" But once she takes those vows, she cedes that to her husband."

Then a woman would be a total retard to get married. wives are not slaves."

And yet marriage has worked that way in almost every civilization and society since the dawn of time. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not normal.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:19 PM  

"That's absurd. Murder, idolatry, adultery, rape, theft are all sins regardless of who commands them. Peter told the authorities, whom Paul said we are to submit to, that it is better to obey God than man."

Exactly.

There is an ancient christian tradition of submitting while still maintaining a basic code that trumps everything.

Anonymous dw March 04, 2014 8:20 PM  

"And yet marriage has worked that way in almost every civilization and society since the dawn of time. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not normal."

Do you even know what a slave is?

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 8:20 PM  

All of that said... its a fantastic reminder that VP is far... far... from the Warren.

Nonsense. This is obviously just theater to distract from the self-evident fact of hivemind, echo chamber, etc. We're just acolytes and toadies, only playing at disagreement to make it seem like this is a place of open discussion. Blown cover as cover, so to speak

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 8:20 PM  

"As Vox himself has noted... there is a very big difference between God Himself appearing and giving you an order... and an order coming from some mere human."

Did sarah get that message? For all she knew her husband had gone nuts and was going to kill her son.

Anonymous Zion's Paladin March 04, 2014 8:21 PM  

But I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit that I'm still having doubts about Vox's position. The trouble I'm having is that this position seems rather Pharasaical, adding to one's burdens without helping them.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:23 PM  

"And yet marriage has worked that way in almost every civilization and society since the dawn of time. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not normal."

Just because something is normal... doesn't mean its correct.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 8:23 PM  

As Vox himself has noted... there is a very big difference between God Himself appearing and giving you an order... and an order coming from some mere human.

I guess that depends on whether "wives submit to your husbands" comes from some mere human or if there is more behind it.

Anonymous dw March 04, 2014 8:23 PM  

"There is an ancient christian tradition of submitting while still maintaining a basic code that trumps everything."

They're like God's standing orders.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:24 PM  

"Did sarah get that message? For all she knew her husband had gone nuts and was going to kill her son."

1) I don't think Sarah was there.

2) if she was there... She saw God too.

Try again.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 8:24 PM  

"Just because something is normal... doesn't mean its correct."

As in politically correct?

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:27 PM  

"As in politically correct?"

Snark Ace? That's the best you've got? So far you've appealed to "normalcy"... and now to liberalism.

This is the best you've got?

Look I get it... you know you should submit to your husband. And you're right. You should. But the idea that there are not extreme exceptions to this is just laughable.

What is the greatest commandment?

Was that commandment just given to men?

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 8:28 PM  

Did sarah get that message? For all she knew her husband had gone nuts and was going to kill her son.

One of those things I hope to know some day. "Sarah, what were you thinking when he took your son? Did you know God asked Abraham to sacrifice him? You sure saw Abe do some crazy things!"

It still isn't clear how those of you believe in the exception clause suggest a wife go about handling what she's judged to be an exception. You're saying she shouldn't submit. What does that mean? How should she go about things? Law enforcement? Lawyers? Confrontation? How does she go about her right to self defense?

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 8:30 PM  

That's possibly the dumbest thing you've said... ever. The right of self defense applies to the woman and her child.

I disagree. What do we know about God? He values and requires obedience. What do we know about Christianity? It is the hard way. What do we know about God's concerns about human life? He is considerably less concerned with it, it appears, than we are, probably because whereas we believe, suspect, or fear that we have immortal souls, He knows what we are.

Think about it. What better accounts for God's apparent indifference towards death, large-scale and small, than that. Self-defense is a human concern and a human priority, not a Godly one. It is barely mentioned in the Bible, and yet the one consistent theme is OBEY OBEY OBEY. It's very much like a father and child relationship.

In time, all these things will become clear. In the meantime, fretting about when a wife should or should not submit to her husband is very similar to wondering when we should or should not submit to God and His law. Another thing we know about God: everything is a test. Submission is how He tests women and their particular form of pride.

God will not let slide a wife who knowingly does evil when her husband orders her to.

This is clearly false. We know He did. He not only let Sarah slide, he protected her from the consequences of her knowingly doing evil. This is precisely what "covering" means in the marital context. Remember, the husband steps into the role of Christ for the wife. Which means that he has volunteered to answer for her sins.

Suddenly doesn't make submission look like the worst half of the deal, does it?

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 8:30 PM  

Ananias and Sapphira?

Nowhere does it say she was opposed to lying about the money. In order for it be a submission issue, there would have to be a disagreement.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 8:33 PM  

"As in politically correct?"

"Snark Ace? That's the best you've got? So far you've appealed to "normalcy"... and now to liberalism."

Snark? What's the basis for your beliefs? It's certainly not scripture nor is it the writings of the church fathers. Instead you've latched your belief to the nebulous "correctness". Which when provided without context can only be political correctness or general hand waving

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 8:36 PM  

The trouble I'm having is that this position seems rather Pharasaical, adding to one's burdens without helping them.

I think you are confusing my abstract point - what is correct - with the humane point. Jesus was all about the failures and the exceptions. I don't deny that. But the law is the law, and it is something upon which we are all broken, it is something against which we all fail. Remember, the law cannot be followed. The law cannot be kept due to our human failings.

Whose position is more in line with that reality? Which is harder, to do what you think best or to obey a terrible order from a legitimate authority. Now recall that Christianity is the hard way.

Of course nearly every wife would fail such an exceptional test as the one proposed. That's normal and expected. We are fallen humans, not cold and logically perfect beings.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 8:38 PM  

Nowhere does it say she was opposed to lying about the money. In order for it be a submission issue, there would have to be a disagreement.

She went along with it. Make of that what you will.

Anonymous dw March 04, 2014 8:41 PM  

"She went along with it. Make of that what you will."

I think she just lied and they both were used an example to not lie.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:41 PM  

"I disagree. What do we know about God? He values and requires obedience. What do we know about Christianity? It is the hard way. What do we know about God's concerns about human life? He is considerably less concerned with it, it appears, than we are, probably because whereas we believe, suspect, or fear that we have immortal souls, He knows what we are."

1) We know He values obedience... to HIM. Obediance to Baal didn't seem to impress Him much.

2) as I already pointed out... Jesus did not describe Christianity as the hard way at all. He said, in the scripture I provided... his yoke is light and his burden is easy. He literally said it was the easy way.

"Think about it. What better accounts for God's apparent indifference towards death, large-scale and small, than that. Self-defense is a human concern and a human priority, not a Godly one. It is barely mentioned in the Bible, and yet the one consistent theme is OBEY OBEY OBEY. It's very much like a father and child relationship."

Again.. Obey obey obey.. who? God. Not some guy off the street. Not even some power or principality. In many cases... not even government. So there are exceptions for kings but not husbands? Listen to yourself. have you listened yourself? listen to yourself. its foolishness.

God doesn't walk around laying traps for people asking them to prove their worthy over and over and over. Nothing in the new testament indicates such. None of us are worthy.

I will agree fretting over such this is a waste of time... as I said earlier... Fallen world. All are fallen. Sure... in the garden it would've been different. But we're not in the garden.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 8:43 PM  

Simple question.

If wives are to disobey God's commands in submission to their husbands... why then are christians not supposed to submit to evil governments that demand they disobey God's commands as well?

If the wife who disobey's her evil husband is a sinner... then Paul is a sinner for the exact same reason!

Obey Obey Obey. Indeed.

Anonymous Zion's Paladin March 04, 2014 8:43 PM  

I think you are confusing my abstract point - what is correct - with the humane point. Jesus was all about the failures and the exceptions. I don't deny that. But the law is the law, and it is something upon which we are all broken, it is something against which we all fail. Remember, the law cannot be followed. The law cannot be kept due to our human failings.

Indeed. If I learned nothing else from this discussion, I was at least reminded of this:

The Law is not our salvation.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 8:44 PM  

Christianity is the hard way IF we revert back to the law. IF we accept grace, His yoke is easy.

Blogger Unknown March 04, 2014 8:46 PM  

This debate is quite fascinating... I believe in submitting to my husband over everything (though I fail a lot), but I married a good man who makes good choices for his family and his errors are minor.

I would not submit to my husband in such a case - and I believe God would have mercy on me in such an extreme position in spite my sin of disobedience.

- C

Anonymous dw March 04, 2014 8:48 PM  

"I will agree fretting over such this is a waste of time... as I said earlier... Fallen world. All are fallen. Sure... in the garden it would've been different. But we're not in the garden."

We're in the firebombed battlefield formerly known as the Garden.

God values obedience....to Himself. When He commands us to obey an authority, it's always with the implicit understanding that we're still following Him while doing it. How could a wife obey God if her husband tells her to not obey God? Likewise, a husband can't legitimately tell his wife to not submit to him: God's law says she must, even if her husband says she must not.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 8:49 PM  

She went along with it. Make of that what you will.

Yes she did. But did she go along for it out of submission or because she agreed with it? We are not told.

Anonymous Don March 04, 2014 8:51 PM  

Of course, as Josh said, this is pretty much an academic exercise. Men married to Christian women, who are the only ones who care about this, aren't going around ordering their wives to abort their babies, rob banks, or have threesomes.

So there goes my weekend.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 8:53 PM  

Yes she did. But did she go along for it out of submission or because she agreed with it? We are not told.

So submission only is submission when you disagree?

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 8:57 PM  

So submission only is submission when you disagree?

the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person

I'd say that neither "accepting" nor "yielding" indicate agreement.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 9:00 PM  

Did Sarai submit to Abram in Egypt?

Blogger Mo March 04, 2014 9:00 PM  

Forget the hypotheticals.

Here is a real example: My father suffered a psycotic break at the age of 61. Over the course of 3-4 days, his mental condition deteriorated until one afternoon, he confessed to my mother that he had killed his parents, her parents and her sisters (all of whom were alive and well.) And his intention was to kill my brother and I when we returned home, she would help him and then she would die as well.

He told her to call my brother and I, and tell us she needed us to come home. He told her not to call 911. She retreated to the bedroom, locked the door, and dialed 911. Cops and ambulance arrived and transported him to the hospital. He remained instituionalized until his death, 4 years later.

Both of my parents were faithful, traditional Catholics. My mother married him in no small part because he had the strong approval of her very patriarchal father. She remained married and faithful until his death.

Should she have called my brother and I home? Should she not have called 911? These were his explicit instructions to her.

My point is that "no exceptions" is absurd. The idea that a woman cedes her entire Conscience once married is absurd. THAT is the philosophical point that we're arguing. Not that a woman shouldn't clean the house as instructed.

Is your position is that my mother acted wrongly in that situation -- because feminists and other idiots have corrupted the natual order of things?

A woman's duty is to submit to her husband. That does not absolve her of her responsibility to adhere to God's law. She will be held accountable for how she balances those two things.

We're not mental incompetents here. The idea that there ARE shades of gray is not something that should be out of our grasp - while acknowledging that that nuance has been grossly abused by modern society.

However -- agent provocateur and all. The people to pity - and the danger - are those that don't see what you're doing.

Anonymous rycamor March 04, 2014 9:00 PM  

The minute I saw this topic, I knew where the discussion would end up. It's vexing that we rush to the extreme case and put our energy there, when that is clearly not where we need to spend it. It's sort of a vertical asymptote argument. The more extreme the case, the less likely that it will ever actually apply, given what is manifest about the nature of men, women, and evil itself. Women are more likely to submit to bad men than good men. That being said, I'm still thinking through the implications.

This topic popped up a few months ago at Alpha Game, if anyone is interested.

Blogger pilgrim4life March 04, 2014 9:02 PM  

"Christianity is the hard way IF we revert back to the law. IF we accept grace, His yoke is easy."

It's not either/or. God's moral law is his definition of righteousness. We are commanded to obey it and judged guilty when we fail.

When we repent, we receive grace and no longer suffer the eternal penalty for our sins, but there is then that much greater emphasis on pursuing righteousness.

Jesus said "If you love me you will keep my commandments." - John 14:15

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 9:02 PM  

So submission only is submission when you disagree?

i would say so. Where is the issue if she is agreement with it? You could remove the requirement to submit and she would still do the same thing.

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 9:03 PM  

I think she just lied and they both were used an example to not lie.

It is interesting that when she lied, her husband was dead already (although she didn't know that), so she was no longer required to be submissive to her husband, as she didn't have one..

Blogger njartist March 04, 2014 9:04 PM  

@ rufusdog March 04, 2014 7:12 PM

"...[A] supposedly Christian husband demanding his wife have an abortion is common today and I will go on record saying that a Christian women should not submit to that demand, period."

Given the dominance of feminism in the church today, the reverse scenario is more likely. So let's ask: what can a Christian man do to prevent his baptized feminist wife from aborting his kid? Nothing.

@ Sarahsdaughter
"The moral of the story for women, don't marry someone who would kill his own child. "

Let's fix that to reflect who dominates in the churches: "The moral of the story for [men], don't marry someone who would kill [her] own child [or reserves the right under 'extreme' circumstances]. " No man should entrust his life to any woman who is pro-choice.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 9:05 PM  

Nate your basically trying conflate two hierarchies into a single mold:
God<-Rulers<-Man<-Women<-Child where any members of that can bypass the people set above them if they feel they understand god better.

The actual biblical hierarchy is 2 separate hierarchies:

God<-Man<-Women<-Child concerning all things that are Gods.
God<-Rulers<-Man concerning things that are Cesar's.

You obey in the context the issue arises in.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 9:06 PM  

It amuses me that you think your trick question is a conclusive argument, as this is quite literally the atheist argument against God.

I’m amused you think it was a trick question (a lot of amusement going around tonight). It was a question just to illustrate that there obviously are exceptions.

All of the Bible’s instructions are trumped by the husbands command. That’s your position? A women can violate any Biblical commandment if her husband instructs her to.

Vox is making the husband the wife’s Idol, the husband’s command trumps God’s.

The Bible is silent on if Sarah’s lie was sinful or not. Your assuming not.

AND, as long as we are talking about Sarah,

Genesis 21:10
So she turned to Abraham and demanded, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son. He is not going to share the inheritance with my son, Isaac. I won't have it!"

How very submissive.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 9:07 PM  

So submission only is submission when you disagree?

In our case what I thought was submission was actually agreement (and unbeknownst to me at the time, his concessions). For fourteen years we did not disagree on virtually anything (so I thought). It wasn't until I disagreed vehemently and he refused to relent that I was confronted with my rebellion to God and utter lack of submission that had been given a pass repeatedly.

It is a rare woman today who submits to her husband in all things out of obedience to God right from the start of the marriage. It is usually not even considered until there is disagreement.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 9:14 PM  

"Should she have called my brother and I home? Should she not have called 911? These were his explicit instructions to her. "

Today? Calling 911 would get him killed. Cops shoot first when they hear someone is crazy these days. Call your family first these days.

He's sick and no longer in control of his mind. As such his requests to submit are no more his own than the actions of a badly hurt man lashing out at the person trying to help him.

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 9:15 PM  

So she turned to Abraham and demanded, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son. He is not going to share the inheritance with my son, Isaac. I won't have it!"

It seems you are conflating an expression of opinion with a command. Abraham agreed, no? Had he not, it's merely conjecture as to what Sarah would have done.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 9:16 PM  

Kind of hard to square that with Abraham intent to sacrifice isaac.

No, not hard at all.\

Genesis 21:12

But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.

You figure Abraham just thought “oh well God must not have meant that bit about offspring” when he commanded Isaac to be sacrificed? God’s word didn’t count at that point?

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 9:22 PM  

You figure Abraham just thought “oh well God must not have meant that bit about offspring” when he commanded Isaac to be sacrificed? God’s word didn’t count at that point?

Genesis 22:8

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb.."

Now that's some submission.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 9:24 PM  

I think Vox needs to coin a new term: Voxianity.

Blogger njartist March 04, 2014 9:25 PM  

An issue with Abraham an Sarah and the sacrifice of Isaac: Genesis 22 and 23:
There is no mention of Sarah being told about the planned sacrifice; if she had known, the bible would most likely have described her reaction just as it did when Abraham was told she would conceive a child: she laughed from behind the tent.
However, the monumental demand God placed upon Abraham most likely caused a permanent rupture in their marriage; for in Chapter 22 it is written:
Gen 22:19 "So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba."

Then we read:
Gen 23:2 "And Sarah died in Kirjatharba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her."
Given these two verses, I think they separated shortly after Abraham returned from Moriah.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 9:28 PM  

"Gen 23:2 "And Sarah died in Kirjatharba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her."
Given these two verses, I think they separated shortly after Abraham returned from Moriah."

Or she went to visit her family and died.

Blogger Beau March 04, 2014 9:32 PM  

OT

Gracious Heavenly Father we approach your throne.

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 9:32 PM  

njartist, An interesting point. of course what is missing is if Abraham went back to Sarah first or if he preemptively left for Beersheba. If the former, one might suspect that Sarah knew nothing of it, and in the latter, it might be thought that she did, no? And since Scripture indicates the latter, we might think that Sarah was being submissive when Abraham left. Or do I have this all wrong?

Blogger seth datta March 04, 2014 9:33 PM  

In ancient times before Christ, the Pharisees (lawmakers) of the time had invented debt-based currency and a code of laws for all to follow. Christ was the first real competition they had and the first real political revolutionary. So this ‘Synagogue of Satan’ killed him. In time, they had poisoned all religions, including Christianity, with truth mixed in with lies. They could not hide Christ’s existence, so they sought to sully his teachings, and deceive others’.

By the 330AD, Constantinople was founded, alongside ‘Roman Catholicism’, which became a proxy for a new re-imagined Roman Empire. This new Christianity had false teachings mixed in with truth. The capitol was moved from Rome to its new site, with a further 1/3 move left to put the capitol where it was really wanted by the ‘elite’ of that time. In Jerusalem. But all roads lead to Rome, and the Roman empire collapsed as the trade routes to Constantinople were not favourable.

Over the next century and a bit, many wars were fought in the subverted Christianity’s name. The Muslim religion was founded by the elite as an antidote to Christianity.

By the late 1700s, the House of Rothschilds had beaten Napoleon and gained control of all of Britain through financial manipulation. They established a mighty empire, with the Satanic aim of re-establishing the third temple at Jerusalem, where Constantine had failed. They financed both sides of all wars and continue to do this in the present day, having staged the Ukraine anti-government ‘revolution’.

The UK is the financial power. The Vatican is the political seat, where the last Pope (Petrus Romanus = Peter of the Roman/US empire) is bringing in ecumenical teachings, into the Church, which arguably goes against Christianity. Lastly, the US is the military arm, and has been used in the last few decades to establish dictatorships in various nations, with the excuse being given to the general public that ‘a world police’ is needed.

We are now in the end-game. We all know the bankers are the hidden hand that controls society, for none of the big names were prosecuted following the financial crisis. We can see/feel something is wrong. Kissinger had recently suggested that ‘Israel will cease to exist in 10 years’. The Iraelis are actually Edomites from the Caucausus, and are being used to establish the third temple from which the fabled Antichrist will rule. The real Israelites are spread all over the world, with only a handful in Israel. In any case, we will see scripture be fulfilled at some point in the next few decades, but the cost in terms of human suffering will be immense. People of all races and creeds will suffer and fight, at the beckoning of the Satanists, who see themselves as the true rulers of the human race and as benevolent people.

Truth is hard to find in the modern era, but this researched account is as close to the truth as we will get.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 9:34 PM  

He's sick and no longer in control of his mind. As such his requests to submit are no more his own than the actions of a badly hurt man lashing out at the person trying to help him.

LOL…WHAT, you mean the husband’s mental health factors into this…the Bible says nothing about mental health. What the hell man, there is no exception.

You are giving an inch and they will take a MILE, a MILE I say.

Next you are going to tell me I should use common sense, forget it, Bible don’t say nut’n bout no mental health no how, just says that der women better obey, and obey she will I says.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 9:36 PM  

"Given the dominance of feminism in the church today, the reverse scenario is more likely. So let's ask: what can a Christian man do to prevent his baptized feminist wife from aborting his kid? Nothing."

Christianity is not that big on preventing harm. It's much more about paying for harm once the harm is done. This type of harm should get the women cast out of the christian community and if she does repent then send her to convent for the reset of her life.

When the secular authorities are refuse to serve us justice in cases like the church itself must apply the punishment in lieu of the authorities and if the person as truly repented, they will accept the punishment.

Blogger Me Guerrero March 04, 2014 9:40 PM  

As a bit Feminist ,I think women could have their choice to decide some things, specially if she has higher IQ than her husband, woman can be capable of many things, did you know that the writer of a TV series hit (My Love From The Star) in Asia is a woman? yes, her name is Park Ji-eun, her legacy is this (though to your point Asians are also pretty patriarchal, they too need to realize the power of women, given that their own women give them examples of such power! )

My Love from the Star had an impact on Korean fashion, with clothes, accessories and make-up products worn by Jun Ji-hyun seeing an "unprecedented" surge in orders. It also placed first as "Korea's most favorite program" in a poll conducted by Gallup Korea in February 2014, with 11.5 percent of the votes. Besides high viewership ratings in South Korea, the series also proved to be successful in China, where it became the most expensive Korean drama sold as of February 2014. It also became one of the most viewed streaming shows on Chinese platform iqiyi, where it was streamed more than 14.5 billion times from December 2013 to February 2014. The series struck up a craze for chimaek (chicken and maekju), a popular Korean snack of chicken and beer, which is the favorite snack of the female protagonist. Despite declining chicken consumption in China due to fear of H7N9 bird flu, fried chicken restaurants in cities saw an increase in orders since the running of the show. TV professionals in China have likewise weighed in on the Korean drama's positive reception in their country. In an op-ed piece published by the China Daily, writer Xiao Lixin attributed its success to "great innovations in South Korean TV productions in terms of themes and narrative patterns," praising the plot as "logical and fast-paced" interspersed with "whimsy and romantic punch lines," and that "high-speed photography and computer-generated effects" helped "create a lifelike visual impact." Yu Zheng, another writer, found My Love from the Star worthy of being studied, and thought the plot was "simple but has tension. A good combination of outdoor and indoor scenes." Variety show director Pang Bo remarked that the makers of the series paid attention to technical details even in the shortest scenes involving special effects. Chinese celebrities such as Zhao Wei and Gao Yuanyuan also followed and actively posted about the series on Weibo, boosting its popularity

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 9:47 PM  

Now that's a strange appeal to authority: Women needn't be submissive because Korean Television Show!!!

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 9:48 PM  

"LOL…WHAT, you mean the husband’s mental health factors into this…the Bible says nothing about mental health. What the hell man, there is no exception."

Actually it mentions insanity quite a few times:
http://www.openbible.info/topics/insanity

The basic tenant seems to be that that people are not themselves when they are insane.

Blogger Outlaw X March 04, 2014 9:53 PM  

What do we know about God's concerns about human life? He is considerably less concerned with it, it appears, than we are

I don't think so. the 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not kill.". That's one of the top ten, I believe that killing your baby because your husband tells you is trumped by the top ten. And in the ridiculous example of sacrificing baby to another God is a violation of the first commandment "The first commandment of God is: I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.." Abortion would have been a better example that people can relate to, if your husband tells you to have an abortion.

So we disagree Vox. My interpretation is strongly different than yours.

Blogger Beau March 04, 2014 9:55 PM  

Psalm 100

Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth!
Serve the LORD with gladness!
Come into his presence with singing!

Know that the LORD, he is God!
It is he who made us, and we are his;
we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

Enter his gates with thanksgiving,
and his courts with praise!
Give thanks to him; bless his name!

For the LORD is good;
his steadfast love endures forever,
and his faithfulness to all generations.


Father, you are worthy. In awe of you we stand. Bless the Lord, all his saints.







Blogger Mo March 04, 2014 9:55 PM  

Ace: Today? Calling 911 would get him killed. Cops shoot first when they hear someone is crazy these days. Call your family first these days.

Completely agree. This was 10 years ago, so not as bad, but still. However - both of my grandfathers were infirm. My motherhas no brothers, nor does my father, My own brother...was not capable of dealing with this. And i was over an hour away. This situation is the number one reason why we have choosen to settle close to my fiance's huge family.

Family is everything, and that is why the current destruction of it is so pernicious.

Blogger Mo March 04, 2014 9:58 PM  

But still -- "exception."

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 9:59 PM  

"I don't think so. the 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not kill.""

It's actually thou shall not murder if you look at the Hebrew.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 10:00 PM  

"The actual biblical hierarchy is 2 separate hierarchies:"

In both... God is at the top.

Blogger Outlaw X March 04, 2014 10:01 PM  

also Jesus clearly states that some sins are greater than others. I pick disobeying hubby over kill little Johnny in the womb.

John 19:11 "...Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

Blogger Outlaw X March 04, 2014 10:03 PM  

It's actually thou shall not murder if you look at the Hebrew.

Noted but irrelevant to the point and not displayed that way.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 10:05 PM  

"But still -- "exception.""

Are you sure? The bible treats insane people like they are not themselves. Are you failing to submit if the person you are not submitting to is someone else? If a person can't be held responsible for their actions then they are no longer in authority. That fits crazy people to a T.

Blogger JartStar March 04, 2014 10:07 PM  

Should she have called my brother and I home? Should she not have called 911? These were his explicit instructions to her.

Since he didn't explicitly tell her not to call the sheriff's department then according to Vox he she could have done that, and then called you and your brother over four hours later since he likely didn't give an exact time. She still would have been "submitting".

Vox:And even if he does, is she still not free to call CPS?

Vox this is the silliest argument I've ever seen you give as you just gave a MILE to legalistic interpretations of submitting and passive aggressive behavior.

Husband: Fix me my breakfast.

Wife: Sure. (Hands him a piece of burnt toast and raw eggs four hours later.)

Husband: What is this?

Wife: You just said fix it, not when and not how. I submitted!

Unless of course your can point out there's something in scripture about wives getting to make legalistic EXCEPTIONS when they JUDGE the husband to be wrong. Which you obviously just did.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 10:08 PM  

http://www.openbible.info/topics/submitting_to_your_husband

Don’t give no exception to submitt’n iff’n your man be “mentally healthy” or whatever nonsense you be go’n on about, just says women supos to submit. This exception you’z throw’n out devil talk boy. You jus stop what you be do’n and think real hard bout what vox say, ain’t now exception.

Ace has it right. This does not help the "wives should submit, but..." case.

You sees that there (bolded it case you might miss noticn it), that there Vox so you listen up, ain’t no but. Once and for all son…ain’t no ception, no but, nut’n. says I AND Vox.

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 10:10 PM  

""The actual biblical hierarchy is 2 separate hierarchies:"

In both... God is at the top."

Yes, but the context of what powers each hierarchy has is different. You can refuse a rulers order to worship other gods because that belongs to God, not to the rulers. On the other hand if they order you have sex with your lawful slave owner then you have to submit knowing that you are not responsible for the sin.

Blogger njartist March 04, 2014 10:10 PM  

@Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 9:32 PM

" njartist, An interesting point. of course what is missing is if Abraham went back to Sarah first or if he preemptively left for Beersheba. If the former, one might suspect that Sarah knew nothing of it, and in the latter, it might be thought that she did, no? And since Scripture indicates the latter, we might think that Sarah was being submissive when Abraham left. Or do I have this all wrong?"

What I am saying is that the bible provides us with Sarah's reaction regarding God declaring that she shall conceive: she laughed; but there is no reaction by Sarah recorded when Abraham promptly rose up the following morning to journey to Moriah. Is it reasonable to think that Abraham did not confide in Sarah regarding the impending sacrifice of Isaac? The following chapter of Genesis records that Abraham journeyed to Hebron in the land of Canaan to mourn for Sarah. Given this evidence. I consider it reasonable to conclude Abraham and Sarah separated over the trauma of Abraham obeying God to sacrifice.

---
One more thing: Abraham was not under the law as given to Moses; whatever Abraham knew about righteous behavior might have been learned via family heritage and training via Shem: Shem does not die until after Jacob is an adult: I have read one essay which proposed Shem was teaching members of this lineage down the generations.

Blogger Beau March 04, 2014 10:10 PM  

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.

Abba, keep us from distraction. Restrain our folly and focus our hearts on fulfilling your will. Give the Ilk who needs make decisions this week the courage and constancy to carry out your will.

Anonymous rycamor March 04, 2014 10:11 PM  

A theme I've brought up before:

I wonder if the idea of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is particularly a problem of the Western mindset. My sense of what the philosophers of the ancient Middle East would say to us is "You Westerners, always looking at the edges of things instead of to the center, where the heart lies." It's an argument that has been had many times among theologians, some of whom claim that the ancient eastern concept of "absolute" is not quite like our Western (aspie-ish) sense of always probing the boundaries and trying to establish every possible threshold. It's what gives us technological superiority, of course, but is it a spiritual hindrance?

Blogger Beau March 04, 2014 10:16 PM  

Give us this day our daily bread.

Any prayer requests this evening?

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 10:17 PM  

Mo thought wisdom kick’n ta Ace. Suppos’n I grant your devil talk bout brain and mental health, women kant judge iff’n a man be sane ors not. You jus kant be say’n you think a womens has any business judge’n a MAN, A MANS I SAYS, on his brain work’n or not work’n. That ain’t no place for no women.
Far as womens goes mans brain always good, she sure kant judge that. Jus crazy talk.

Anonymous Remir March 04, 2014 10:19 PM  

The basic tenant seems to be that that people are not themselves when they are insane.

Oh, so now the wife gets to be the judge of whether her husband is in his right mind? Madness. Inches and miles, Ace, inches and miles!

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 10:20 PM  

@ rycamor

It's the nature of the legalistic culture we now have. If you focus on the spirit of the law you don't need to be absolutist about things and you can ignore the edges and deal with them practically when they pop up. But in the culture we live in with everything magnified through legalistic arguments which is why I spent the last few hours making such arguments despite the fact I don't believe in legalism.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 10:20 PM  

The idea that a woman cedes her entire Conscience once married is absurd.

Sure is. I can't find where you're deriving this from.

Years and years of being a helpmeet allows a woman to intimately know her husband, as your mother knew your father. He was hallucinating, believing he had already murdered several members of your family. She knew he was ill and served him. You know who your father was when he was healthy, what would he have had her do?

When my husband came home from deployment, he told me he needed me to protect his extended family (and our friends) from him. His adjustment was difficult and his mentality at the time would have caused much division with the extended family. He was sick physically as well and went through a period of time when I had to make his decisions for him. He met with an attorney and had drawn up the mother of all powers of attorney (lifetime durable) for me to "be him" when need be. For a year I determined when we would see family, when they could come visit and when they could talk to him on the phone. Even when there were times he thought he should talk to them (or give them a talking to), I limited his exposure to them and to the public. I was not disrespectful toward him and kept with being his helpmeet, one flesh. I submitted to his instruction to discern when he was palatable enough to not destroy relationships. I drove him to his doctor appointments, minded his medications and diet, and nursed him back to health.

A wife can hardly be a mindless dolt when it comes to being a valuable helpmeet. And in not being a mindless dolt, she doesn't quibble about the extremes in order to justify rebellion.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 10:21 PM  

I absolutely agree with that, rycamor.

And so did Jesus:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the other

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 10:23 PM  

"Oh, so now the wife gets to be the judge of whether her husband is in his right mind? Madness. Inches and miles, Ace, inches and miles!"

Excellent, are we done with the discussion on why legalism is retarded and only the spirit of the law should be followed?

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 10:25 PM  

rycamor,

I had a discussion along (at least in my mind) related subjects. Nominally, the fact that we can't build things as fast as we used to. This is due to an overrespect for life (save abortion). I have had this thought for awhile, but my dad, in agreeing, suggested that the reason this is so is due to the current Western trend to disassociate from religion. Or, if this is all we have, we'd better make the most of it. Whereas in more religious (and past) societies, there is a greater understanding that if I were to die today, it matters less, because then I have paradise.

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 10:26 PM  

Beau, nothing specific tonight, but I give thanks to God for the prayer warriors in Roswell!

Anonymous Ace March 04, 2014 10:32 PM  

What SarahsDaughter mentioned is quite good. The context of what we are talking about is the submission in service to someone. If you do what they tell you to do knowing that it would harm them, then you are not really serving them.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 10:34 PM  

Any prayer requests this evening?

Shutterbug, on the previous page of comments

Blogger William Smith March 04, 2014 10:39 PM  

I'm wondering if there are some other issues to bring to bear here.
One is that Jesus says that people must be willing to abandon anything to follow him:
Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.
(Mat 19:28-30)
That command obviously applied directly to the work of preaching around Israel with Jesus during his life time, but Matthew includes it in a book that is designed for disciple making (Matthew 28:16-20). The idea is that Jesus mediates God's presence to all who would submit themselves to his commands. Elsewhere, Matthew recounts that when his family came up Jesus said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother (Mat 12:49-50)." That particular passage seems to be about people of any sex who bow the knee to Christ. Thus, it seems to me, that the priority is to Christ above family and that in fact, a family dedicated to Christ is precisely what makes family so important elsewhere in the New Testament.

Later on, in the household codes where Peter tells people to submit to lawful authority (1 Peter 2:12-3:7), he also gives instructions for civil disobedience (2:18-20). By the time Pete gets to 3:1, he says, "Likewise, wives should submit to their husbands," which is the example given of Christ, who suffered rather than sin. So I think the rhetoric Peter is using, plus the context of Jesus' ministry are strong points against a woman sinning at the command of a human being. Incidentally, it is Sarah who is held up as the example of submissiveness, despite the fact that she corrected Abraham sometimes. Peter had to be aware that this was the case, as did his hearers, the point being that respect is always in order, in fact Peter seems to be claiming that Sarah (in Genesis) is only ever respectful to Abraham in an exemplary fashion.

I would also add that Peter and Paul, who follow a similar pattern commended in 1 Peter 2-3, do defend themselves legally against public officials. So either they are sinning, or there is a way to meekly defend oneself against legitimate authority, which seems to speak to the possibility that, even though a woman could win her husband to Christ without a word, that sometimes a word is needed. The Greek in the passage, incidentally, reads thus: εἴ τινες ἀπειθοῦσιν τῷ λόγῳ, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται, (1Pe 3:1), and I would translate that as, "If some are not being persuaded by the word, through the lifestyle of their wives, they may be won without a word..." So, 'the word' there, which could be referring to the gospel preached in the church, could also be referring to the gospel communicated by the wife...which though not believed by become effective instead by lifestyle at a later point.
Peter's point is thoroughly evangelical, it is difficult for me to think that Peter means, "submit to your husband, even if he wishes you to sin" because he clearly means the opposite of that in other circumstances.

Hope that helps. I've been wrong before, but those are my thoughts.

Anonymous rycamor March 04, 2014 10:43 PM  

Can you believe all the yes-men in Vox's echo chamber? Mindless minions...

Blogger Eric Wilson March 04, 2014 10:47 PM  

Shutterbug, on the previous page of comments

Seconded.

Blogger Beau March 04, 2014 10:55 PM  

The LORD is near to the brokenhearted
and saves the crushed in spirit.
Psalm 34:18

Abba, we lift up Shutterbug and her husband. You are the potter, they are the clay. Remake his heart, remake hers. Fashion them into the glory you've desired from before the foundation of the world. Let him love her like Christ loves the church. Let her honor him. Let them rejoice together in your saving hand. Make them radiantly in love with you, your will, your word, and with each other. Praise you Lord Jesus.


Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 11:02 PM  

Christian wives will wrestle with this, as Shutterbug is. She did not mention whether or not her husband is appealing to God's call for her to submit to him. She is, however, seeking. She said herself she's been reading 1 Peter 3 every day. She wants to have that quiet, gentle spirit, and to become that Proverbs 31 wife. What she wants is to be in obedience to God and a whole lot is being revealed to her where she is not.

Should your wife, while she is seeking, come across a book like "Love and Respect" or a blog like "The Peaceful Wife" or even this post, and without your knowledge, repent of her rebellion and pray for God to help her become obedient to him by submitting to you in all things, what would you say to her? What would you say to her if she said to you tomorrow, "I have been in rebellion to God in that in my heart I have not been in submission to you in all things, I have held contention and strife in my heart and am wrong for doing so. I have committed to God to be obedient to him and submissive to you in everything. While these are just words to you now, please be patient as I show you the change that has occurred in my heart. Please forgive me for my rebellion, even that rebellion I've kept hidden from you."

Would you, at that point, let her know which things she needs to be wary of? Would you say, "wait, no, don't submit to me under these circumstances...?" If you knew, by her confession that her heart has been changed, that she has entered into a very deep understanding of God's call for her as a wife, would you then ask her to have an abortion the next time she gets pregnant? Would you then decide to molest your daughter? Would you then tell her to sacrifice your child to Molech?

When a wife wants to abide in God's Word, desires to know peace, calmness of heart, and desires to repent of all of her sins, what disservice is done to her when she is mocked for believing the Scripture that says: 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 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. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24

Which one of you will correct her and tell her she is wrong, that everything doesn't actually mean everything? Especially when she has come to this on her own, not being a church attending family. All she has in hand is her Bible. All she's going on is this verse. Which one of you will then tell her that she must know every last bit of this Bible and that she is deceived by these verses?

Anonymous dc red dogs March 04, 2014 11:43 PM  

Sarahs Daughter - for the love of God, learn some humility. Read the Bible. Your self-willed choice to marry a potential abortionist does not give you the right to disregard your Lord's warnings against abortionists. I refuse to specifically quote the Bible here because I am not sure you are not trying to make people laugh with your foolishness, but if I am wrong, please read and reread the first and second commandments, as well as what Jesus said would be have been the better fate for those, like you, who value other goals over the goal of love for the innocent.

Blogger Beau March 04, 2014 11:54 PM  

What would you say to her if she said to you tomorrow, "I have been in rebellion to God in that in my heart I have not been in submission to you in all things, I have held contention and strife in my heart and am wrong for doing so. I have committed to God to be obedient to him and submissive to you in everything. While these are just words to you now, please be patient as I show you the change that has occurred in my heart. Please forgive me for my rebellion, even that rebellion I've kept hidden from you."

I said, so many years ago, "I forgive you."

Thanks, SarahDaughter, for reminding me of God's reconciling mercy - and of his raising my marriage from the dead. I got my wife back, without the junk. She has been for many years exactly what Shutterbug is praying to become, a Proverb 31 woman. There is hope, though it tarry, wait for it.

Blogger Beau March 05, 2014 12:04 AM  

In acts of mercy the banners of heaven are unfurled and the glory of God is revealed upon the earth.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 05, 2014 12:22 AM  

I said, so many years ago, "I forgive you."

That's what RLB said to me. I am often overwhelmed by his (and His) grace and forgiveness.

There is hope, though it tarry, wait for it.

Indeed.

Anonymous Dezdren March 05, 2014 12:54 AM  

I agree the bible says women are to submit to their husbands. Just not sure I can swallow the part where they aren't accountable to God for Sin they commit, if it was at their husbands command. That doesn't seem scriptural to me. If Abigail hadn't gone against the wishes of her husband she and the family would have perished with him. One also remembers the account of Ananias and Sapphira. Korah's family also perished because of his rebellion. Why are you saying, Vox, that married women are not accountable for what they do if It is in submission to their husbands?

Blogger Outlaw X March 05, 2014 1:25 AM  

Why are you saying, Vox, that married women are not accountable for what they do if It is in submission to their husbands?

Straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel in my opinion, for what that's its worth.

Anonymous Robert in Arabia March 05, 2014 1:28 AM  

And, speaking of Abraham, was Sarah held responsible for going along with her husband's pretense that she was his sister? vox

Abraham was scum.

Marcion was right that much of the Old Testament was written by Satanists.


Anonymous Toby Temple March 05, 2014 2:02 AM  

Simple question.

If wives are to disobey God's commands in submission to their husbands... why then are christians not supposed to submit to evil governments that demand they disobey God's commands as well?

If the wife who disobey's her evil husband is a sinner... then Paul is a sinner for the exact same reason!

Obey Obey Obey. Indeed.


Nate. Question to you. Did submission to authority likened by Paul to the church submitting to Christ?

Because Paul obviously likened the submission of wives to their husbands as the submission of the church to Christ.

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


Note of the phrase "submit in everything".

Anonymous Eric Ashley March 05, 2014 3:26 AM  

For those who believe that a woman can lose her salvation, is it right for her to submit to her husband's demands that she not become a Christian.

And before you say (Impossible!), I talked with a guy today who said his wife offered to take him back if he dumped this crazy religion thing. He refused, saying he had Him, and was not giving Him up.

Now this does actually seem to be a trick question to me.

Blogger Doorstop March 05, 2014 3:39 AM  

Can't believe that I'm the first one to point out that the original argument is based on a directive from Paul, who also said "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (1 Corinthians 14:34). You'll note that nowhere does Paul indicate that husband are allowed to give their wives permission to speak in church, and I don't believe (please enlighten me if I'm wrong) that he's referring to any secular law from the time or place that this directive pertained to. In this light, many pastors are not just failing to instruct women of their duty to submit to their husbands in private, family matters, but also in their duty to submit their own voices during any public, mixed-sex church services. Unless someone can enlighten me, it seems this is the true measure of a Bible-believing church....unless there are nuances based on the age and legal system in which Paul lived vs. the ones in which we live. I recall hearing that a Roman citizen had the right to slaughter his wife, his sons and their families, and any unmarried daughters, without facing any lawful charges (not that any of these things were likely to happen, given how much most fathers sacrificially invested in their families, and invest to this day).

Blogger IM2L844 March 05, 2014 8:39 AM  

God judges true intentions vs. human rationalization and justifications. An honorable Christian woman must be able to exercise some contextual discernment. There are some husbands who may become completely insane, after all.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2014 10:03 AM  

"Note of the phrase "submit in everything"."

The problem is that "submit in everything" isn't the key phrase. The key phrase is "just as". Paul is speaking collectively to The Church. Consider a mixed marriage where the husband is not a believer and the wife is. That husband does not submit to Christ and therefore the hierarchy doesn't exist.

Mixed marriages are dealt with all through the bible. Never once are wives of unbelievers told to submit to their husband and worship as he does.

Blogger JDC March 05, 2014 10:38 AM  

To add my boring Lutheran theology here, submission to husband would be, in my opinion, a Right Hand Realm (Kingdom) doctrine. The unique authority given to Christians by Christ is the authority to preach the gospel, and to share the means of grace. Here, the command for wives to be submissive to husbands is clear.

However we also live in the Left Hand Realm - this temporal power does not protect the soul, but with the sword and physical penalties it protects the body and goods from the power of others. Although we Christians may spend our time in the clouds, we are also called to the horizontal plain - and to care about things like Justice, Temperance, Prudence and Fortitude. .

So, while a wife being submissive to her husband does fulfill her calling to the Right Hand Realm, it can also, I submit, do harm in the Left Hand - specifically in the example given of harming a child at her husband's command.

It can be asserted that God himself is mercifully at work in this world through the (fallen and imperfect) structures of temporal authority in the civil realm. God works through these earthly authorities to provide and maintain some measure of the peace, stability and justice that are necessary for people to live in community in this world.

So no, wives, don't harm your children out of a desire to follow the admonition of scripture. Someone also mentioned morality. In saying that harming a child is immoral - one must move beyond the first use of morality (the harmony amongst beings or neighbors). The second facet of morality involves the inner harmony of the individual. The third and often ignored facet involves the harmony between creature and created. Would harming a child, at the behest of a husband, contradict these three? I believe it would - most importantly, the harmony between creature and creator.

Blogger Beau March 05, 2014 11:00 AM  

Peter's point is thoroughly evangelical, it is difficult for me to think that Peter means, "submit to your husband, even if he wishes you to sin" because he clearly means the opposite of that in other circumstances.

I think William Smith has the best of it.

To illustrate, "That ring on her finger, who gave it to her?" Answer, "Her husband." Response, "Then give to her husband the things that are her husband's, and to God the things that are of God."

Blogger Unknown March 05, 2014 12:01 PM  

Galatians 5:23 says that the spirit does not discriminate between man, woman, master, slave, jew or gentile. By this we can accept that all God's gifts by the holy spirit can be received by all without discrimination. As discernment is such a gift, a wife is not precluded from exercising a discerning spirit because she is suddenly married.

This debate is ridiculous, having long ago departed from the spirit of scripture. Wifely submission and husbandly leadership are an example of the church's relationship to Christ. While we recognize Christ's perfection and our husband's imperfection, we can proceed with grace, humility, and forgiveness in submitting to our husbands. But that doesn't mean we check our brains in at the door... or our soul or suddenly our spiritual gifts depart us at "I do."

Sure, there are always consequences and we will be taken to task for what choices we make, and staying single in perpetuity (always a choice) would make this question simple on all counts, but the choice to murder vs submitting to husband (not because Of his superiority as we are all equal under the cross, but because of our relationship to Christ) is a choic re requiring discernment.

And SD, your stupid, petty example comparing infanticide to missing church on sunday is totally missing the point. A woman with a discerning spirit (firmly rooted in the word of God) would be able to discern between the two.

- C

Anonymous Shutterbug March 05, 2014 12:44 PM  

I'm humbled at the Ilk's response to my prayer request. I can't wait to meet ya'll in heaven. I don't know what else to say except thank you from the bottom of my heart and that I'll keep reading the Word, praying, making a concerted effort to be that gentle, quiet wife, and waiting on the Lord. And thank you for praying for my husband as well. He's a Christian, but the cares of the world have choked the Word from his life. God is merciful and good and will heal this marriage.

Blogger Dewave March 05, 2014 1:06 PM  

All these extreme edge cases are hysterical.

It's quite simple: any sin your husband commands you to do that is egregious enough to suspend the 'obey your husband' rule is also egregious enough to suspend the 'don't divorce your husband' rule.

Your husband commands you to feed your children to Moloch? Divorce him. Now he is no longer your husband and you are no longer required to submit to him.

Why would you think there is a middle area where one command applies but not the other?

The truth is that women want to be able to not obey their husbands while still maintaining the relationship, hence all the extreme edge cases and rationalization.

If you think your husband is genuinely asking you to commit such heinous sins, divorce him. If it's not serious enough to get divorced over, it's not serious enough to violate the submission principle.

No hierarchy ever formed works on the principle that each step in the chain decides for itself whether orders from above should be followed or not. Can you imagine a private telling his sergeant he declines to follow the sergeants order because, in his opinion, it contradicts some broad outlines laid down by the CIC?

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 05, 2014 1:15 PM  

And SD, your stupid, petty example comparing infanticide to missing church on sunday is totally missing the point.

Then good thing I didn't make that comparison. - yey reading comprehension.

I'm sure you're right. There is no crisis in marriage, all good Christian woman rooted firmly in the Bible never cause issues with their husbands and the things he desires to do. They discern the difference quite easily and submit in everything 'cept the big nasty stuff. Yep.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 05, 2014 1:30 PM  

But that doesn't mean we check our brains in at the door... or our soul or suddenly our spiritual gifts depart us at "I do."

No one said we do - oh... this is projection, okay... it's what you believe it would take in order to be in submission to a man in everything. And your husband is such that he would require you make either no decisions or follow him in destructive ones and he is the type of man who would restrict you from pursuing your spiritual gifts. Yeah, it is wise to not choose husbands like that.

Blogger Dewave March 05, 2014 1:36 PM  

Wifely submission and husbandly leadership are an example of the church's relationship to Christ. While we recognize Christ's perfection and our husband's imperfection, we can proceed with grace, humility, and forgiveness in submitting to our husbands. But that doesn't mean we check our brains in at the door

So why is the church required to check its brain at the door when obeying Christ? What happened to the discernment and wisdom of church leaders? Aren't they qualified to decide which of God's commands they should or should not obey? Why must the church get rid of it's conscience? Surely church members should be allowed to disobey God's commands if they feel it violates their conscience!!

Let's move to another command: children are supposed to obey their parents.

Does that mean children have to check their brains at the door? What if a child is objectively smarter (higher IQ) than his parents? What if he or she is better educated? Does the command to obey still apply?

Commands to obey are not founded upon an assumption of incapacity.

Lt Colonels do not obey Lt Generals because Lt Colonels are stupid and don't understand military strategy.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2014 2:11 PM  

"I'm sure you're right. There is no crisis in marriage, all good Christian woman rooted firmly in the Bible never cause issues with their husbands and the things he desires to do"

I don't give a damn if their is a crisis in marriage or not. The Truth doesn't change based on the circumstances of earth.

Anonymous damntull March 05, 2014 2:15 PM  

@SarahsDaughter

I hope I'm no longer banned.

You said earlier, "Of course I hesitate to confirm the moral answer is "yes" because I don't even want to hear what crap will be thrown at me for saying it ..."

The reason you hesitate to say that it would be moral to kill the child is because you know very well that it would NOT be moral. Some actions are intrinsically disordered, and therefore immoral, and butchering an unborn child is such an action. No command from any man can change this. God does not delegate authority to say what is evil is good, and what is good, evil.

I would hesitate to take any theological advice from Vox, considering his demonstrated ineptitude in interpreting the scriptures, e.g. his novel, ahistorical interpretations, and his clearly heretical views concerning the nature of God.

Blogger Dewave March 05, 2014 2:29 PM  

I don't give a damn if their is a crisis in marriage or not. The Truth doesn't change based on the circumstances of earth.

How do you figure?

If there was no sin or death on earth, from that, certain things would follow (such as the Biblical account of the fall and the curse would be false).

On the other hand, if there is sin or death or misery on earth, from that, certain other things would follow.

Asserting Truth has nothing to do with reality seems a very strange proposition to me indeed.

If the Bible tells us that Y follows X, then determining if Y has occurred is surely relevant?

Anonymous jamsco March 05, 2014 2:34 PM  

Dewave, are you trying to misinterpret what Nate's saying?

He's saying that whether or not there is a "crisis in marriage", a wife shouldn't kill a child. You should respond to that idea.

No need to get so existential.

Blogger Dewave March 05, 2014 2:47 PM  

Never once are wives of unbelievers told to submit to their husband and worship as he does.

That would be a sin against God, not just a sin against man. The two categories of sins are quite clearly treated differently in the Bible and I'm not sure it's helpful to lump them together.

Sarah lies to Pharaoh at Abraham's request: absolutely nothing bad happens to either of them. In fact, Abraham scores some material possessions out of it.

Sapphira lies to the God: struck dead instantly.

There are numerous examples of people lying in the Bible, and either not being punished, or even being rewarded or praised for it (Rahab, 2 Samuel 17, Hushai, etc). But yet we are commanded not to lie. But it's only Sapphira, who lies to God, who is instantly struck down.

What about Jacob lying to Isaac at Rebekah's command? That violated multiple commandments : lying, stealing (from Esau) and dishonoring his father.

Yet he still obtained God's blessing. Is this because the correct course of action for him was to submit to the authority of his Mother and due as she said? Rebekah even says "Let the curse fall on me" which is support for the idea that if the one in command orders a subordinate to do something wrong, and the subordinate does it, the blame falls on the one who issued the command.

Blogger Unknown March 05, 2014 2:55 PM  

So why is the church required to check its brain at the door when obeying Christ? What happened to the discernment and wisdom of church leaders? Aren't they qualified to decide which of God's commands they should or should not obey? Why must the church get rid of it's conscience? Surely church members should be allowed to disobey God's commands if they feel it violates their conscience!!

Because we recognize God's perfection? And that scripture is the word of God?

Look, anyone here who thinks that a wife not submitting to her husband is going to hell for it, than all of you are seriously teaching a false gospel.

However, if you are saying that disobeying a husband is a sin, as well as not forgiving, as well as telling your wife to F your best friend, as well as being proud, full of contempt, and merciless are all sins that we should avoid, fine.

But this argument sounds more and more like "your not a Christian if you don't submit to your husband even if he says murder your baby."

And where did you get the idea that we don't use discernment in challenging church authority? What Bible are you reading? It clearly isn't the same as mine.

Test all things by the word of God - 1 Thess 5:21-22
Test the spirits because many false prophets have gone out into the world - 1 John 4:1
Searched the scriptures to find out whether these things were true - Acts 17:11

- C

Blogger Unknown March 05, 2014 2:55 PM  

SD -
is no crisis in marriage, all good Christian woman rooted firmly in the Bible never cause issues with their husbands.

How often do you read your bible? How often do you exercise discernment? How often do you think people in general read their bibles? How often do you think they exercise discernment?

How do you get away with this? You scoff at my logic (I definitely saw YOUR name on the conversation between husband and wife over going to church and wife exclaiming "BUT THAT IS UNGODLY") while throwing out tripe like this? People can be wrong. I do not question that. Never have, never will.

Just because there is a crisis in marriage does not mean we suddenly throw out teaching the word of God and discerning through the Holy Spirit (which, by the way, all things from the spirit are in keeping with the Word of God). If you can't read that in what I said, than its your reading comprehension that sux.

I acknowledge that failure to submit to your husband is a sin. I also acknowledge killing your baby is a sin. If all sin is treated equally under God, than let the woman choose what sin she is willing to bear the consequence of. You sincerely think God will cast her from his footstool for not submitting to her husband over her child's life?

And your husband is such that he would require you make either no decisions or follow him in destructive ones and he is the type of man who would restrict you from pursuing your spiritual gifts. Yeah, it is wise to not choose husbands like that.

Your absolutely right... it would be wise not to marry a man like that. But that wasn't what was being discussed, was it? Outlaw-X's quote from 1 Corinthians on giving a newly received believer an out from a marriage with an unbeliever was actually quite perfect in this debate, as this discussion is more about what happens if you are married to a man like that. But this isn't about me or my husband - neither is it about you or yours. Because neither of us is married to a man like that.

I'm so glad you have the perfect husband who would listen to reason if you were ordered by him to kill your baby. But I know the reason you can't get out of your head is because he would never ask that of you. You have no real fear of it, so you can keep going with the "academic theory."

As to authority in general, look at Daniel - perfectly submissive, never questioning his king. He was respected and highly regarded by every King he served under - and yet that didn't stop him from NOT submitting when what was asked of him violated one of the 10 commandments (Daniel and the Lion's Den).

But he's a man. So its ok for him to rebel against authority when it does ungodly things. I get it.

SD - it doesn't take a lot of discerning to know that the Bible says "Do not murder." It also doesn't take a lot to know not to put anyone above God.

- C

Blogger Dewave March 05, 2014 2:57 PM  

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

So, Jamsco and damntull, I suppose Saul should have refused? Here is a man, telling him to go kill kids!

Or perhaps Abraham should have refused to kill Isaac? Granted in that case it was a direct command from God. Either it is not always immoral to kill children, or God commanded people to do immoral things.

Moreover, I have already addressed the objection about your husband commanding you to offer your children to the flames of Moloch. Just divorce him! The idea that either we must quietly acquiesce to hurling truckloads of babies into the flames or dispense entirely with the principle of obedience is a false dichotomy.

Blogger Unknown March 05, 2014 3:00 PM  

There are numerous examples of people lying in the Bible, and either not being punished, or even being rewarded or praised for it (Rahab, 2 Samuel 17, Hushai, etc). But yet we are commanded not to lie. But it's only Sapphira, who lies to God, who is instantly struck down.

The bible is full of people doing wicked things and godly things. Its good to know how to figure out what is good or not. The Bible is, after all, a story of grace first and foremost.

Anonymous jamsco March 05, 2014 3:49 PM  

Assuming the husband doesn't want one, divorce is a disobedient act.

Anonymous jamsco March 05, 2014 3:52 PM  

And obeying a direct word from God or his prophet is different than obeying one's husband.

But I agree that " hurling truckloads of babies into the flames or dispense entirely with the principle of obedience is a false dichotomy."

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 05, 2014 4:06 PM  

I asked several times yet no one wants to answer the question of how. How does the wife exert her disobedience to those things which she's determined is not what she should submit to. I asked this repeatedly because no matter your answer, the result of it is that she will determine a husband unworthy and not submit at all.

When she has determined he has crossed the line with a sinful request that she can not submit to, she will then top submitting to anything and everything. The spirit of submission will be gone from her (though I'm dubious it was ever there to begin with if she had a list already made in her head "I'll submit to him, out of obedience to God except for if/when he does this, this, this and that")

The men in these marriages are never truly respected and honored as the head. How could he be? There is a line that if he should cross it, will detonate his authority and she determines that line by her interpretation of what the Commandments say - which in and of itself dismisses her husband as her spiritual authority.

Blogger Dewave March 05, 2014 4:40 PM  

your not a Christian if you don't submit to your husband

No one is saying that. All Christians are fallen, all sin. It is not correct to say "Wives are just as capable of discernment as their husbands, therefore they don't need to obey them". This is true of the commands for children to obey parents or men to submit to church leadership. Demonstration of superior mental faculties is not sufficient to obviate the requirement of obedience.

I've addressed the baby killing argument. If your husband tells you to murder a baby, just divorce him. He is obviously either insane or evil. You may respond "But the Bible says I should NOT divorce him!" The Bible also says you should not disobey him. If you can justify exceptions to the latter you can also justify exceptions to the former.

These implausible extreme cases apply to *all* instances where parties are commanded to obedience: husbands to the church officers, children to parents, servants to masters, etc.

Suppose I'm in a church and my church officers tell me I must murder my child. Do I obey them? If not, doesn't that mean I get to decide for myself on a case by case basis whether each command by church officer's merits obedience? Doesn't that remove the entire principle of submission to church authorities?

In reality, I would not obey those church officers, and it would no longer be my church. The reason for this is that if it remained my church, I would be required to obey them, as the principle of obedience is still in effect. I could not remain in a church whose officers I could not obey. I am sure you can see the parallels to the marriage situation.

What about the command for children to obey their parents? Does it really mean "Children, obey your parents, unless you can convince yourself that what they are asking you do is wrong"? If you set the child up to decide on a case by case basis whether he will or will not obey his parents, you remove the principle entirely. You set him at the top of the chain of command. It is no different from telling the child "do as thou wilt".
Either you are in one of these relationships requiring obedience, without exception, or you are not in one of these relationships. There is no middle ground. It is like the army. You either obey all orders, without exception, or you resign and are then not obligated to obey any orders. You don't get to stay in the army and keep drawing a paychekc and decide to obey some orders and not obey others.

There is no principle of obedience founded on the assumption those commanded to obedience will decide for themselves which orders to obey and which to disregard. That is obviously not obedience at all.
In the context of marriage, however, women usually do not want to sever the relationship entirely, but do want an excuse to disregard the obedience principle. This is no different than a private wanting to remain in the military, but reserve the right to occasionally disregard orders from his superior officers if he thinks they are wrong. If you can't obey ALL the orders you are given, you must terminate the relationship.
Assuming the husband doesn't want one, divorce is a disobedient act.
I think any situation justifying disobeying the obedience rule is also significant to justify disobeying the no divorce rule. Would you say that there ARE exceptions to the 'obey your husband" rule but that there are NO exceptions to the "do not divorce your husband" rule? That would seem to me to be a very inconsistent position.
And obeying a direct word from God or his prophet is different than obeying one's husband.
Is this not a direct contradiction of scripture: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord"? Are there exceptions to obeying the Lord? If not, why are there exceptions to obeying your husband?

Anonymous jamsco March 05, 2014 4:44 PM  

" Would you say that there ARE exceptions to the 'obey your husband" rule but that there are NO exceptions to the "do not divorce your husband" rule?"

No, there are exceptions to both.

Anonymous damntull March 05, 2014 5:19 PM  

@SarahsDaughter

That is where the Church comes in, i.e. the Bishop. The wife does not decide for herself whether or not her husband is in error - the Church does. Only protestants run into the kind of issues you and Vox are creating.

Mt 18: 15-17
If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

And remember this admonition:

Mt 18:8
If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

Blogger Unknown March 05, 2014 5:44 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Unknown March 05, 2014 6:12 PM  

SD - I concede.

You are right, I would stop obeying my husband in all things after disobeying him on that one thing. Not so much due to my rebellious spirit, but more so because my husband commanding a thing so egregious would result in a complete and total loss of trust and respect from me.

So... I would definitely no longer be a suitable wife and it would be best for me to just seek a divorce.

I love how all the answers we have here are all defined as sin.

Anonymous Sir_Chancealot March 05, 2014 6:18 PM  

Who in the hell are some of you people, that you would know so many men who would beat their wives, then order her to bang the neighbor, then kill one of their kids in a sacrifice to Moloch?! What kind of people do you hang around?

Hell, with most of my friends, it's like pulling tiger's teeth to get them to have a few too many beers with me.

Where are you meeting such men? Are they incredibly common and I'm just extremely picky with friends? Most of those aren't even devout Christians, either, and yet they do none of those things. Am I to assume that there is a huge volume of Christian men that way?

Another thing: notice how someone ALWAYS knows an exception to any hard rule?

Vox could state that no no-arm, no-leg, blind, deaf-mute can fly combat air patrol, and some yahoo will get on here and claim that their sister's husband's cousin's dog-walker's next door neighbor is a no-legged, no-armed, blind deaf mute and HE flies combat air patrol all the time.

My good friends will tell you that that I'm an extreme outlier, and yet 95% of things that apply to everyone else apply to me.

Yes, we live in a "shades of grey" world, but let's not forget that in such a world, black and white still exist.

Blogger Brad Andrews March 05, 2014 9:26 PM  

Vox, it seems that you only hold very extreme positions on just about anything. I wonder if any position is not taken to its complete logical extreme, especially in areas of belief, due to this.

Though it also does seem you have a few of the "sense filters" on that John Wright notes in his book series. You simply don't see things that are an exception to your core beliefs.

You can be as you want in your own blog, but your position does seem rather out there and you came across rather shrill in the banning reply.

I completely agree with Nate that truth is truth, regardless of the impact of believing it. I definitely see things as very black and white, but I also know that I "see through a glass darkly" and can even be wrong on occasion. I will got with the "follow God's command" above that of following any man, even if some completely abuse it to justify the insanity we see today.

Just because someone takes truth past it proper application does not negate that truth.

It was stated earlier, but the commands to give respect to those in political authority is pretty absolute too, how can that not apply to many of the post here which are far from respectful?

SD, I do not think that Abraham talked to his wife at all about what he was going to do. We are also told that Abraham already received Isaac as raised from the dead, so he had very little concern there. Much easier to kill your son if you know he will be resurrected. I am not sure I could have had that faith, but the Scriptures tell us that Abraham did, so I believe it.

Whoever talked about killing the Amalekites needs to read a bit more. They were very wicked and likely infected with some of the same evil that was in the people prior to the flood (Angels procreating with human women). That is a very likely reason for the utter annihilation.

Some of you also need to realize that the heart of mankind, including males, is utterly wicked and even picking well ahead of time does not guarantee anything.

Of course they can be warned ahead of time as my daughter was and still pick the meth head (claimed former), but women remain morally responsible for all their choices. They can't get away with "I was only following orders." (That would include making up a command from God about something that was not a clear command.)

Edge cases make bad law, including in this case.

Blogger Brad Andrews March 05, 2014 9:27 PM  

Vox, it seems that you only hold very extreme positions on just about anything. I wonder if any position is not taken to its complete logical extreme, especially in areas of belief, due to this.

Though it also does seem you have a few of the "sense filters" on that John Wright notes in his book series. You simply don't see things that are an exception to your core beliefs.

You can be as you want in your own blog, but your position does seem rather out there and you came across rather shrill in the banning reply.

I completely agree with Nate that truth is truth, regardless of the impact of believing it. I definitely see things as very black and white, but I also know that I "see through a glass darkly" and can even be wrong on occasion. I will got with the "follow God's command" above that of following any man, even if some completely abuse it to justify the insanity we see today.

Just because someone takes truth past it proper application does not negate that truth.

It was stated earlier, but the commands to give respect to those in political authority is pretty absolute too, how can that not apply to many of the post here which are far from respectful?

SD, I do not think that Abraham talked to his wife at all about what he was going to do. We are also told that Abraham already received Isaac as raised from the dead, so he had very little concern there. Much easier to kill your son if you know he will be resurrected. I am not sure I could have had that faith, but the Scriptures tell us that Abraham did, so I believe it.

Whoever talked about killing the Amalekites needs to read a bit more. They were very wicked and likely infected with some of the same evil that was in the people prior to the flood (Angels procreating with human women). That is a very likely reason for the utter annihilation.

Some of you also need to realize that the heart of mankind, including males, is utterly wicked and even picking well ahead of time does not guarantee anything.

Of course they can be warned ahead of time as my daughter was and still pick the meth head (claimed former), but women remain morally responsible for all their choices. They can't get away with "I was only following orders." (That would include making up a command from God about something that was not a clear command.)

Edge cases make bad law, including in this case.

Blogger Dewave March 05, 2014 9:47 PM  

It was stated earlier, but the commands to give respect to those in political authority is pretty absolute too, how can that not apply to many of the post here which are far from respectful?

Are you referring to Romans 13? "Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor"

That seems to be rather tautological.One could easily argue that certain worldly authorities are not owed respect and honor, and thus it is not a sin to with hold that respect and honor. This is a particularly promising line of argument given that one of the preceding verses states "authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong" which allows us to conclude that if a body is striking fear into the hearts of those who are doing right, it isn't an authority at all. It is also possible there are varying degrees of respect and honor - such as you might obey their laws and respect the safety of their persons and office, but still criticize their actions. And of course it's also possible that it's just a sin to ever say anything bad about any worldly authority - though the various phrases of 'brood of vipers' and 'whitewashed tombs' directed at the authorities in the time of Jesus rather refutes that idea. . But even if true, that wouldn't somehow change whether or not choosing to disobey your husband was a sin.

I'm not aware of any verse commanding people to obey worldly authorities as they would the Lord, so I don't know that it's a terribly helpful comparison. I think the various confrontations between God's prophets and various and sundry evil kings in the Bible shows how much respect and obedience evil authorities are due.

Anonymous Blastman March 05, 2014 9:53 PM  

The points Damntull brings up about a husband ordering his wife to have an abortion helps ferret out the issue. While God commands wives to obey their husbands, this is not God's only command. God has commanded other things we must follow like the 10 commandments, and in particular, to illustrate the point -- thou shall not kill.

God commanded the wife to obey her husband's authority -- but in what way? Absolutely, in all things?

If a husband could legitimately command his wife to have an abortion, he would be commanding his wife to do something that God has commanded not to do, namely -- kill. Thus, the husband would be putting himself above God's moral law by commanding her to do something God has commanded against. He has no such authority and this would be tantamount to idolatry of the husband's authority. Clearly, the command for the wife to obey her husband cannot supercede God's other commands and thus logically the command to obey must be put in theological context -- it was never meant to be absolute.

We're not talking about exceptions to the rule, as one can reason out that the rule to obey a husband was never meant to supercede God's other commands. That being the case, the conclusion can only be that a wife obeying her husband is not an absolute command and only pertains to what does not fall under God's other moral commands.

Either God has delegated His authority to the husband or He has not.

God hasn't delegated his authority to the husband to command his wife to break God's other commandments and moral law.

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”

The wife still has to be subject to the Lord. But now that she is married, she must be also subject to the husband. She must balance the two authorities to their respective spheres. The husband didn't make the moral law so he has no right to command the wife to break the moral law. In everything else she must be subject to her husband.

In the case of Abraham, he was following God's command first since God personally commanded him to kill his son. God has the right over life and death and Abraham knew this, so he endeavored to follow God's direct command in this case superceding the previous moral command of thou shall not kill which has exceptions (ie killing for just reasons, and God commanding to kill is a just reason).

Anonymous Diogenes March 05, 2014 11:35 PM  

"The answer to the purported dilemma often raised is absolutely simple. Christian women not infrequently to ask: "Do I have to submit to a husband who [insert various moral failing or perceived flaw here]." Yes. Next question.

Do I have to submit to a husband who rapes and strangles my 5 year old daughter?

Apparently, yes, and Vox has now defined rape, pedophilia, and murder as mere 'moral failings' and 'percieved flaws. Probably the little girl was a half-nephilim or something else, so deserved it.

**Vox, YOU made the claim that there are no exceptions. Please provide the basis for that assertion or withdraw it.**

VD: ** I gave you a clear requirement outlined in the rules and you try to pull that juvenile crap? You're spammed.**

In other words, try asking the brilliant 149 IQ Vox Day the hard questions, and he throws a tantrum rather than answer them.

Blogger Dewave March 05, 2014 11:41 PM  

Do I have to submit to a husband who rapes and strangles my 5 year old daughter?

Why is a rapist, pedophile, and murderer still your husband?

Anonymous Diogenes March 05, 2014 11:42 PM  

cailcorishev wrote: **That's why it's critical that she marry a man she trusts in the first place, and that she pray for help submitting and for guidance for him in his headship.**

Moving the goalpost. The bible doesn't state that a wife should only submit to a 'Christian' husband or a 'husband she trusts'. In fact, given the realities of history, she may very likely not have consented to marry him at all, but been sold to him by her father. It also handwaves away the possibility of the husband getting a head injury, brain cancer, or Alzheimers that changes his character for the worse.

Blogger Dewave March 05, 2014 11:48 PM  

More generally, I would say that any crime that would have been punished by death in the time of the Bible is grounds for divorce. After said crime was committed, the marriage was dissolved, one way or another.

Anonymous Diogenes March 05, 2014 11:50 PM  

VD wrote: ** Of course, if she is too proud to submit to a husband, chances are very small that she's going to submit to God.**

So in other words, you have now either defined all male humans as being omniscient and perfect and equal to God, or else defined God as being as fallible and stupid as human males. Otherwise it makes no sense to say that failure to submit to one would necessarily indicate failure to submit to the other.

Anonymous Diogenes March 05, 2014 11:54 PM  

VD **The exceptions ALWAYS are always expanded to become the rules. That's exactly how the process works. That's why you cannot ever allow any compromise to be fixed in the law, the guideline, or the rule.**

So by that standard, self defense is no longer a valid excuse for killing someone? Pretty much sounds like the philosophy of the liberal gun grabbers.

Anonymous Diogenes March 06, 2014 12:07 AM  

Can we also assume that if a husband tells his wife to keep out of his man-cave, when she hears him cut off his own hand on the table saw and fall down in a faint from blood loss and pain, she should be sure to keep out of the man cave rather than put a tourniquet on him? Possibly she could call an ambulance, if he hasn't previously told her to keep off the phone, or to keep everyone else out of his man-cave, but it's highly unlikely to arrive in time to save his life...

Anonymous Diogenes March 06, 2014 12:13 AM  

**And if a husband decides he wants his wife to allow him to use his children for his own sexual gratification she should submit to his wishes.**

VD: **It amazes me that I have to point this out to you, but a pedophile does not need anyone's permission to use children for sexual gratification.**

It amazes me to point this out to you, but the wife 'submitting' to the pedophile husband abusing her children requires that she be aware of the abuse. Thus, unless the pedophile never sleeps, can run faster than a bullet, and has the entire local police force as well as the FBI under his thumb, he does, in fact, need the wife's submission to abuse the children if she is aware of the fact.

Anonymous Antichrist March 06, 2014 1:29 AM  

Hmm, what happens if Joseph tells Mary to get an abortion... or wants to have sex with her while she's pregnant?

Anonymous JJ March 06, 2014 1:37 AM  

What I think is fascinating between this argument about wifely submission to husband when ordered to sin is the parallel to US constitutional arguments concerning the supremacy clause. We have "legal realists" that claim that any law passed by the Congress and Senate that isnt vetoed by POTUS or struck down by SCOTUS is automatically constitutional, and all 50 states are legally obligated to follow them regardless of own interpretation. On the other hand, strict constructionists state simply that Congress is constitutionally restricted to a certain sphere, and when they pass legislation that departs from this sphere, those laws are not supreme. When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.

This is altogether an interesting theological debate that would never be held anywhere else, as both sides have already taken for granted that wives are expected to submit to their husbands, and only thing in question is there are any exceptions for wives when it comes to sin.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 06, 2014 8:23 AM  

Hmm, what happens if Joseph tells Mary to get an abortion... or wants to have sex with her while she's pregnant?

Did you think that through?

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Look at that, intervention that made Joseph change his plans to divorce his wife. Hmmm.

When it is stated in 1 Peter: Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.

Doesn't that necessarily mean the husband is in sin - he is not obeying the Word, and her submission to him is required regardless of his sin?

One can mock the measure of faith it would take for a wife to submit to a husband who is in sin who does so relying on these words, that he might be "won" - I'd say there are aspects of Christianity that take even greater faith. Especially when there are not only examples in the Bible (Joseph, King Ahasuerus) but also real life examples today of the same (Phil Robertson). Christian wives will exhibit faith in many things but this is their stumbling block. This is where they literally tell God - "No, I can not obey you in this."

Anonymous Mark Call March 06, 2014 9:18 AM  

Read Numbers chapter 30.

The problem many Xtians have is that they don't believe EITHER the Messiah, or His Word as Written, and think He changed His mind. If He had done so, He wouldn't have been Who He said He was! (and Is, and Will be.)

Not one "yod or tiddle" (Matthew 5:17-19) of His Word has EVER changed, so long as "heaven and earth" exist. Last I checked, they still did.

There is NO INCONSISTENCY WHATSOEVER in His commands, and that goes for marriage "in spades". (And it's arguably a BIG reason why most of the world is still in bondage, and in exile. The "marriage supper of the Lamb" won't happen until the brides wake up and quit whoring. Well, or lots will be left outside, sans lamp oil, where there'll be major teeth-gnashing.)

As for the 99% of the issues in this thread (the valid concepts) - the answer is still "read Numbers chapter 30".

The ESSENCE of the marriage Covenant is a transfer of vows. Fathers have authority over their daughters' vows. Then that authority is transferred to the husband, with the father's assent to her vow. Thereafter, he is held responsible, and he had better know that!

Read Numbers 30.

Anonymous Mark Call March 06, 2014 9:20 AM  

PS:

http://markniwot.com/?p=281 "Who gives this woman?"

http://markniwot.com/?p=650 "Marriage, Divorce, Vows, and Authority"

Anonymous Mark Call March 06, 2014 9:26 AM  

Oh, and for those who are ready - read this one. It addresses some of the other "contradictions" that people find when they compare "Church Doctrine" to what He really said:

http://markniwot.com/?p=873

"Three ‘Hot Button’ Traditions — and what they tell us"

Blogger IM2L844 March 06, 2014 10:42 AM  

This should all serve as an admonition to single Christian women everywhere to not marry non-Christian fixer-uppers. You might defy the odds and get extremely lucky, but, If he can be saved, you would be vastly better off to make sure that has been realized before you consummate.

Anonymous damntull March 06, 2014 11:30 AM  

@SarahsDaughter

The verse you quote from St. Peter says that an unbelieving husband "may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear."

How can a husband be won over to the faith when he sees that a wife will disobey the Commandments when he orders her to do so? Disobeying explicit commands in Scripture is no way to convince the husband that the faith is important to the wife.

Blogger Beau March 06, 2014 12:49 PM  

How can a husband be won over to the faith when he sees that a wife will disobey the Commandments when he orders her to do so?

I recall a Christian woman married to an unbelieving husband who was annoyed that she attended church on Sunday. He forbade her to attend worship. He went so far as to hide all her footgear during a snowstorm to prevent her from going. She went out in the snow with the only remaining footwear she could find, her slippers. Upon her return, her husband said, "I'm sorry." He repented and became a believer. That's How.

Anonymous damntull March 06, 2014 1:23 PM  

Beau, I'm with you 100%. According to Vox - she should have stayed home.

In my opinion, your example conclusively shows that Vox is wrong on this one.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia March 06, 2014 2:46 PM  

How did I miss this ruckus until now?!?!

Blogger Mom March 06, 2014 4:37 PM  

No, I won't have an abortion.
Yes. I will keep the house clean, train up the children to be helpful, respectful, and obedient, make dinner for you every night, run errands, make appointments, and provide companionship, affection, and intimacy.
See, that was easy....

Anonymous Diogenes March 06, 2014 11:49 PM  

This, btw, is why Vox will never write a decent book. Only an *idiot* completely oblivious to the complexities of reality, would claim that a wife should submit to her husband, even if he decides to kil their child, and that there should be no exceptions to anything, because the 'exception will expand to become the rule' (thus meaning that anyone killing in self defense or during war should be tried for murder, btw).

A decent author, such as George RR Martin recognizes reality. Such as in his book 'Fevre Dream' where the vampire, Joshua York, gets extremely annoyed with a human, Abner Marsh, who woke him up during the day to watch their steamboat outracing another. (Sunlight made vampires in this book immediately ill and weak, but would not kill them until at least a few hours of continuous exposure) York tells Marsh that under no circumstances is he ever to wake him up during the day again, to which Marsh responds: "So if the boiler explodes, I'm just to let you crisp in here, is that it?"

York's response (because that character and the author have far more brains than Vox Day): "No."

Which is why Martin's books 'Game of Thrones' are a famous HBO series and Vox sits here spiting and envious of any author with more talent than he has.

Anonymous Antichrist March 06, 2014 11:55 PM  

Sarahsdaughter wrote: "Look at that, intervention that made Joseph change his plans to divorce his wife. Hmmm."

Which is evading the original question. The question was not what Joseph did do. The question was whether Mary should have submitted to Joseph had he wanted her to get an abortion or have sex with her while she was pregnant with Jesus. Vox said a wife had to submit to her husband - no exceptions - including if what the husband wanted was contrary to what God wanted. This would include Mary submitting to a desire by Joseph to abort Jesus or contaminate him with 'evil sex' during the pregnancy. Meaning that Vox has placed human men higher than God.

Evasion noted, btw. We're used to it by now.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 07, 2014 8:19 AM  

Leave it to the Female Imperative-worshipping feminists to not only turn Biblical doctrine on its head

Evidently it is more than just the FI worshiping feminists who maintain that what God meant is that a wife must hold a "do not cross or I will detonate the marriage/refuse to submit" line. An arbitrary line that is at the wife's discretion and interpretation. A line that can include some of the big 10 Commandments, or perhaps just one, which ever she determines is most important. She can draw the line at false witness, failure to honor one's mother and father, her interpretation of keeping the Sabbath, her interpretation of having no other gods, or she can draw the line at abuse or abortion. Her choice. Dance husband, dance - but do not cross that line.

I'm not convinced it is the women in the pews that keep pastors steering clear of preaching on wifely submission. If one should determine to preach on the subject, how could he possibly include all the exceptions necessary to satisfy his congregants?

Meanwhile women search aimlessly to try and find that quiet and gentle spirit she's read about that is so readily available when she's obedient to God. Should she even confess with her mouth that she will do like Scripture instructs and submit to her husband in everything, she will find a multitude that will call her evil because now she's okay with abortion. She must, instead, make it known to her husband which line he must walk to maintain her submission and respect (because it is conditional). In doing so, what is obvious to only a few, is that this necessarily elevates her to the spiritual head of the marriage.

Exactly the narrative that Dalrock was talking about.

Blogger Lud VanB March 07, 2014 9:00 AM  

"I recall a Christian woman married to an unbelieving husband who was annoyed that she attended church on Sunday. He forbade her to attend worship. He went so far as to hide all her footgear during a snowstorm to prevent her from going. She went out in the snow with the only remaining footwear she could find, her slippers. Upon her return, her husband said, "I'm sorry." He repented and became a believer. That's How."

next time you want to make up some fictional couple to make a point, try not to make them so obviously cartoonish.

Anonymous Mark Call March 07, 2014 9:53 AM  

RE: cartoons, submission, the "real world", and this:
Which is evading the original question. The question was not what Joseph did do. The question was whether Mary should have submitted to Joseph had he wanted her to get an abortion or have sex with her while she was pregnant with Jesus. Vox said a wife had to submit to her husband - no exceptions - including if what the husband wanted was contrary to what God wanted. This would include Mary submitting to a desire by Joseph to abort Jesus or contaminate him with 'evil sex' during the pregnancy.

But he did NOT is the only answer necessary. He would not have been fit for his upcoming role, and neither would she.

"But what if..." is a question asked by those who do not trust YHVH.

For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to Judea from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? Ester 4:14

Character matters, obedience matters, and if we don't do what He asks, someone else will.

IOW, "show me your faith by your works."

Blogger subject by design March 07, 2014 11:16 PM  

I blogged about this very thing and one thing I find most interesting about this passage is that Peter didn't use Abigail as an example of the principle of being in subjection to a husband who doesn't obey the word, and he didn't use Esther. He used Sara. I wonder why? subject by design

Blogger Beau March 08, 2014 1:05 AM  

next time you want to make up some fictional couple to make a point, try not to make them so obviously cartoonish

Why does your mind run so easily to deceit? Perhaps it is bent that way.

Anonymous Shutterbug March 08, 2014 12:45 PM  

I'd like to let everyone know their prayers are being answered. My husband has been not only been calm, but playful and fun (playful swats on the bum, teasing me at lunch)! I've been making an effort to submit everyday and being less fearful about it. I'm afraid I may have given the impression that he's been hitting. No, he hasn't been hitting, but he's shoved and grabbed me. The rage has been frightening, but not physically injurious. I wanted to clear that up. I'm proud of his efforts in the last several months to change his behavior, and especially proud of him the last few days. I think the prayers of the Ilk were the catalyst to give that extra "push" toward healing. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 09, 2014 1:29 AM  

Shutterbug,
That is so great to hear! I will keep you in my prayers. The vow to submit is simple, it is by no means easy. Though, as I'm sure you're witnessing, once has it become between you and God, having nothing to do with your husband's actions, you'll start to know that peace in your heart after every right decision, attitude adjustment, and confession of rebellion. Keep that visual in your head of what a truly peaceful, quiet spirit looks and feels like. Seek it in everything by seeking Him.
Be blessed!

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 376 of 376

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts