Betrayed

[withfresheyes]

Me Obey Him

Someone suggested that eventually we might do a study from a book in the Bible. May I suggest the book of Titus, and especially Titus 2. A facinating chapter and needed so revelantly in regards to women who love GOD and are endeavoring to be in HIS will. I also think it would be a good follow up to "Me Obey Him." I am really looking forward to this book study and getting to know all who join in. This is really an exciting time, looking forward to this with great anticipation! Thank You so much for this oportunity and this subject. We are in for a good time of fellowship and learning new things. GOD"S Blesings to all my sisters in the Lord!

 

[Love]

That is a good suggestion! I would love to do a study of Titus.

Heather

 

[chaisem]

...do we belong to a man once we ar married? in a Godly way, of course. he is the head of the house. but, to say he doesnt belong to us is wrong. we were created fo each other. if you give a man the excuse that he "needs" a woman wife or not is just wrong...doesnt that make it ok for him to just go around thinking with what is in his pants and marry her to cover it up? a man could have 20 wives and if he isnt driven by God and keeps his surroundings holy then those 20 arent going to be enough...we belong to the "church" as Christ is the head...but does the bible not say that He is ours too...our hope and future and life? does it not say that God is our father just as we are his children?.....so, yes...we "belong" to our husbands but he does in many ways belong to us...where it says a wife must not deny her husband it also says a husband must not deny his wife...plural marriage should be a joint choice and not decided as an after thought to a one night stand or affair. you may share your husband in plural marriage but not with just whomever he brings home for whatever reason...

 

[Anonymous]

...do we belong to a man once we ar married? in a Godly way, of course. he is the head of the house. but, to say he doesnt belong to us is wrong. we were created fo each other.

we belong to the "church" as Christ is the head...but does the bible not say that He is ours too...our hope and future and life? does it not say that God is our father just as we are his children?.....so, yes...we "belong" to our husbands but he does in many ways belong to us...where it says a wife must not deny her husband it also says a husband must not deny his wife...

When you say "belong", if you mean in the sense that the husband and wife both belong to something greater than just themselves, then yes, you both belong as a part of your family. But if you mean "belong" in the sense of property or ownership, then if anything, Scripture demonstrates that the wife "belongs" to the husband.

Just recently on the Righteous Warriors web site, we were asked how a husband can own something that God owns. In other words, the idea that the husband can "own" his wife would seem to be invalid, since God owns both the husband and the wife and there can be no co-ownership of her. After all, we all belong solely to God and He alone owns us all. The problem seems to be one of determining what we mean when we say "ownership". I think that the word "authority" best carries the concept we actually have in view.

When I think of other things that I own aside from my wife and children, I realize that I don't actually "own" anything by that sense. My car, my TV, my clothes, my pets....they are all possessions that truly belong to my Father. I call these things possessions only in that I have temporal control over His property. I simply exercise His authority in their care. I may have been entrusted to manage His property on the earth, but I do not actually "own" anything, because I myself am "owned" by Him.

As the relational authority between a husband and wife is the same as the relational authority between a father and a child (in terms of headship), we see that both wives and children are to submit to the head. If I choose to have more, that is my right as I am the one in authority. I do not NEED to check with my wife to see if its okay for me to take another wife, any more than I would NEED to check with my children to see if its okay for me to have another child. My point is that a leader does not require the permission or consent of those he leads.

That being said, I'm sure everyone would agree that a WISE leader certainly would take into consideration how adding to the family would impact the existing relationships within the family. Only a foolish husband would unilaterally make sweeping changes that could adversely affect everyone in the household. I'm just establishing the concept of authority, not necessarily wise authority.

plural marriage should be a joint choice and not decided as an after thought to a one night stand or affair. you may share your husband in plural marriage but not with just whomever he brings home for whatever reason...

I disagree that plural marriage should be a joint choice. That would imply joint leadership, like a partnership, where both partners have an equally valid say in the matter. A stupid husband still has destroyed family with his abuse of authority, and he will answer for his choices. However, something "decided as an after thought to a one night stand or affair" sounds much more like whoring, not plural marriage. Why would a husband want to risk destroying his existing family over what is effectively a one-night stand with a whore? That smacks of "mandatory monogyny" thinking, not Biblical marriage. Marriage as an AFTERTHOUGHT?? :shock: Yikes and double yikes!!

In His love,
David

 

[CecilW]

Agreed that sudden marriage as cover-up for a one night stand is bad. It is also potentially mandated in the Bible, under a very specific circumstance. But not in others. *shrug*

As to ownership ... Naw. We fellas don't own our wives. We have delegated authority and responsibility from God for them. That makes them our "own", in that that authority and responsibility may not be usurped by another -- the "chain of command" is clear. Just as in an office, a supervisor may refer to "my staff" or "my secretary". If another supervisor (not in your supervisor's chain of command) comes along and starts issuing orders, you have every right to grin and say ever so saucily, "You'll have to take that up with my supervisor." And every right to expect your supervisor to say, "Lay off my staff. You need something, take it up with me."

In the same way, wives don't own their husbands, but do have their own husband. That is the husband, and no other, whose authority, responsibility, and chain of command you recognize as valid for your home life. (And, of course, with whom you share the pleasures of that relationship.) Just as with a supervisor at work, you have the right to expect things from them that you wouldn't from any other supervisor. At work, you would expect your supervisor to make sure that there were supplies and computers and phones and direction. You would expect him/her to come to your defense if someone else comes charging in issuing orders or you make an honest mistake or need something new. You also have the right of access when you need to talk ... So with a husband. The specifics of what you expect tend to be different but the principle remains.

So yes, there is a TYPE of ownership involved, but it isn't true proprietary "the buck stops here, this is MINE" ownership. How's that for non-confusing? :lol: Meant to write a short answer, but wrote a longer one after all ... Hmmm... how about ...

Well, yes, there is a type of ownership in both directions, but it is best described in organizational terms, rather than proprietal. Nope. Not sure that helped. Too many 50 cent words. :roll: MAYBE best experienced rather than over-analyzed to death -- which it seems I'm doing. Guess I'll hush up and go see what my own wife is making for breakfast. :ugeek:

 

[chaisem]

really? forgive me, but a "stupid man has a right to destroy his family with ..." no he doesnt at all. we as Gods creatures never have a right to destroy anything created for his glory....a holy woman has every biblical right to stand ground on something that is causing her to do wrong. i love God and believe in the 'head' of the home ,but only when done in a Godly manner and so many on here seem to be forgetting that very key idea!

also, many of the women on her have children and have come out of very abusive and bad situations. if their are men here truely trying to find a second or third wife then it would be in their interest to think where these women may be from....single mothers dont want the job of bread winner and mother and father and everything!!!!! but God gave women strength and most of us use it. we do what we have to to keep out family together with the guidance of our Lord. it is hard to trust after that no matter how strongly you want it and pray for it.....just men, think how you phrase things and how you think about things....let God soften your hearts too. single mothers, are strong, but can melt with the right love and care....

 

[kscouple]

really? forgive me, but a "stupid man has a right to ****edited**** family with ..." no he doesnt at all. we as Gods creatures never have a right to destroy anything created for his glory....a holy woman has every biblical right to stand ground on something that is causing her to do wrong. i love God and believe in the 'head' of the home ,but only when done in a Godly manner and so many on here seem to be forgetting that very key idea!

I couldn't agree more......getting radical either way is wrong

 

[Anonymous]

we as Gods creatures never have a right to destroy anything created for his glory

This statement is so very true !!!
No man, husband or father has "The Right" to destroy his family in the name of patriarchal authority. Such a belief is anathema to love and a perversion of authentic patriarchy.
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[CecilW]

. You are right. No man has the right to destroy his family.

Of course, by the same token, neither does a woman by deciding she isn't going to follow her husband as he searches the scriptures and seeks the right path, and she just doesn't like it and isn't about to follow, so takes the kids, divorces him, and labels him a deadbeat dad in the courts. Yet it happens every day.

And, in a way, as free moral agents with the ability to choose wrong as well as choose right, they both have the right. But its still wrong.

Nice to see you post again, Chaisem. You been missed.

 

[Anonymous]

i love God and believe in the 'head' of the home ,but only when done in a Godly manner and so many on here seem to be forgetting that very key idea!

We can't pick and choose when to "believe in the head of a home". A man is the head of the home whether he is Godly or not. Authority doesn't go away just because it is improperly used, and unfortunately, too many self-righteous women decide that they don't have to be submissive because they don't agree with their husband's version of what the Word of God says, or they see that he isn't always properly submitting to the Lord. This Jezebel spirit is epidemic among believing women. I know because I fought it in my own life for a long time. The only option a holy woman has for not submtting is if her husband is causing her to be in direct, and I mean direct, defiance of the Word of God. She doesn't get the option of not submitting because "it doesn't sound, feel, or seem right".

Paul wrote that an unbelieving husband can be won by the conversation (way of life) of his wife. I think this is evidence that there isn't a better way for an unbelieving (or shallow believing) husband to be won fully to the Lord than through the beautifuly submissive spirit of his God-fearing wife.

 

[Memphis Dwight]

Beta,
Your insight lines up perfectly with the true will of God as revealed all through out the bible. I do not know how long you have been meditating upon God's word but your maturity shines brightly.

 

[chaisem]

look, i completely understand that some men get a bad deal too, ok...i never said that women have a right to destroy anything. yes, the husband should be the leader, but when that power is abused then that is it!

now, divorce and "dead beat" dont have to go together. no matter what, both people had part in creating that child. both parties should take care of him no matter what! example...some men say they won't "pay" the mother, but will buy what the child "needs"...in my situation, what little support i get doesnt quite pay daycare bill so that i can go to work and pay for everything else. then anything extra like sports or trips i have to pay cause father says he already payed his child suppor...look, i never started this as a man against woman thing.....God said love your wife as jesus loves the church. jesus is not cruel, unfair or rude. he is perfect love and sacrafice in the flesh!!! end of story...use the brains god gave us all...respect and love each other and see a situation for what really is and not what you want it to be...i wont comment on any of this topic again!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sorry I missed out on this one. It ended up much differently than it started. I will say this chaisem, if God would expect you to lay down your life for His Word, I'm pretty sure He's not passing out indulgences for rude, mean, destructive husbands or unhappiness. The command to love wives is no more strict or binding than the command to submit to husbands, and that is extended to unsaved ones even. I'm sorry, but as Christians our conduct is not excused by or predicated on anyone else's. Just because our spouse doesn't obey their commands doesn't mean we're relieved of ours.