I know this isn't a new idea. It's been the kingpin for the entire mantel of Christian feminism. I figured it would have been discussed in depth here already. I've searched the forum and found some good material, especially an old @Keith Martin epic thread, but nothing exactly on point. I'm sure I'm only missing where it is. The point of contention is this: is a wife or child (still in his father's house) bound to submit to ungodly commands from the master of that house? Why or why not? It's the latest mountain I'm climbing, and I've been at it for several days, so I will have follow-up questions regardless which way you answer.
-
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.
The ungodly man
- Thread starter NVIII
- Start date
Can you, please, provide link?
Just to start the conversation, the wife yes and the children no.
There is a proviso that the sin falls back on the husband and that if it is so egregious that the wife absolutely can’t countenance it then she can separate herself from him IF she does not go to another man.
There is a proviso that the sin falls back on the husband and that if it is so egregious that the wife absolutely can’t countenance it then she can separate herself from him IF she does not go to another man.
Last edited:
A mix of both. Unexpected! Just to be clear, the no is unconditional? I have put the children under his roof in this question. Not talking about those who have left to cling.
I assume you’re talking about the children? Honoring and obeying are not quite the same thing although there is a lot of overlap.
There is only one situation in the Bible I'm aware of that covers this case: when Abraham told Sarah to lie and say he was her brother. That almost ended in adultery.
Sarah was never chastised nor condemned for following Abraham's sinful command. To the contrary she was praised in the NT for calling him Lord.
Sarah was never chastised nor condemned for following Abraham's sinful command. To the contrary she was praised in the NT for calling him Lord.
Yes. I thought you were, too. Are you saying the obedience of a child (below the age of accountability for a male, and of a female, unwed) may be conditional, but not so of the wife? If so, you're not the first one I've heard say this, but it is a foreign concept to me, so I'm going to have plenty of questions for you. Just want to be sure this is the message you're meaning to give.
This strikes to the heart of the Gospel, which is why so many so-called Christians hate the idea of wives being ruled by their husbands. Eph 5:22...
"Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."
The nature of her obedience to husband is the same as ours to God.
So if the husband orders his wife to commit adultery, she is to obey the command? And yes, that could happen, some guy may get off on that.
What about murder. Suppose he tells his wife to kill another person. She has to obey?
And you're saying she should separate if she can't obey. What if she doesn't want to separate. Maybe she loves him. Should she still obey these commands?
What about murder. Suppose he tells his wife to kill another person. She has to obey?
And you're saying she should separate if she can't obey. What if she doesn't want to separate. Maybe she loves him. Should she still obey these commands?
Husband's authority is limited. He can't order her what Lord has forbidden because Lord is higher in hierarchy.
Let's start with murder. It is absolute command. No exceptions are allowed.
Most everything she is to obey, as unto the Lord
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”
Ephesians 5:22
I believe that this verse applies to wives as well
“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.”
Colossians 3:22-24
Nabal is a great example. Considered churlish and of evil doings, but Abigail being a good wife still follows and obeys her lord, her husband, even protecting him from harm.
“Now the name of the man was Nabal; and the name of his wife Abigail: and she was a woman of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance: but the man was churlish and evil in his doings; and he was of the house of Caleb.”
1 Samuel 25:3
“Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him. Then Abigail made haste, and took two hundred loaves, and two bottles of wine, and five sheep ready dressed, and five measures of parched corn, and an hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs, and laid them on asses. And she said unto her servants, Go on before me; behold, I come after you. But she told not her husband Nabal.”
1 Samuel 25:17-19
Outright sin is the only arguable exception to obedience, like murder.
“And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.”
Exodus 1:18-21
or idolatry
“Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”
Daniel 3:16-18
But we know sin by the law, it shouldn't be something arbitrarily felt.
“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
Romans 7:7
an example in a book my wife read recently, had a husband sexually abusing his child or step-child(can't remember which). this book clearly promotes the subjection of wives, and it said that in such a case the wife should just call the police on him. Which I thought for a while biblically, and came to agree with the author there. There are horrible situations like these that make you think deeper about this question...
sorry if this was long to read. I like to have scripture to back most every belief, it's a nitpick of mine and probably makes my writings seem tedious at times.
Last edited:
Yes. That’s what I thought. The husband’s authority is limited. But some make it seem like it’s total and complete, even if he is commanding her to commit egregious sin. Commanding her to lie in order to save someone is one thing, but commanding her to commit adultery or murder is another, don’t you think? Does she have any means to disobey in the case of a command to commit a really egregious sin?
It’s already been stated, she has the right to leave and remain without another husband.
The idea that she has veto power over her husband’s decisions because she doesn’t feel that they are “Godly” is unworkable.
No need to apologize. Make them longer! This is exactly the kind of thorough and grounded reply I appreciate. I'm trying to "be prepared constantly to give an answer", and this is one two-pronged question I've been called on recently and came up lacking, unable to defend against the extremes or answer why. Being able to trace the progeny of a precept, applying the test of extremes, and finding whether it stands true on the solid foundation of God or fails under pressure is vital to understanding the Word, testing our faith, and clearing our minds of all falsehood. I'm on a relentless hunt for lies within my mind. To that end, I have to play devil's advocate a lot, and that may make it seem like I'm being difficult or unwilling to believe. If I can't say why I believe something, if I can't defend it to men and help them see the truth as well, then that's a red flag in my mind that this is could be a falsehood, an invention of man, an idol that has no place in my heart. No matter how scary it might be to think of the implications of letting go of it, I must put my trust in God and ruthlessly attack what's shrouded in darkness. If it is of God, it will not shrink when light shines on it. That's what I hope to receive help with here. I consider this forum to be a body of learned men of faith who, like me, are shedding the deceptions we are steeped in from birth and may be further along in some areas than I and able to offer insight into questions that have stumped me and others like me who will also read here. I know we're all busy, so I appreciate any effort. If no one has the answers, I understand! We should search for them. This is like sitting at the city gates, I think.
@NBTX11 is representing well one of the challenges that commonly get brought up against the authority of the husband. One way I've heard to explain the apparent dichotomy that arises in that challenge is to say that the husband doesn't HAVE authority to command her to disobey the law. As in, his authority comes from God, and God does not command us to disobey, therefore the husband only has authority to command her to obey the law or to instruct in some menial matters like the color paint to use on the walls, and anything else is outside of his authority, therefore his word is null and void if he commands her to do something unlawful. Many will extend this and will justify it with various references to obeying earthly masters or rendering unto Caesar, constraining the husband by extension also to the law of man. This line of reasoning to me seems like a slippery slope, and I ask, "What then, does the female sit in judgment over the male, deciding for herself what is right and wrong?" This seems to be completely contrary to the Word. It can also be easily seen that if we accept this then in a few short steps we are right back in the lap of feminism, with men being ruled by the whims of women, not ruling the women as God constructed.
The reference to Egyptian midwives is interesting, and I wonder if they were married.
About Abigail, I have read that possessions were split in those days, with wives having their own houses, servants, and provisions either from their own fathers prior to marriage, acquired independently through their own business dealings, or supplied by their husband, which they did with as they pleased, but always under his authority. One such example is the giving of their handmaidens to their own husbands. Another is Esther throwing banquets and inviting her husband. Accordingly, it can be reasonably assumed (and makes the account of Abigail that much more wholesome) that she may have taken from her own possessions to save her husband. It is also not mentioned that he forbade anyone in his household to help David. Perhaps it wasn't her own possessions. I delegate to my wives and put many things under their authority, including the management of our foodstores. It's easily imaginable to me that Abigail had similar delegation, especially in light of the description of the ideal wife in Proberbs 31, and therefore was acting within her authority even if her husband had declined to be generous. These two interpretations may be stretches or even false, I'm not sure. But I refuse to believe she flat out rebelled and God rewarded her for a sin that is compared to witchcraft. There must be another explanation.
Of the three Israelites in the furnace, this one has been pointed at me, along with Acts 5:29, "We must obey God rather than men.", and I had no answer. That is actually one thing that caused me to start this thread, and I was going to bring it up to anyone supporting the position that a wife is bound to obey in all matters. I would love to have an explanation as to how these two things can be true, along with an answer to the "render unto Caesar" bit. How can these seemingly contrary positions exist together?
And I said what if she doesn’t want to leave.
Does she still have to obey wicked orders (adultery or murder). This is not being answered.
I believe i answered this with the bible in my last post. By seeing the hebrew midwives defy pharaoh in killing the hebrew children, and be rewarded by God for that, likely a woman can defy her husband in sin. The argument is there. Also, Shardrach, Meschach and Abednego defied the king and escaped fire due to God's rewarding their faith. But sin must be defined by the word of God, and not the woman's heart.
A righteous husband though, should never need to be defied, and it will always be wrong of the wife to do so.
Good answer. That is what I was looking for. I have always been of the mindset that the wife could disobey her husband, if he commanded her to sin or do evil, contrary to the Word of God. I was just looking for verification of this one way or another. This is one of those things where there may not be a 100 percent clear cut answer.
There are things in the Bible that are not 100 percent clear cut. There are scriptures for and against and appear to "contradict" sometimes. God gave us a brain and the ability to figure some things out. He also gave us liberty to decide on things that he didn't give clear guidance or clear principles.
The amount of drinking you should do comes to mind as an example. There are scriptures for and against drinking alcohol. You're gonna have to decide individually how much drinking you want to do and for what reason.
I completely agree with you brother. Unlearning and relearning, over and over to scrub clean from lies. That's what it is all about. It is good to do this with as many subjects as possible, and not be led by tradition. Really all that we desire, is to get back to the basics of scripture, and let everything else go.
with rending to Caesar, I do believe that is specific to things that are his. Taxing and currency are the institution of Caesar. Like how Christ said, who's superscription is this? It's his image on the coin, give it to him when he asks. Yes, they've(government) been placed over us for our own good, and He has also set up laws to judge men when it is in proper accordance. But what about marriage? Marriage specifically is His institution, and not the government's. John the Baptist the greatest of men born among women, lost his life just to tell Herod that he couldn't have his brother's wife.
“For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.”
Mark 6:17-18
Was King Herod not technically, the government? Yet from the perspective of John, who i agree with, God's law trumps Herod's desires as a king.
God joins man and woman, it is His institution and not government.
“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Matthew 19:6
A woman should never have to disobey a righteous husband neither. But even an unrighteous husband she should always obey, except for sin clearly defined by scripture.
Last edited: