Wives should submit to their husbands????

Just curious would like to see the breakdown of men to women on this poll...alot of male opining..which is fine with a few women which is really important.

Of course LOVE IS THE ANSWER

 

Wayne Grudem makes a very convincing case for man's headship in marriage before the Fall, not just afterwards...

 

Yes, she does. However, scriptural submission does not give the wife authority to blindly do whatever the husband says. In fact, I submit that this is an abuse of the scriptural submission role.

Scripture says the man has headship. Scriptural headship does not give the husband authority to command his spouse. As above, I submit that this is an abuse of the scriptural headship role.

This is not scriptural headship. This is an instinctive "fight or flight" response.

Being the head of a household is not akin to giving commands. That's an abuse of the headship role, imo.

 

The main topic of this thread is wives submitting to their husbands. Almost always, it's men who get on these topics to define what that is, and almost always bring up headship. The fact is that the call of submission is directed at the wife alone, and there is no calling in scripture give in to the husband to "enforce" that calling.

The bottom line is that both the husband and wife shoudl be working together to support the marital covenant via each other.

 

Truth is, I don't think anybody gets this one right all of the time.

Men's side - all that ego stuff gets in the way when they think they are dictators.

Women's side - all that rebellion stuff gets in the way when they think they are slaves.

Seek the Lord, work together, give and take, live in peace. It's the best we can do.

 

Thanks, Scarlett, I really needed that.

As my daughter says, we all have "moments of clarity."

 

You do, when you say imply that a husband has a biblical right to command his wife (he does not). And then you try to skirt around it by saying "oh well, commanding doesn't really mean that the wife must follow the command". That's such a crock. That's like saying use of the word "n*ger" is okay because it can mean "an arrogant person". I don't know what language you're speaking, but it's certainly not English, and your assertion not scriptural.

Scripture doesn't give the husband any authority other than being the spiritual head. That's it.

Neither spouse should move unless both agree. Bother spouses should discuss the issue until they are in agreement. They should use prayer and seek the Lord's guidance. They are one flesh, not two fleshes. One should not act without the consent of the other.

The old "what if they never agree" hypothetical is just that: a hypothetical, and it's a ridiculous one at that. I've never known of a Godly couple to not coming to a mutual decision.

That is indeed the topic, but you keep interjecting the "husband" role. The husband role is separate from the wife role. The husband does not need the consent or submission of his wife to lead, nor does the wife need the consent or the lead of her husband to submit. The husband who says "I can't lead if she doesn't submit" and the wife who says "I can't submit if he won't lead" are both abusing scripture, not to mention, neither of them are adhering to their scriptural roles roles seriously.

I'm afraid you aren't grasping the scriptural roles of husband and wife here, my friend. That may take a longer post.

 

Are you kidding? Look at your own posts. You've brought up the male headship issue numerous times. The primary topic was wives and submission.

You bet. Because the question of the OP has been asked a few times on the board, and alomst every time, the male role is interjected into it. Look at my posts. I was, in fact, attempting to prevent that from happening.

You have no such right to command. The hypothetical circumstance you keep harping on is just that: a hypothetical circumstance. It's indicative of a fight or flight situation, not scripture submission situation.

Absolutely. Because it's a part of scripture that is so commonly abused. As a man and a husband, it pains me when I se otherwise good and Godly men be such perverters of scripture.

I say there is no "right" to do it.

The most common reasons for divorce among believers are: financial abuse and adultery. Financial abuse is a form of abandonment/desertion, and adultery is self-evident. These are serious issues among believers that need to be dealt with, but not issues of submission and headship.

 

Is the question of wives submitting to their husbands political? I know it had been when women wanted to change law enforcement which typically condoned domestic violence. It seems to be settled here in the US that wives are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Are any of you all in favor of legally requiring wives to submit?

What are the laws in Canada, Ireland, the UK, Australia & the Netherlands? How are they enforced?

 

Are you very, very young? It's only been in the last 50 years that women have gained legal protection against domestic violence here in the US - enforcement is still pretty spotty. I'm referring to the laws and courts as well as the police.

You're saying back then they did not have the ability to arrest violent spouses (some women can be pretty vicious when armed)? There were no laws against assault or were they simply not enforced in domestic situations?

And when she did want to press charges? It used to be that a woman's testimony was dismissed out of hand unless it was corroborated by a man. No woman was allowed to sit on a jury.

That really depends on the individual jurisdiction and the male may also be the victim.

That is a major change from the previous, what, 6,000 years where a man was considered legally to be the king of his castle and lord over all within - women, children, servants alike. (It's fairly recent that employers have not been allowed to beat their employees - thanks to civil libertarians).

Good for you guys!

 

I don't intend to be judgemental here, but it is objectively posssible that the men you refer to are indeed filling the scriptural role, but simply not filling it in a manner that you might? The reason I ask is because I myself have admittedly been guilty of judging married persons from the outside in, and have myself beein judged in my marriage from the outside in. IMO, the scriptural roles of the husband and wife aren't one size fits all. In any marriage, the spouses will work out the manner in which these roles will be met. No two marriages are alike, and no two couples fulfill their scriptural rroles in the same manner. Headship and submission are shoes that every spouse must slip into, but they're not "one size fits all" roles.

Those aren't headship/submission issues either. Those are issues that partners should have discussed prior to marriage. For example, if they decided that they're going to have two kids, and later on, the hubby says "I want ten", there's no scriptural requirement for the wife to sumbit to his wishes. Of course, God will ultimately decide how many kid they will have.

Oh yeah? Well, my wife made my favorite meal, and we're going to eat together while watching Star Trek on the big screen TV while having the World Series on PIP. Afterwards, she will spoon feed me rainbow sherbet with whipped cream.

The funny thing is, my wife would probably have no problem with any of the above. But I have to iron my own shirts