Involuntary Servitude

[Trusting Jesus]

In Ephisians 5:22, the Greek word "hupotasso" is used for submission. It has many meanings, but the summary is:

This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

In your original post you sat that after joining the church the woman "... is now forced to humble herself and submit to him and her husband is told he is now in charge, over his wife." I hope the church also is counseling the husband on what his role is. He is to be submissive to Christ and is to love (Greek word "agapao" meaning to love dearly) his wife. This does not give the husband the right to be a dictator and not consider his wife in making decisions. In everything there needs to be order -- in business there are presidents or CEO's, in partnerships there is an agreement setting out each partners duties, and in a Christian marriage we have the Bible to guide us. It isn't slavery. It is order. Nothing works smoothly if there are too many bosses.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 1 Corinthians 11:3.

This is one of the many reasons that Genesis is important. If you understand that God created Adam, but Eve was taken from him. First Adam, then Eve. This is God's order of things.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

Now, there may be circumstances that would alter this. The husband cannot ask the wife to do anything illegal, or if the husband has had medical problems and cannot make sound decisions, then the wife needs to step in.

<>< ><>

Nathele

[None]

In Ephisians 5:22, the Greek word "hupotasso" is used for submission. It has many meanings, but the summary is:

This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

In your original post you sat that after joining the church the woman "... is now forced to humble herself and submit to him and her husband is told he is now in charge, over his wife." I hope the church also is counseling the husband on what his role is. He is to be submissive to Christ and is to love (Greek word "agapao" meaning to love dearly) his wife. This does not give the husband the right to be a dictator and not consider his wife in making decisions. In everything there needs to be order -- in business there are presidents or CEO's, in partnerships there is an agreement setting out each partners duties, and in a Christian marriage we have the Bible to guide us. It isn't slavery. It is order. Nothing works smoothly if there are too many bosses.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 1 Corinthians 11:3.

This is one of the many reasons that Genesis is important. If you understand that God created Adam, but Eve was taken from him. First Adam, then Eve. This is God's order of things.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

Now, there may be circumstances that would alter this. The husband cannot ask the wife to do anything illegal, or if the husband has had medical problems and cannot make sound decisions, then the wife needs to step in.

<>< ><>

Nathele

It does not matter what the church is counseling the husband to do, as long as they tell the husband that he is the one to "bath his wife in God's Word"(as opposed to her reading for herself), because that "command" went along with the submission command - if you obey one you have to obey them all - so says Paul, the husband can tell her anything he wants to and she has to listen to him. That's not right. It makes no sense according to the Law "love thy neighbor as thyself" or the fact that God created men and women on an equal status. Yes, they both have different jobs and different strengths in the home, but they're both souls in a human body. The soul in the female form naturally has weaker muscles and is able to bear children but her brain is the same in intelligence as a man. Hormonal factors are minute and do not effect decision making in a normally functioning man or woman so why is it the soul born in a woman's body is second best? She's not. Men and women are equal in the eyes of God and that's why "wives, obey your husbands" was never a Ten Commandment written in stone.

[None]

None, I see you are up to more mischief, first trying to cause people to doubt the validity of the Bible, and now coming up with this preposterous thread to try to make out like it is illegal to follow the Bible. All you are doing is sowing seeds of doubt and confusion when it comes to the Word of God, and leading rebellion against God. In both cases, you are in sin. The Bible states that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. Your doctrinal position that the canon is unreliable makes you a heretick, and Titus 3:10, 11 states, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonistion reject: Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

You claim to love God, but your actions say otherwise. We know the nature and characteristics of God from the Bible. If one dislikes the things in the Bible, we dislike God, because they are his Words. Jesus told us that the greatest commandment was to love God, but he didn't mean by some ooshy gooshy feeling during a worship service. To love God is to keep his commandments, and that is more than the original ten.

By the way, since you believe the original 10 are universal laws, do you abstain from all work on the Sabbath day, which is the seventh day of the week, Saturday?

Yes, I do obey the Sabbath Law. I don't labor on Saturday. I do this out of love for God.

If every rule given in the Bible is a Universal Law given by God Himself, how many of these do you yourself break?

rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft

Look throughout the entire Bible and you will find nearly every man or woman of God in rebellion against someone or some decree made by man, to follow the ways of God. Peter stated, as plainly as he gave the obedience rule, that we are to obey the government rules and laws because the government was put there by God to ensure justice. God's Universal Laws never contradict each other.

God has planted HIS seeds of righteousness in my heart and I obey Him.

And, how do my "actions say otherwise" when what I want is Truth so that I have Truth to teach my children?

How do you think nations have fallen?

By following blindly rules that made no sense and went against God's Laws.

[Openly Curious]

God does not contradict Himself.

Wow, we got something we can agree on.

God knew the past, He knows the present and He knows the future.

Why would God leave a seemingly important commandment like "wives, obey your husbands" out of the Ten Commandments He wrote on stone if it were to represent the future church's relationship with Jesus and is to be considered a Universal Law of God? He spoke of Jesus in the Garden after the fall, He knew about the church/Jesus marriage then, why would He go past the days of Moses and wait until Paul or Peter's letters to make a new law "wives obey your husband"? Why not add it to the commandments in stone?

The whole idea because something is not found in the ten commandments it is not a universal law it is wrong to begin with. All the laws of God are not contained in the ten commandments.

The concept Paul laid out, the reasons he felt this rule should be applied from now on, should have been decided from the foundations of the first laws Moses brought down from the mountain. When God made Eve in the garden, why did God not tell her she was to obey Adam because she is his lesser and he is more important, deserving higher status in the marriage?

First of all nobody is claiming that the woman should obey the man because she is of less importance. I do not know where you came up with that kind of idea in the first place. This goes all the way back to the fall of man that took place in the garden. In Genesis 3:16 God states, "Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is a universal law that "pre-dates" Moses and the ten commandments. It's a result of the fall and is still just as real today as the other curses are that came upon mankind. So is the fact that man shall earn his living by the sweat of his brow and that women will have pain during child bearing and eventually all will succumb to physical death sometime or another.

And how can the pyramid go God>husband>wife, and this represents the church, if the woman is not married? Who will fill in the middle void? That IS the reason, right? Because it represents the church and Jesus? Or maybe because woman sinned and influenced Adam to sin, maybe that's why she is now to be punished. Always to be considered lower than man. A Law. Because of the Garden sins? Paul said this and he also said the representation of the church reasons for women being less than man in the home(in submission to man who is in submission to God). So, which IS it? And why didn't Jesus mention this new law? He is the reason Paul and Peter started changing rules and laws around which caused such an uproar(example:to circumcise or not to circumcise and the freedom of the food laws).

Food laws are freed up but women get a new "obey" law. Makes no sense.

In the instance of a single women her only head is Christ and His head is God the Father as there don't need to be anyone in the middle as this is merely a chain of authority. Whenever a woman is married then her direct head is her husband but above him still remains Christ and God the Father. That is the reason why when a husband ask a wife to do something that is sinfully wrong against God then she is under no compulsion to do it because Christ is higher in authority than even the husband.

Now when it comes down to the law of circumsion we are dealing with a completely seperate matter. Circumsion was given to the Jews as a sign as they were in covenant with God and the laws dealing with clean and unclean foods were given to show a difference between the Jewish nations and the idol worshipping nations around them. The unclean animals represented the unclean nations and the clean animals represented the Jewish nation. The reason that we no longer are forced to abstain from what used to be considered unclean foods is because the Gentiles as a whole are no longer unclean as a result of our faith in Christ. The seperation no longer exist but we are one body therefore all foods are clean.

Then on top of that, Peter says we're to obey the laws of the land. There should be no greys in God's Universal Laws, it is either black or white. "love your neighbor as yourself", your neighbor is the person closest to you, your spouse. If the wife is to be in submission to the husband, the husband is to be in submission to the wife as well, this makes sense to God's Universal Laws PLUS the new emphesis Jesus placed on loving one another as ourselves. That makes sense to the Love of God. Not, women are to forever be in obedience to men because of either a church/Jesus representation or Eve's Garden mistake.

God's Universal Laws never contradict each other. Ever.

You are correct in that there are no gray areas or contradictions in God's laws.(Wow a second time in the same post) What we are speaking of is not contradictions but in understanding of the content. Let me give you a example, One of God's commandments are thou shalt not kill yet through just a little study in the word that it is obvious to see that this universal law did not apply in certain situations. God had instituted the death penalty for different criminal acts and had ordered the children of Israel to fight wars. But the intention of the commandment was so we as individuals would not take innocent human life. The intention of the commandment that wives obey their husbands was not so the husbands could force them to commit sin because again God and Christ are higher than the husband. The intention was only so that she would submit in areas that did not go against God's word. In the areas of obeying authorities in general the intent wasn't to give us and excuse to disobey or disregard God as this is plainly seen by the apostles whenever they had refused to stop preaching in Jesus name. The Bible not only gave us God's law but it gives us examples so that we can understand the intent of those laws. As far as your argument goes to Eve's sin in the garden if the command that she obey her husband no longer applies then it would stand to reason then that the curse on man stating that he would have to earn his living by the sweat of his brow along with women having pain in childbearing and men and women all knowing physical death would also be done away with. The idea that woman only obeying their husband was done away with and yet the other curses remain is ludicrous.

OC

[None]

As far as the law given to obey the government goes, we are to do that, but at the same time, we know this was never meant to be in cases where it goes against God.

God's Laws never contradicted each other or God's Word would be considered corrupted.

Man is the one who needed extra laws for when the simple Universal Laws of God were broken.

The reason God never wrote "wives, obey your husbands" in the Ten Commandments is because it goes against the rules to treat each other as equals. There is another reason and that is because if this supposed "universal law" were to be broken due to the wife's attempt to obey God's Laws, His Word would have been contradicted. As it is, God never contradicts Himself and to say He does is blasphemy. Those extra rules in the NT were to establish order in the chaotic era those people lived in, the only way they knew how. That was honoring God at that time. To say those rules apply to all time is to say it is a Universal Law of God and that is a lie. Those rules fit that era only.

[Trusting Jesus]

In the Old Testament, we do not see any

[None]

As far as the law given to obey the government goes, we are to do that, but at the same time, we know this was never meant to be in cases where it goes against God.

God's Laws never contradicted each other or God's Word would be considered corrupted.

Man is the one who needed extra laws for when the simple Universal Laws of God were broken.

The reason God never wrote "wives, obey your husbands" in the Ten Commandments is because it goes against the rules to treat each other as equals. There is another reason and that is because if this supposed "universal law" were to be broken due to the wife's attempt to obey God's Laws, His Word would have been contradicted. As it is, God never contradicts Himself and to say He does is blasphemy. Those extra rules in the NT were to establish order in the chaotic era those people lived in, the only way they knew how. That was honoring God at that time. To say those rules apply to all time is to say it is a Universal Law of God and that is a lie. Those rules fit that era only.

God also instituted the death penalty and sent the children of Israel into battle, even though he commanded them not to kill, one of what you refer to as universal laws. There was no contradiction, because he never intended the commandment to have anything to do with the military or government.

By the way, which of the 10 commandments tells us to treat each other as equals? I don't remember any that states, "Thou shalt treat each other as equals." If God wanted us to do that, it seems like he would have placed that commandment with the other 10, what you call, universal laws. Since it is not there, it is only opinion, and I think I will reject it. That seems to be your approach.

And no, those rules given by Paul do not only apply to that era. They apply today as well, and I will continue to hold to them. I reject your heretical teachings to the contrary.

When Noah took his family off of the ark, God gave him some different rules about killing another human and also about what animals to eat:

Genesis 9:3-11

3) Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4) "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

5) And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.

I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too,

I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,

by man shall his blood be shed;

for in the image of God

has God made man.

7) As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."

8) Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him:

9) "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you

10) and with every living creature that was with you the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals,

all those that came out of the ark with you - every living creature on earth.

11) I establish my covenant with you:

Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood;

never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

Different era, different rules. Certainly from the laws Moses laid out.

[Guest Biblicist]

So basically, what you are saying, none, is that we should follow the 10 commandments only and anything not directily related to the 10 commandments in the rest of scripture it is to be disregarded?

[Grungekid]

Marriage is, however, a choice and not a demand, and therefore one should be aware of the altrications it brings up in a relationship before going through with it.

And there we have a key important factor. Nowadays, the vows taken in marriage do not include "wives, obey your husband" and an unsaved couple marries under the vows of the state.

Are they then to take new vows after they're saved, to make sure to follow the "obey" rule and not have the husband endangered in court one day, should they divorce? Divorce rates, as stated in another thread, are far higher in churches than in secular marriages and have been for a while now.

Wonder what went wrong?

Divorce rates have been discussed elsewhere and that is a different subject. Where are you getting this 'wife, obey your husband' as an official sacrament of the Christian marriage? I don't think Christian marriage vows are any different in this area from secular ones.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Grungekid

[Grungekid]

Today, we have people making their own vows, so you never know what anyone will agree to. I do know of one female member of Worthy that said she insisted the word be obey in her marriage vows.

I wasn't aware, having only seen traditional marriages. One would be led to think that both would be in agreement upon customized vows.

As to the question of where the idea comes from wives are to obey their husbands, it comes from numerous places in the Bible. The first is in Genesis 3:16

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

From the New Testament, comes Ephesians 5:22-24

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

I have read Genesis, and I would think that that meant that the husband had final authority, but I really do think there is room for at least a little freedom of difference. Women should have an active part in the family that they raise and suffer for. They shouldn't be boxed in entirely by obsequiousness to their husband. What if the husband is completely wrong? I think that men should merely have an authoritive role after they have come to agreement with their spouse on what to do in life.

In another thread, None's response was to attack the Apostle Paul and the people responsible for the 66 books that make up the Bible we have today. Here is what she said:

by None: We are never going to get past this complicated issue of female teachers and pastors because the same people who decided which books to put into the canon and which to keep out made sure to keep in Paul's very opinionated and ungrounded stand against women. If this bothers women so much, which it does, then these women, myself included, need to stay away from all the people who feel that Paul's word is law. Simple as that.

None, are you really Christian? The Bible is God's Word, that's all there is to it. If you don't think its writers and compilers were truthful, or totally inspired by God, then you don't think the Bible is His Truth.