Connection between Feminism and Communism

[JohnD]

Um, wrong.  There is a doctrine about a brother taking a dead brother's spouse to raise up seed, but that has zero to do with the scriptures I gave.  How does a man being able to take more than one wife have anything to do with taking his brother's widow?  This is utter nonsense, and easily refuted by the additional scripture I just posted about David.  The bottom line is that a man was able to have more than one wife and it was stated in the law of Moses.  He just couldn't take two sisters at the same time.  He also had to make sure that the first born got the right of inheritance.  I will add another interesting scripture to the mix.  Polygamy will make a comeback after Armageddon because there will be more women than men. 

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel:  only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.  Isaiah 4:1

God has always allowed for polygamy, but in the future, it will be necessary in order for women to have a husband because of the massive casualties from war.  It wasn't that long ago when Russia had considered making polygamy legal because the men are outnumbered by the women.  That is nothing compared to what is coming in the future. 

 

Jesus said that such things were due to the hardness of the hearts of mankind but from the beginning it was not so (permitted / God's plan).

You will concede that it is God's plan for the leaders of the Church to have one wife... 1 Timothy 3:2, 3:12, Titus 1:6. Or will you argue against this as well?  submit this is God getting a portion of what man had adulterated in many other ways (his word and his plan) back on track.

First of all, he said divorce was permitted because of the hardness of man's heart, not polygamy.  Bishops and deacons are not permitted to have more than one wife.  Kings were not supposed to do as Solomon did either in multiplying wives, especially heathen women.  Polygamy was regulated as I already stated.  I personally think that God did intend for one man to be married to one woman.  I think that is clearly his best, but there is no question he has always allowed men to have more than one wife so long as they followed his rules.  I am just saying it is not a sin, and never has been. 

And that's all that was wrong with the way men had handled things in the old Covenant? Is that what you believe?

How was it regulated?

Who is to say 900 wives (wives and concubines) were 25 too many?

You personally think? What? One man one woman is God's intention? Based on what? You contradict yourself and what you are defending.

I cite scriptures and say this same thing (that God's intention was one man one woman one lifetime and you oppose me). Sheesh!

I'm done.

Nice try at twisting what I said.  All I have ever said about polygamy is that it is not a sin.  It does not transgress God's law.  You claimed Jesus changed the law and no longer allows polygamy, and I have disagreed.  I never claimed polygamy was his best. 

The issue with Solomon was his multiplying wives to make political allies.  He multiplied them for that purpose with no regard for the fact many worshipped false gods.  That is what the King was specifically instructed not to do.  It is obvious that this is the meaning since God was ok with David having more than one wife and he even told David that he gave him those wives and would have given him more had he required it. 

Why do I think God's original intent was one man and one woman?  When he created Adam and Eve, it is said that these two shall be one flesh.  Spiritually speaking, a part of Adam's body was removed to create Eve, so when they marry, they become one flesh re-united.  He didn't have multiple ribs removed and multiple wives that we are aware of.  That would indicate to me that this was God's original plan, however that doesn't mean God forbad one man from having multiple wives.  On the contrary.  He went so far as to say it was ok in the law of Moses if you follow certain guidelines.  There is no question that is so, and there is no question that polygamy is not forbidden for the common man in any place in scripture.  The only people in the New Testament that are forbidden to have more than one wife are Bishops and Deacons, but there are other people excluded from those offices as well.  Women are excluded for one thing.  Don't you find that interesting?  They certainly can't be the husband of one wife can they?  I haven't moved one bit from my original position.  You just didn't get it in it's entirety.  I have been taking it question by question in explaining things.  I never agreed with you and still don't. 

Back peddling and damage control on your part. What you said you said.

[Esther4:14]

I don't mind defending what I said with scripture.  The way I see it, if God was really opposed to polygamy, he would have banned it in the law of Moses, not regulated it.  (from Butero)

i am not trying to attack you, i agree with most of what you say but i just want to be clear that is all. now that verse you gave, is God condoning it or just addressing a situation when it arises?

i am not sure how the lev. verse condones anything?

yes please give me that scripture on David

I am saying the law allowed for polygamy.  Lets suppose that a man was married and wanted to take another wife.  He seeks guidance in the law of Moses and finds out that he cannot take two sisters to wife, but can marry another woman if he follows the guidelines so he does.  That proves it had to be ok with God.  How can he be upset if you did exactly what he said to do?  Anyway, here is that scripture.

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have given thee such and such things.  2 Samuel 12:8

I know you are not attacking me.  No offense taken.

i am just not sure that Lev. is saying what you think it is saying.

¹⁸ You shall not ^[h]marry a woman in addition to ^[i]her sister ^[j]as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.

i do not see God approving violating his rules for marriage here. he is addressing a situation not granting approval. nor is he saying it is okay in those few words.

again, God's act with David is not rewriting the rules or saying polygamy is okay  but possibly making an exception in David's case. We see no scripture saying it is okay to take more than one wife or that God is okay with such a scenario. We have individual examples of exceptions and addressing specific situations

This goes far beyond examples.  God wrote it into the legal code for Israel that you can have more than one wife if you do certain things.  So long as I don't take two sisters at the same time, and both women are not related, I can marry them both.  I must recognize the right of the firstborn.  Logically, wouldn't God just forbid the practice like he did sodomy or other sexual sins if he had a problem with it?  How can he take issue with a man who followed the law to the letter?  He even used Hannah, a woman who was in a polygamous marriage to be the mother of Samuel the prophet.  It just doesn't make any sense. 

I am adding this additional question to the post.  Where did God give his so-called rules for marriage that would be violated as a result of polygamy?  I don't remember ever reading where polygamy was ever mentioned as being a violation of God's laws for marriage.  What am I missing here? 

Well why don't you go join a fundamental Mormon camp then.  I bet your wife would love that.  In fact, while we are on the subject.  Polygamy creates injustice because often when a man marries many women, they are neglected financially at some point and suffer in varying degrees of poverty.  Ann Eliza Young wrote the book of her experience as the 19th wife of the 2nd leader of the Mormon church, Brigham Young.  It was her testimony of neglect and marrying minors among this polygamous group that was exiled to Utah, that compelled congress to make polygamy illegal in Utah.  You should read it and try to broaden your perspective of what the real experience of women in a polygamous setting is like.  It is called Wife No. 19.  

Edited October 22, 2015 by Esther4:14

[Esther4:14]

I don't mind defending what I said with scripture.  The way I see it, if God was really opposed to polygamy, he would have banned it in the law of Moses, not regulated it.  (from Butero)

i am not trying to attack you, i agree with most of what you say but i just want to be clear that is all. now that verse you gave, is God condoning it or just addressing a situation when it arises?

i am not sure how the lev. verse condones anything?

yes please give me that scripture on David

I am saying the law allowed for polygamy.  Lets suppose that a man was married and wanted to take another wife.  He seeks guidance in the law of Moses and finds out that he cannot take two sisters to wife, but can marry another woman if he follows the guidelines so he does.  That proves it had to be ok with God.  How can he be upset if you did exactly what he said to do?  Anyway, here is that scripture.

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have given thee such and such things.  2 Samuel 12:8

I know you are not attacking me.  No offense taken.

i am just not sure that Lev. is saying what you think it is saying.

¹⁸ You shall not ^[h]marry a woman in addition to ^[i]her sister ^[j]as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.

i do not see God approving violating his rules for marriage here. he is addressing a situation not granting approval. nor is he saying it is okay in those few words.

again, God's act with David is not rewriting the rules or saying polygamy is okay  but possibly making an exception in David's case. We see no scripture saying it is okay to take more than one wife or that God is okay with such a scenario. We have individual examples of exceptions and addressing specific situations

This goes far beyond examples.  God wrote it into the legal code for Israel that you can have more than one wife if you do certain things.  So long as I don't take two sisters at the same time, and both women are not related, I can marry them both.  I must recognize the right of the firstborn.  Logically, wouldn't God just forbid the practice like he did sodomy or other sexual sins if he had a problem with it?  How can he take issue with a man who followed the law to the letter?  He even used Hannah, a woman who was in a polygamous marriage to be the mother of Samuel the prophet.  It just doesn't make any sense. 

I am adding this additional question to the post.  Where did God give his so-called rules for marriage that would be violated as a result of polygamy?  I don't remember ever reading where polygamy was ever mentioned as being a violation of God's laws for marriage.  What am I missing here? 

Well why don't you go join a fundamental Mormon camp then.  I bet your wife would love that.  In fact, while we are on the subject.  Polygamy creates injustice because often when a man marries many women, they are neglected financially at some point and suffer in varying degrees of poverty.  Ann Eliza Young wrote the book of her experience as the 19th wife of the 2nd leader of the Mormon church, Brigham Young.  It was her testimony of neglect and marrying minors among this polygamous group that was exiled to Utah, that compelled congress to make polygamy illegal in Utah.  You should read it and try to broaden your perspective of what the real experience of women in a polygamous setting is like.  It is called Wife No. 19.  

Such stories are no concern to me.  My only concern is Biblical truth on a subject, and like it or not, God allowed and regulated polygamy in the law of Moses, therefore it is not a sin.  From my perspective, if a man can't provide for a harem as you described, he obviously shouldn't marry more than one wife.  That is just common sense.  Marrying children is something I do not favor, but the legal age to wed varies in different states, and has changed since Biblical times.  One could argue that it was once quite common for a man to marry a girl of 14.  I don't believe in Mormon doctrine, and having read a large portion of the Book of Mormon, I recognize it as fraudulent.  I do however know of sects of Christian polygamists.  If you look it up in a search, they are easy to locate.  I have no interest in having more than one wife at a time.  My only interest is in the truth, even if it is not popular. 

So, the reality of injustice in polygamous groups is not an important subject for you in light of Biblical truth on the subject?  That is pathetic.  That is like saying children should starve if the Bible doesn't specifically reject polygamy.  So then, where do you draw the line and rebuke the man who cannot provide for his harem, rather than just sitting on your little island looking through the Bible looking for ways to rebuke the woman who does not want to submit to that type of injustice against her?  

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." (Matthew 23:23).  

This is what I hear when I read your posts.  

Edited October 22, 2015 by Esther4:14

[Esther4:14]

 

So, the reality of injustice in polygamous groups is not an important subject for you in light of Biblical truth on the subject?  That is pathetic.  That is like saying children should starve if the Bible doesn't specifically reject polygamy.  So then, where do you draw the line and rebuke the man who cannot provide for his harem, rather than just sitting on your little island looking through the Bible looking for ways to rebuke the woman who does not want to submit to that type of injustice against her?  

All of your arguments are emotion based.  They are not based on truth at all.  You don't like something, so you just make up that it is sinful.  You do approve of something, so you ignore what the Bible teaches.  The Bible regulates polygamy.  It doesn't ban it.  God himself said he gave David more than one wife.  Are you claiming God sat on his throne and performed an injustice in giving David more than one wife?  Did God do an injustice in no forbidding polygamy outright when he clearly could have?  To me, your position is pathetic, and it is a large part of what is wrong with today's Christian church.  They will toss out truth and twist the Bible into knots to make it say what they want.  Who cares if the Bible says something is right or wrong.  They will just make it say what they want it to regardless. 

If I am making it say that I should take a stand against something that is unjust and you are saying that this is just emotion-based.  Again all I hear is ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." (Matthew 23:23).  

I am pretty sure that Jesus just said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are more important matters that other aspects addressed in the law.  Hmm...but, somehow I am just making the Bible say what I want it to say.  I am pretty sure it is the other way around, and now I am done talking to you.  You have given me a headache.  If Jesus were anything like you, I wouldn't still be a Christian.  Fortunately, He is not like you.  

Edited October 22, 2015 by Esther4:14

[Guest shiloh357]

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

[Guest shiloh357]

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

I don't doubt that there are situations where leadership in the home could work as you said, but I don't agree that this is always the case.  There is such a thing as a rebellious woman who will not submit to her husband's authority, even if he is exactly the type of person you mentioned.  There are some women that will try to dominate their husband and usurp his authority completely.  As such, to make the claim that "they don't have to impose their will on the family" isn't always going to be true. 

Yes and rebellion occurs in the kind of repressive model you advocate for.   Good leaders get people to follow them happily and willingly.    Repressive leaders who feel they have to "enforce" their desires and force compliance have a far greater chance of inciting rebellion.

 

[hmbld]

No, the husband should choose to lead as shown in scripture. Not as he decides. If he gets it wrong does not make the wife's duty null however. 

[hmbld]

Shiloh said:  Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

 

everyone knows love is all emotional. You fall in and out of love. One is at the mercy of love, one cant help it. Satan has taught this lie well. Great post Shiloh!  

[Guest shiloh357]

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

I don't doubt that there are situations where leadership in the home could work as you said, but I don't agree that this is always the case.  There is such a thing as a rebellious woman who will not submit to her husband's authority, even if he is exactly the type of person you mentioned.  There are some women that will try to dominate their husband and usurp his authority completely.  As such, to make the claim that "they don't have to impose their will on the family" isn't always going to be true. 

Yes and rebellion occurs in the kind of repressive model you advocate for.   Good leaders get people to follow them happily and willingly.    Repressive leaders who feel they have to "enforce" their desires and force compliance have a far greater chance of inciting rebellion.

 

Bottom line is Shiloh, it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference if the husband is this so-called servant leader or a control freak.  He has the Biblical authority to decide for himself what kind of leader he wants to be, and Biblically, his wife is told to submit.  Genesis says he is to rule over her.  The husband in each household is given delegated authority by Jesus, and just like any other person in a position of authority, he gets to determine if your view of leadership is correct or if his is right.  I think your views work in a fantasy world, but not reality.  What you would have in most instances is something like BoPeep once said, where the wife pretends the husband is in charge and like she is in submission, but in reality, that is not the case.  It is like the shirt I saw that says, "I am the boss.  My wife said I could be."  In most cases, the husband isn't in charge in those homes.  I just see your views like the professors who have theories about how to govern, but when it is put to the test, it doesn't work.  It can sound wonderful, but it is not reality. 

Actually, it does make a difference if he is control freak or a servant leader.    The only people who would have a problem with that are control freaks who want everything their way.  The wife, biblically is not under obligation to eat what her husband says to eat or wear a particular color, or not color her hair a certain way.   She follows him as her spiritual head, but not as her master.   The Bible never claims that the man is overlord and dictator of the home.  That is just a shallow, backwards, repressive and tyrannical approach to that Scripture.

[gdemoss]

No, I am not in error about it at all.

 

i will disagree.  your adding words like 'leadership' , 'servant-leaders' demonstrate your misconception of the Bible and adoption of possibly other people's interpretation of certain passages of scripture.

if you read 1 Peter 3:1 you will see no qualifications like the ones you put in your post present. 

No, I am not adding anything.  I am clarifying what is meant in the light what the man is commanded to do in Scripture.  He commanded to love his wife sacrificially.  He is the leader, the head of household.   So she is to submit to both his love and his leadership.   He is her head;  he is not her lord and she is not to submit to him as her lord.  I Pet. 3:1 does not contradict anything I have said at this point.

you are adding words and you added one in that post-- 'sacrificially'.  You forget what God said in Genesis to Eve, which still applies today

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

You also forget what Hebrews says of Sarah:

just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, 1 Peter 3:6

there is no 'sacrificially', no restriction to 'leadership' , no 'servant leadership' and so on. if you think there is, produce the exact scriptures which uses those terms in conjunction with husbands and wives.

 

I am not adding the word sacrificially.  The concept is there in the commandment to the husband to love his wife AS CHIRST LOVED THE CHURCH.  How did Jesus love the Church?   He gave his life for it.     The Lord commands the husband to live His wife sacrificially just as Christ loved the Church sacrificially.  She submits to his love and to his leadership.   She need not submit to abusive ideas that she is his servant. 

Gen. 3:16 isn't speaking of the man dominating a woman into servitude as if he is her master.   It is simply affirming the headship of the husband as affirmed in Eph. 5:22-25.

Sarah's reference to Abraham as her lord isn't the same as when we refer to Jesus as our Lord.   It is a term of respect when used in reference to human beings and is more like our word, "sir."  In familial relationships it has a more affectionate connotation.  Sarah recognized the leadership and authority of her husband.    But that does not justify men today, thinking that they are allowed to dominate their wives and that their wives are to submit in servitude to their husbands.

yes you are adding words in to scripture and redefining the passages talking about submission. I also think that some pastor has filled your head with erroneous teaching. Do you actually know what the words 'as Christ loved the church' really mean?  we address those words in our November issue and I do not want to pre-emp that here. suffice it to say it is not meaning 'sacrificially'.

i also am beginning to think that you do not understand what leadership, submission authority actually mean and how they apply to the household as your words contradict their definitions. People in leadership tell others what to do and if they do not do it then they are disobeying their leaders instructions.. Under your words, as you wrote them, a child could ignore what his parents say and not be punished for disobeying.

don't generalize please and put all men into the same category. abusive men are not the same as men who love their wives and want them to adhere to their wishes.

Yes, it does mean, ,"sacrificially"  as it was his sacrifice for the church that is referenced in  Eph. 5:25.   That may not be the only way in which Christ loves the Church, but it is one way and it tops the list.   I don't see why that is such a problem for you.   In truth, "love" is a servant, biblically.   There is a mutual submission that takes place when two people love each other.    In Scripture, love is not an emotion, but is rooted in action.   Love always serves, so when God tells a woman to submit to her husband and he tells the husband to love his wife, it is actually a two-way street.   He loves her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church and she submits to that love.

I understand perfectly what leadership looks like.   Leadership isn't, "Shut up and do what I say."  Good leaders in a family lead by example and they don't have to impose their will on the family.  You have a very one-dimensional notion about what leadership is.  One indicator of a good leader is that others comply willingly to his wishes without him having to treat them like slaves and inferiors.

I don't doubt that there are situations where leadership in the home could work as you said, but I don't agree that this is always the case.  There is such a thing as a rebellious woman who will not submit to her husband's authority, even if he is exactly the type of person you mentioned.  There are some women that will try to dominate their husband and usurp his authority completely.  As such, to make the claim that "they don't have to impose their will on the family" isn't always going to be true. 

Yes and rebellion occurs in the kind of repressive model you advocate for.   Good leaders get people to follow them happily and willingly.    Repressive leaders who feel they have to "enforce" their desires and force compliance have a far greater chance of inciting rebellion.

 

Bottom line is Shiloh, it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference if the husband is this so-called servant leader or a control freak.  He has the Biblical authority to decide for himself what kind of leader he wants to be, and Biblically, his wife is told to submit.  Genesis says he is to rule over her.  The husband in each household is given delegated authority by Jesus, and just like any other person in a position of authority, he gets to determine if your view of leadership is correct or if his is right.  I think your views work in a fantasy world, but not reality.  What you would have in most instances is something like BoPeep once said, where the wife pretends the husband is in charge and like she is in submission, but in reality, that is not the case.  It is like the shirt I saw that says, "I am the boss.  My wife said I could be."  In most cases, the husband isn't in charge in those homes.  I just see your views like the professors who have theories about how to govern, but when it is put to the test, it doesn't work.  It can sound wonderful, but it is not reality. 

Actually, it does make a difference if he is control freak or a servant leader.    The only people who would have a problem with that are control freaks who want everything their way.  The wife, biblically is not under obligation to eat what her husband says to eat or wear a particular color, or not color her hair a certain way.   She follows him as her spiritual head, but not as her master.   The Bible never claims that the man is overlord and dictator of the home.  That is just a shallow, backwards, repressive and tyrannical approach to that Scripture.

What I hear you saying is that Christ has no right to tell his wife how to dress, what to eat or what not to color her hair.  That he is not her master and she is under no obligation to obey him.