• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Submitting

WifeOfHisYouth

WifeOfHisYouth

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Female
In Ephesians 5:24, it states "Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."

As the church is to submit to Christ, wives are to submit to their husband in "everything."
Does this mean that no matter what the wife thinks her husband is asking her to do (appropriate or not, sinful or not) she has to submit and follow along with, as he will be the one that is held responsible?
 
Last edited:
I think you have something else on your mind.
 
WifeOfHisYouth said:
Does this mean that no matter what the wife thinks her husband is asking he to do (appropriate or not, sinful or not) she has to submit and follow along with, as he will be the one that is held responsible?
Click to expand...

The brief answer is yes. But I'm with mystic, there probably is more to it, right?
 
I like to think of it this way: the greater authority is God.

Woman is subject to man, and man is subject to God, which makes woman's greater authority God. Yes, she's subject to her husband, but if that conflicts with God, He is the greater authority.

* Someone might come along and show me where I'm missing something in scripture, but this is how I understand it.
 
I was just reading in Gen 20 about Abraham, Sarah and Abimelech. Abraham lied about Sarah and Abimelech sent for Sarah to "take her."
I personally don't know if I could have followed in submission in that situation.. But I know God was faithful to intervene. Its one thing to submit to a sinless perfect God, and another to submit and face the consequences of following in "everything" a sinful human.

I guess I am just trying to wrap my mind around what a wife is truly called to do/be.
 
Just because someone did something in scripture, doesn't mean that they were required to do it. Just because Sarah submitted to her husband in this matter, doesn't necessarily mean that she would not have also been right to have said "I can't do that because I'm submitted to God too, and He forbids it". We can only read clear commandments as our instruction, all else is an interesting guide only.

Remember too that Abimalech did not actually take her as a wife, so no sin was committed. She may well have been planning to submit to her husband only so long as no sin was committed, having faith that YHWH would rescue her (as He did). She may have been planning to confess the truth to Abimalech if he had actually attempted to take her as a wife, to avoid sinning. We don't know, all this is speculation.

Personally, I think that once a man commands his wife to do something sinful, it is he who is at fault. He's put her into a position where she cannot avoid sinning - either she sins by disobeying him in order to obey YHWH, or she obeys him and sins against YHWH. Which path she chooses is really irrelevant - either way, he is causing a sin to be committed, and he will bear the consequences for that sin. I think she is free to make the choice she is least uncomfortable with in that specific situation, knowing the responsibility falls on him.
 
I tend to lean on the side of "The bible says submit in ALL things" but

Nabal's wife went against his wishes when he was hostile to David, and spared herself the judgment.

Ananias' wife was complicit in his sin, and was judged with the same judgment for towing the line.

As much as it pains me to say it, even a proper understanding of the subjected nature of women still requires that she operate according to conscience with regard to sin, because she will certainly be judged for her own actions.

For instance, I am a man under authority to Babylon, or the Great Satan, depending on who you ask. And I am commanded to be subject to and pay taxes to it. It is no great exaggeration to say that I am implicated in a number of great crimes, inasmuch as my tax dollars have been filtered towards abortion mills and all manner of questionable wars, at least. This is troubling, but I can't be judged for paying taxes that I am not allowed not to pay, by scripture.

However, when it comes to being prohibited from following scripture personally, "We must obey God rather than men".
 
:D

One of the hardest things for me in trying to understand this concept is where to draw the line.

If a husband ordered his wife to kill her children and decorate the house with their skulls, I think (I'm pretty sure?) that we'd all be like "NOPE. That's murder don't do it".

But then if a husband wants his wife to tow the line in getting the children to call him "Father", in CLEAR violation of Matthew 23:9, I think (I'm pretty sure?), that we'd all be like "Aw jeez lady, cut the man some slack and let him worry about the details of interpretation..."

Which is why I'd rather lean on the obedience a bit more. It may be a good idea for a wife to balk when the husband is doing something catastrophically bad and inviting doom, but I don't think the intent of scripture is to give license to wives to 'rule lawyer' their husbands via disobedience. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of the intent.
 
It says to submit as unto Christ. The church doesn't get to second guess Christ and make sure He is correct. The church obeys and the consequences be damned.

Now there is a lot to be learned from the example of Abigail but don't forget that Sarah's submission to Abraham gets an atta girl in the New Testament.

Scripture is pretty clear that the husband or father will be responsible for causing or allowing his women to sin.

Remember, it's not really authority if you get to second guess it and the temptation to sit in judgement of your husband would be ever present.

And I know very few men who will not listen to a properly presented plea from a submissive wife. Don't worry about the exceptions, as someone here puts in their footer, don't ask how far you have to go, are you willing to go as far as you ate asked?
 
I wanna press you a bit on this, because my instincts are basically the same as yours, but I also wanna see how firm you are about it.

So a woman takes your advice, and submits her plea for her children's lives to her suddenly unreasonable husband in the most proper way she knows how, but he's still like:

"Yeah nah, I have a word from the Lord on this. I want skulls on window sills by 3pm tomorrow"

And now it's 1:30 and she's e-mailing you asking if you're sure you're sure about obedience no matter what.

What do you write back?
 
Law is a funny thing....

Anecdote: My mother was a popular women's bible teacher in Houston, teaching over 500 women a week for many years. She had a very strict view of divorce and also of female submission. In one conversation, I asked her if she was saying that if a husband told his wife to stick a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger she should do it. She sputtered, it took her a few seconds, but she finally squeaked out that yes, she thought that would be the appropriate thing to do. I told her I could not possibly agree with her on that, but hey, we loved each other anyway.

We can talk a long time about what some hypothetical person should do in a hypothetical situation, or whether a rule is absolute or admits of certain common sense exceptions. We are rule-making machines.....

The scriptures say that even our faith is a gift of God, and that we are given different measures of faith. As far as rules go, I got nothin.

If a woman I know ever finds herself married to a man that asks her to off herself, or have sex with another man so he can film it, or some other heinous hypothetical, and she submits to his will as an act of faithful submission to what she believes God is telling her to do in the moment, then I would respect that. I would not come along after the fact and tell her she was wrong to do so. If on the other hand, she stood on the principle that the husband was demanding that she compromise God's word and God's law and refused to submit to 'an unlawful order', I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

I have more confidence in the work of the spirit of God in the life of the believer ("my sheep hear my voice...") than I do in our ability to apply general principles to specific situations as legislators in advance or as judges after the fact.
 
Yeah slumber, I'm going to dodge your question. There is a place where direct obedience is not being a help meet, but it is not a helpful discussion to have in public.

There are fewer husbands who will demand their wives commit horrific crimes than there are wives who are tempted to rebel and sit in judgement of their husbands.

The best teaching on this I've ever read was Debby Pearl's "Created To Be His Helpmeet." ,
 
"Unless it's morally wrong and goes against scripture" is always the caveat I hear in women's church groups. Always. (Oh yeah, and don't be a doormat. They love to toss that term out there.)

By giving us a teeny tiny inch of wiggle room, we will probably be tempted at least sometimes to blast off into outer space.

We are, after all, daughters of Eve. And wasn't that the same tactic the serpent used?
 
In my humble and newbie opinion on this matter, and with many others, I fall back to my military career and personal conversations with my cousin (Pastor of our local church now) and say that Andrew nailed my thought exactly. There can be law and order and following of strict rules but if an "unlawful order" is given it is NOT required to be followed and in fact is the duty of the person being given the order to point out it is unlawful and not follow through....the first order comes from a higher source essentially. Now to compare this over the best way a simple cowboy can is to say that the first orders, or commandments, came from God and therefore should be followed first and foremost and if a conflicting instruction is given it should be questioned. I have made some pretty hair brained decisions and requests in my life....oh have I...but as I have gotten older I have realized that by listening when my wife says hold on lets think about this for a moment that I have avoided some pit falls. When we as husbands take wife we are taking on a responsibility as well and it is our job to lead the way, putting a wife in the position to have to choose between following us or committing sin we have failed in our responsibility.
 
ZecAustin said:
There is a place where direct obedience is not being a help meet, but it is not a helpful discussion to have in public.

There are fewer husbands who will demand their wives commit horrific crimes than there are wives who are tempted to rebel and sit in judgement of their husbands.
Click to expand...
Two great points.

I want my women to reason with me, let me know when they disagree, and give me their advice (all a very important part of what being a helper means), and somewhere out there is a line that we've never come anywhere close to where I would want them to refuse to follow me if they sincerely believed (a troublesome, subjective concept) that I was leading us all into sin. A broken, passive, "whatever you say, dear", "how high, dear?" kind of wife is no help at all.

OTOH, ya can't help but notice that much attention is giving to the "yeah, but..." side of female submission, while virtually no attention is given to any limits on the obligation of a man to love his wife. You can't even mention Eph 5:22 in passing without kicking off a "where do you draw the line?" kind of conversation or argument, but when's the last time you heard anyone discussing the point at which a guy is released from his obligations? "Over the past ten years under the influence of some worldly friends (or those nasty gossips at church:eek:) my wife has become an insufferable b*tch, so I have decided I am no longer required to love her at all."

I'm not saying we need to ramp up that convo for the sake of equality. I'm saying it's weird that most of the discussion around Eph 5:22 that I've heard over the past 40 years has been around where it stops, instead of how to implement it in one's day-to-day walk.
 
And everyone I hear talk about also always assumes that if the wife has an objection she must be right. If she objects to anything then everything must stop until she is persuaded.

This is definitely an area where the church makes null the Word of God with it's traditions.

The level of submission scripture lays out is almost draconian. Christ is everything to the church. He is the only reason she exists. He is the only thing that defines her and gives her form. When everyone despised and persecuted her, Christ desired and bought her and then exalted her.

Now I'm not saying that is what a husband is to his wife, but she is supposed to treat him like that's what he is. It's an awe inspiring and frankly intimidating metaphor.
 
ZecAustin said:
And everyone I hear talk about also always assumes that if the wife has an objection she must be right. If she objects to anything then everything must stop until she is persuaded.
Click to expand...
I like everything you said there, but this one is a core issue that is probably worth a whole 'nother thread....

If I can't lead anywhere until my follower understands exactly what I'm doing and why and agrees with everything I explain, then who's really leading?...
 
andrew said:
OTOH, ya can't help but notice that much attention is giving to the "yeah, but..." side of female submission, while virtually no attention is given to any limits on the obligation of a man to love his wife.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. Even those that say a woman does not have to obey her husband still think the husband has to love the woman. It's one of those interesting changes happening in our society.
However, just to be annoying, I'm going to make a wee point here. Even beyond the idea of skulls on windowsills, there is the mark of the beast. If a woman was to obey her husband by taking the mark of the beast then that sin is on her. She cannot be saved after that, it's eternal. So, in this case it is right (from YHWH's perspective, as much as I can understand it), for her to disobey her husband and not receive the mark.
Now, is that the only case? Is that so extreme that it's the only possible time that she may disobey? I hope so, but I'm not willing to put my money on it. I believe there is a line, and just where the point of that line is I don't know. Perhaps that's something that everyone needs to find for themselves through much prayer. I'm pretty sure the line is a long way up there though, right up with losing your salvation. And probably spending too much time trying to discuss this with each other and come to the idea of where the line is is actually pointless, as it will relate to specific situations and the answer can only be found by those involved in deep prayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top