What if husband is cuckcold and want wife to find another man? Sadly, such men exists.
Again, where exactly are borders is key question here. No human is given absolute power over another human.
Last edited:
-
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
Again, where exactly are borders is key question here. No human is given absolute power over another human.
Interesting scenario, but you can make a good argument that smoking pot is not sin, so that's not really a good comparison to something that is a blatant sin according to the word.
Yes, they do. That's why I brought up these questions. The heart is desperately wicked. Even Christian men can have wicked thoughts and desires. We suppress and conquer them with the help of the Holy Spirit and by staying close to God in his word and prayer. But every man sitting here knows that he is capable of wickedness, if not for the saving grace of God. And every man knows he is capable of falling into sin, even if he is saved.
What about a "white" lie to protect someone in a major way, like to protect someone from being hurt or injured, maybe from being assaulted.
Doesn't God consider certain sins worse than others? Some things are sin, while others are an abomination.
I don't know all the answers to these questions. Maybe he can't order these things, but yet God doesn't look as unfavorably on it as if he ordered her to kill her child. What do you think?
"Hard cases make bad law" is an important legal principle.
A wife is obviously to obey her husband at least 99.9% of the time. If she can judge his every instruction against what she thinks God would want her to do then she is not submitting to him. For almost every single example of a real-world decision, she must obey him.
The most extreme circumstances truly do happen - women are often forced by men to have an abortion, for a wide range of reasons, and some of the time the man will be their husband. We can't just dismiss this. It is real. So is men telling their wives to sleep with someone else - weird as it may seem, it does happen.
But most wives will never encounter this. For them, these extreme examples, even though real, are irrelevant.
And for the tiny minority of orders from a husband to a wife that are so deeply sinful that we could debate them for ever - all options are bad. Disobedience is wrong - but so is separation (we are clearly told not to do so in the very passage that discusses what to do if it occurs anyway). And obeying him and sinning would be wrong too, as sin is wrong. Every option is wrong in some way. She has NO good options. We don't need to work out which bad option all wives must choose. As far as I can see what she chooses to actually do may depend on the circumstances, and all guilt will fall on the husband - whether that guilt is for disobedience, separation or commiting the commanded sin.
This really is so much simpler than it can be made out to be.
A wife is obviously to obey her husband at least 99.9% of the time. If she can judge his every instruction against what she thinks God would want her to do then she is not submitting to him. For almost every single example of a real-world decision, she must obey him.
The most extreme circumstances truly do happen - women are often forced by men to have an abortion, for a wide range of reasons, and some of the time the man will be their husband. We can't just dismiss this. It is real. So is men telling their wives to sleep with someone else - weird as it may seem, it does happen.
But most wives will never encounter this. For them, these extreme examples, even though real, are irrelevant.
And for the tiny minority of orders from a husband to a wife that are so deeply sinful that we could debate them for ever - all options are bad. Disobedience is wrong - but so is separation (we are clearly told not to do so in the very passage that discusses what to do if it occurs anyway). And obeying him and sinning would be wrong too, as sin is wrong. Every option is wrong in some way. She has NO good options. We don't need to work out which bad option all wives must choose. As far as I can see what she chooses to actually do may depend on the circumstances, and all guilt will fall on the husband - whether that guilt is for disobedience, separation or commiting the commanded sin.
This really is so much simpler than it can be made out to be.
So, your take-home is that, if a husband gives an ungodly command, not only is she free of guilt if she obeys, but also the guilt of her rebellion would be on his head if she chooses that path instead?
So then she should separate herself from him. That’s her escape hatch. What can’t she do that in your hypothetical scenario?
And could you cite some scripture to back this up?
Christ commands the church church to do some pretty horrid things. I’ll limit a husband’s authority as much as you’ll limit Christ’s.
I think this is the crux of the matter. There isn’t a hard and fast rule, Scripture doesn’t give us one, and I think probably the reason for that is because it depends on the exact situation so much. Hypothetical scenarios lack the important information that can be held up to Scripture to determine the most righteous course of action. Add to that the fact that God works miracles In the worst situations in our lives. Rarely are we ever in a situation where we genuinely don’t know what is the right thing to do. Most of the time we know, often it isn’t the easiest course of action or it just isn’t the answer we want it to be.
I would like to say too, if you are a lady in a situation in which you are unsure what God would want you to do, there are a number of wise and godly women around here from whom you can ask for encouragement and godly counsel for your particular situation.
Paul called what he went through “light afflictions”, if I’m not mistaken, he was chained in a dungeon when he wrote that.
I agree that a husband's authority is as Christ's to the church, but does Christ ask the church to sin? I don't see that in scripture. If we compare ourselves to Christ, then doesn't that also warrant righteous living like Christ. Which would dissolve this question completely.
The expectation is high for us, to not sin. Do we not agree that it is against the nature of Christ to condone our sin? Our master is in accordance with righteous living, unlike some earthly husbands.
If we're found to be evil servants in his return we will be cut asunder and our portions given to the hypocrites.
“But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My Lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; the Lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 24:48-51
and told that if we name the name of Christ to depart from iniquity.
“Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
2 Timothy 2:19
a second question, is the woman responsible for her own sin or is the man responsible for her sin? If he is responsible for her sin, then I agree even more with you that she should then obey in sin as well. But is there scripture for that, because I'd love to know how you feel about that question too.
If she is responsible for her own sin, then the argument would be greater for refusing to worship an idol, or get an abortion, or to sit back in subjection knowing that her children are getting molested(as i referenced was an actual experience written in my wife's book, earlier).
and in refusing and leaving, which i think is a great option, she would be definitely defying her husband in a biblical manner. In a way though, this would be circling back confirming my answer in the original dilemma. But this route has been afforded by the scriptures, as you say. Which is a fine middle ground that I am willing to admit.
Last edited:
Yes in the sort of extreme situation we have been talking about.
In the case of a milder command from her husband that she disagrees with due to a difference in scriptural interpretation (e.g. husband tells her to eat pork and she doesn't believe that is permissible), then I would say that she is bound to obey her husband, and the guilt of disobedience falls on her own head. Disagreements on scriptural interpretation are a common, normal part of any marriage, and the wife cannot just override her husband and disobey because she disagrees with his theology. In a matter of scriptural interpretation, the word of the husband is law for his house. If he is wrong, and he is telling her to sin, then the guilt of that will fall on his head, not hers. But if she disobeys, the guilt of that falls on her own head. She should have obeyed her husband.
I would only consider her free from the guilt of rebellion when we are talking about the sort of highly exceptional circumstances that have been raised as extreme examples - such as murder - which are not normal parts of marriage and where she truly has no good option whatsoever.
I cannot find clear scripture to back up this distinction, that is just my interpretation of how I believe God would view the gross extremes, based on His character as revealed in the totality of scripture.
You’re making the classic mistake, you’re trying to tie the woman’s actions to the man’s. If he’s a good husband then she can submit easily.
Let’s flip that around though and see how it stands up from the other side. The man only has to love the woman when she’s a good wife. Does it make as much sense that way?
For the woman to be able to decide when her husband is being righteous enough to submit to is to ultimately give her complete powers over him. She can sit in judgement of all his actions and decide when he’s in sin or not.
This is why Christ allowed women to separate providing they stay single. The requested action has to be worse than living as a single woman. It’s a safety valve and an accountability mechanism.
What verse are you referring to?
A husband issuing an ungodly command is, in itself, extreme enough. It doesn't matter how we rank a sin. Any sin is separation from the Father. Your overall position is so far unique in this thread and not immediately dismissable. I will have to chew on it for a minute.
Unfortunately, you cannot eat your cake and have it, too. Perception is reality. What we perceive we believe. This is why Paul said for such people it is sin. How would she know if what she believes to be sin is just a misinterpretation? Therefore, she feels justified in defying her husband's commands. Your answer still contains the pain point of the others, but slightly different because you aren't suggesting there is no guilt for rebellion, rather:
This is palatable to me. Even though it still smacks of "chief suggester" instead of "head of the wife". But like you said, where are the scriptures? It always comes back to that anytime you are arguing with someone who wants license to rebel. We need that ammo. Of course, with a rebellious spirit, they might not listen even if you could show them from stripture. I had one guy give me Hebrews 7:12 in support of his position that obedience was not required. I might start another thread elsewhere to explore what exactly are the implications of that chapter.
She cannot be in the position of being the judge of this. We all think we are right - by definition. It is impossible to believe you are wrong, because if you believe you are wrong then you don't actually believe that wrong thing any more! So she believes she is right, he believes he is right, but at least one of them is wrong without knowing it.
However if he is the head, then it is his perception that is the reality for their marriage. Whether he's right or wrong.
She is not justified in defying her husband's commands. Defying him is sin.
However, when obeying him would also be obviously sinful, then whatever she does is sinful, and I'm not going to assume the authority to tell her which sin was the worse sin to do. That's between her and God.
Brother, please read again what you wrote. "She cannot be in the position of being the judge of this", and yet she is to judge what is "obviously sinful"? Obvious to who? Obvious to her, right? And yet, that is sitting in judgment over his word.
In the example given by @Asforme&myhouse , the women tested her with what was, to them, obviously sinful. That was their judgment. If you don't share their judgment, then this might not be as powerful a witness to you, but they were aghast when the woman rightly answered she would ask her husband not to tell her to sin, and if he insisted, she would obey. I think she was righteous in that, because her faith was in God, that He had commanded her and would justify her, and not in man, who she knew to be flawed.
There are many other things that to some are obviously wrong, to others are questionable, and to others are obviously right. Take murder, for example. We all know murder is wrong. But, what is murder? Let's say you suffered a severe wound from which there was no recovery. Used to be more common. Nowadays we would rush you to the hospital, dope you up so you feel nothing, and see what a team of surgeons could do before you expired. But let's say that's not an option. There's still bush country, right? If there were people present, some would stand around and wring their hands and watch you die a slow, agonizing death, but would not have mercy on you and cut your suffering short because that would be murder in their judgment. You would be relieved if someone with a different understanding was at your side instead, and I should hope also if that someone's wife was there instead, with a command from him to kill you in this circumstance and an understanding in her heart that it doesn't matter if she thinks it's murder, that God will justify her if she puts her faith in Him and obeys His command to her to obey her husband.
Ok, extreme example. It does affect the sensitivities. But do you not see how what is "obvious" to some can be not so to others, or even obviously the opposite? And how this condition can apply to anything? If we give her license to sit in judgment and rebel, then we can't take it back and say, "That's not an obvious sin." Because, that's only your judgment. If she has that authority, then however she perceives it, whatever is obvious to her, is what she must do. I'm not certain she has that authority.
In the example given by @Asforme&myhouse , the women tested her with what was, to them, obviously sinful. That was their judgment. If you don't share their judgment, then this might not be as powerful a witness to you, but they were aghast when the woman rightly answered she would ask her husband not to tell her to sin, and if he insisted, she would obey. I think she was righteous in that, because her faith was in God, that He had commanded her and would justify her, and not in man, who she knew to be flawed.
There are many other things that to some are obviously wrong, to others are questionable, and to others are obviously right. Take murder, for example. We all know murder is wrong. But, what is murder? Let's say you suffered a severe wound from which there was no recovery. Used to be more common. Nowadays we would rush you to the hospital, dope you up so you feel nothing, and see what a team of surgeons could do before you expired. But let's say that's not an option. There's still bush country, right? If there were people present, some would stand around and wring their hands and watch you die a slow, agonizing death, but would not have mercy on you and cut your suffering short because that would be murder in their judgment. You would be relieved if someone with a different understanding was at your side instead, and I should hope also if that someone's wife was there instead, with a command from him to kill you in this circumstance and an understanding in her heart that it doesn't matter if she thinks it's murder, that God will justify her if she puts her faith in Him and obeys His command to her to obey her husband.
Ok, extreme example. It does affect the sensitivities. But do you not see how what is "obvious" to some can be not so to others, or even obviously the opposite? And how this condition can apply to anything? If we give her license to sit in judgment and rebel, then we can't take it back and say, "That's not an obvious sin." Because, that's only your judgment. If she has that authority, then however she perceives it, whatever is obvious to her, is what she must do. I'm not certain she has that authority.
I'd like you all to pay close attention to this thread: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/waiting-question-for-first-wives.16612/#post-253372
And to any others like it where women speak about the struggle with the deeply seated belief that polygyny is obviously sin. It doesn't matter where that belief comes from, and it doesn't matter if it's merely an emotion masquerading as a belief. The point is, they may perceive it as sin. What then? Many pressured my first wife to leave me because I was "asking her to live in sin". Thank God she submitted even when she thought it was obviously sin. But not everyone here has such a happy ending. Some have lost wives over this. What do you think? Are those wives guilty of sin for leaving, or are they justified because they perceived an obvious sin and therefore had license to rebel?
And to any others like it where women speak about the struggle with the deeply seated belief that polygyny is obviously sin. It doesn't matter where that belief comes from, and it doesn't matter if it's merely an emotion masquerading as a belief. The point is, they may perceive it as sin. What then? Many pressured my first wife to leave me because I was "asking her to live in sin". Thank God she submitted even when she thought it was obviously sin. But not everyone here has such a happy ending. Some have lost wives over this. What do you think? Are those wives guilty of sin for leaving, or are they justified because they perceived an obvious sin and therefore had license to rebel?