The ungodly man

[steve]

This happens often. You just know little about the subject, and assume too much.

Thanks for editing out your worse statements, but you are the one assuming here.
I do, personally, know a woman whose husband changed his mind about their IVF triplets and proceeded to kick her in the stomach until he succeeded in a DIY abortion. He also Tonya Harding-ed her kneecaps in order to keep her from running away in addition to many other evil things. He has gone on to his eternal reward.
This woman has every excuse to not trust a man and not want to be in submission, but the level of submission that she walks in is awesome and puts most other women to shame.

 

[steve]

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.

I thank your wife for being a shining example.

 

[Jack P.]

@b_ce “A righteous husband though, should never need to be defied, and it will always be wrong of the wife to do so.”

I agree I think that we, as men shouldn’t ask the question should a wife obey her husband’s command of sin? Why would a “righteous” husband be concerned with that. By definition none of us should be even considering asking such things from one of our wives.
It’s is easy to get a “god complex” if you have been given authority over another. - Wives submitt to your husband, husband treat your wives as God treats the church- ( not a exact quote) it says to treat as, not be God.
Wouldn’t it be a better analogy that as righteous husbands we are no more than mid level or low level managers of God’s, we are suppose to manager our (his) house according to His teachings. So from this point of view the husband isn’t acting Godly if he would ask a person under his authority to willfully sin.
I know I didn’t quote scripture, I have read the Bible on these subject ( not all I’m sure) and the comments on this thread. I have to believe we are all men of God here And we all want what is best for our “house” so I ask again why is this a subject that needs to be ask about.
A woman that is with a ungodly man is she required to duty fully follow his direction? That should be the question.

 

[NVIII]

I think that we, as men shouldn’t ask the question should a wife obey her husband’s command of sin? Why would a “righteous” husband be concerned with that.

I ask for this reason:

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

This reason:

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.

And this reason:

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.

It is worth discussing also because it is a prevalent issue in the Church and seems to be undermining the family wherever it is seen, whether among Christians or pagans. There have also been a few things I dug into in the past, and the understanding I gained from that opened my eyes to other things I didn't realize were related.

It’s is easy to get a “god complex” if you have been given authority over another.

Agreed, but is a secondary issue just as whether or not the wife should offer her husband advice before she obeys what she thinks is an ungodly command. Would make a great separate thread.

Wouldn’t it be a better analogy that as righteous husbands we are no more than mid level or low level managers of God’s, we are suppose to manager our (his) house according to His teachings.

I've thought about that one and have often used it to describe the authority structure in my own home. It seems fitting in most ways. Ask yourself this: who gets punished when the manager directs his employees to go against company policy, and the owner of the company finds out?

 

[steve]

X

A woman that is with a ungodly man is she required to duty fully follow his direction? That should be the question.

“13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?”

As has been said, there are no hard and fast rules, each situation has to be evaluated separately.
But the focus needs to be the other person’s soul.

 

[HomesteadWife]

To throw a couple more thoughts and questions out there.

What if an unbelieving husband (whether the wife married him as an unbeliever or he turned away from the faith) forbids the wife to teach their children about the Bible/God or biblical morals? Is she supposed to teach them regardless? Or allow her children to be raised with no belief in God?

As someone who's parents separated due to the husband not being 'religious' enough and too worldly this a real scenario dealt with. The above questions are the extreme, but there are many women who would use the excuse of saving their children's souls because their husband is not a good moral and religious example for them to be exposed to as a reason for separation/divorce. This in their mind would trump the staying with the unbelieving husband for his soul, as children come first to them.

The whole issue of where a line is drawn go a wife's obedience to a husband is important to explore. Even if it is not relevant to a believing couple, because the godly husband would 'never' ask his wife to create a grievous sin, it is not right to ignore the extreme cases and where the line may be. You have to be able to teach your children where this line is. They may have to deal with it sometime, God forbid. Also how are we supposed to work towards a Godly society if we cannot counsel others who we come in contact with who ARE dealing with questioning where these lines are? We live in a fallen world and even if we are blessed enough to have godly partners, others around us may not. A lot of pushback that I see about patriarchy and submission come back to these 'extreme, what if' scenarios.

 

[FollowingHim]

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.

You misunderstand me. I said she is not to be the judge of what is sinful or not, and is to obey her husband. To disobey her husband is sin.

However, in the case of a woman who refuses to obey her husband and commit an egregious sin - I am not going to judge her actions and declare that she was wrong, because I recognise the difficulty of her position. Every option she had before her was sinful - to obey was to commit a sin, to disobey was also sinful. Who am I to tell her that obeying and commiting murder was less bad than disobeying? How can I know which sin God would least dislike? Surely that truly would depend on the circumstances - the example you give of a mercy killing for instance being potentially very different from an abortion.

I am not saying she has the right to disobey her husband when she feels he is wrong. Quite the opposite.

 

[frederick]

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.

I had the exact same experience and it is the so-called Christians who push hardest for divorce. My wife was lectured repeatedly that by staying with me she was guilty of enabling me in my "sin". It was shockingly bad and demonstrates how badly taught most Christians are on the subject of biblical marriage and divorce. Praise God for His hand of protection and strength for our wives that they persevered.

 

[NVIII]

Thanks for clarifying. I sure read that wrong.

Every option she had before her was sinful - to obey was to commit a sin, to disobey was also sinful.

Is it possible to commit a sin and bear no guilt? Perhaps that's the key. He is a merciful God. There is no love in putting a person in a no win situation. He always provides a way out: 1 Cor 10:13. Yet we see it happens where it appears she is trapped. So, the way out must be unseen, as in either she bears no guilt for carrying out the husband's command, she bears no guilt for rebelling, or as you said, both.

If we say she bears no guilt for rebelling, we fall right back into the fast lane to feminism, and I think it also presents problems with the use of force to maintain discipline. But then again, Balaam's ass.

If we say she bears no guilt for obeying, we have to go to the darkest places to see if it's still true. @HomesteadWife gave a good challenge. Souls are on the line. But then again, so is her husband's. If her obedience is the witness that can bring him to repentance, would it not also be an equal witness to his children, even more powerful than just words in a safe place, especially since her rebellion might cast doubt on anything she could say to them afterward? Also, is one soul more valuable than another? I know idolizing children is prevalent in the Church, and she's right this is a top 3 excuse to abandon post.

 

[FollowingHim]

@HomesteadWife's example is difficult, because although she is to obey her husband, in this case we're not talking about an unbroken heirarchy to God.

In my earlier example of a husband thinking pork was ok and a wife disagreeing due to a differing theological interpretation - the husband is trying to follow God to the best of his understanding. The heirarchy is God -> husband -> wife. By submitting to him she is submitting to God - and if his failed to accurately relay God's commands that is his error, not hers.

But in this case there is no such heirarchy, because the husband is not serving God. The wife is trying to however. So there are two heirarchies: God -> wife, and husband -> wife. The wife is in a position where she must serve two masters, bad as that is, because she cannot serve God through serving her husband.

She is commanded to obey her husband - for a reason. In order to win him to God. So she is actually obeying God first, and obeying the husband solely because God commands her to, and in order to serve God's purposes. And if she were not obeying God first, she would probably not obey her husband either, because secular society does not expect that obedience. So the whole situation comes back to the fact that she is obeying God.

I would say in this case her obligation to God trumps her obligation to her husband. Just as she is trying to win her husband to God, she must try and win her children to God. As part of that, she is to generally obey her husband, because God commands it, but not while trumping other commands of God.
Once the husband does turn to God, and the heirarchy is established, then she should obey her husband even in this, and even if he commands sin, because to submit to him is now to submit to God through him.

That's a tough one. Do you think I'm on the right track?

 

[The Revolting Man]

What verse are you referring to?

You know the one. I’m too lazy to look it up.

 

[The Revolting Man]

To throw a couple more thoughts and questions out there.

What if an unbelieving husband (whether the wife married him as an unbeliever or he turned away from the faith) forbids the wife to teach their children about the Bible/God or biblical morals? Is she supposed to teach them regardless? Or allow her children to be raised with no belief in God?

As someone who's parents separated due to the husband not being 'religious' enough and too worldly this a real scenario dealt with. The above questions are the extreme, but there are many women who would use the excuse of saving their children's souls because their husband is not a good moral and religious example for them to be exposed to as a reason for separation/divorce. This in their mind would trump the staying with the unbelieving husband for his soul, as children come first to them.

The whole issue of where a line is drawn go a wife's obedience to a husband is important to explore. Even if it is not relevant to a believing couple, because the godly husband would 'never' ask his wife to create a grievous sin, it is not right to ignore the extreme cases and where the line may be. You have to be able to teach your children where this line is. They may have to deal with it sometime, God forbid. Also how are we supposed to work towards a Godly society if we cannot counsel others who we come in contact with who ARE dealing with questioning where these lines are? We live in a fallen world and even if we are blessed enough to have godly partners, others around us may not. A lot of pushback that I see about patriarchy and submission come back to these 'extreme, what if' scenarios.

She should obey and trust God. It will work to the good, all things do for those that love Him.

 

[NVIII]

Do you think I'm on the right track?

No, brother, I can't say that I do. A big part of that is because I see it the same as @b_ce said here:

Husband and wife isn't restricted to Christianity alone. The question stands the same.

And here:

anyone married is simply following a blueprint laid out by the creator. In other non western countries they tend to do marriage more biblically, actually. Husbands are still accountable for what they do even if they don't believe what i believe.

Because this is the order that God created and established long before Christ fulfilled the law. And so, when you say this:

in this case we're not talking about an unbroken heirarchy to God

And this:

in this case there is no such heirarchy, because the husband is not serving God. The wife is trying to however. So there are two heirarchies: God -> wife, and husband -> wife. The wife is in a position where she must serve two masters, bad as that is, because she cannot serve God through serving her husband.

I do not believe what follows next can be true so long as it is based on the assumption that the hierarchy is broken for unbelievers. I do believe that her submission to her husband is obedience to God, and in that way she is serving God through her obedience to her husband. Since she was so ordered after the fall, I believe there must be some indemnification for her in seemingly no-win situations, and I believe that indemnification comes through her husband, but only as long as she remains under his authority. I believe if she rebels and steps out, she has lost that covering. I believe that Eve's subjection to Adam was a pseudo-redemption, an image of Christ interceding for the Chruch, taking her guilt upon Himself, and a stripping away of Adam's excuse that she had authority in the matter (God did not call bs on his argument), taking all the responsibility, as well as the authority, and placing it on his shoulders. I believe salvation for our souls came to all the world, and that in Christ there is no male nor female, but in earth the image remains, and Jew, gentile, Christian, or pagan alike still receive blessings if they adhere to it, and curses (their family and eventually their society devolves into feminism and collapses) if they do not.

she is to generally obey her husband, because God commands it, but not while trumping other commands of God.

Because of what I believe, I cannot endorse this. I believe the law was written and given to men to be the bearers and administrators of it in their own homes. I believe a woman may interpret it as she wishes, and may speak about it with her own husband, but she has zero authority to supercede his decisions. If she did have such authority, then he does not have it and he cannot be responsible for her, and so she has lost her covering and we have lost the image of Christ and His Church. I believe that physical harm and even death may occur as a result of not following the law or of others not following it, but that what we suffer in earth is invomparable with the glory that awaits us.

Having said all that, God is merciful, and even in our broken and confused state, He still loves us and will listen to His Son and allow Him to intercede for us on the day of judgment, no matter if we wrongly we should lead our wives this way, or, as for them, if they wrongly thought it was fine to rebel. But I do believe we will suffer the consequences while still in earth. I also believe that having a flawed image of Christ and His Church may lead to difficulty in our understanding of other things as well as in our witness to others.

Perhaps my beliefs can be summarized thus: Woe to the man who leads his wife into breaking the law, for that would be his sin alone, and woe to the wife who does not follow him into it, for that would be her sin alone.

Hope it doesn't seem like I jumped all over you. After you replied I took some time to think about all that had been said and finally reached those conclusions. It's now my conviction.

 

[rockfox]

That’s such an interesting case. I’ve always tended to see it as they lied, but I just reread the story in Genesis 20. Abraham didn’t lie and Sarah didn’t lie. God saved Sarah and blessed Abraham. God threatened Abimelech and told him to ask Abraham to pray for him. Abimelech reproved Sarah, but God didn’t. I don’t know that it really fits as an example in this case, other than to say that Sarah obeyed her husband even when the situation looked bad and God blessed them both.

It may have technically been the truth, but it was deception all the same. And I don't know of any other example in the Bible.

The husband's authority is not absolute. He is not God.

And yet God by his Apostle Paul commanded woman to obey her husband in the same way she does God. Women are easily deceived, 99.999% of the time it's not him commanding her to sin it's her manufacturing sins to excuse rebellion.

If a man has the balls to command his woman to murder someone she'll likely do it. It's the Christian wimps who can't get their women act like a mature adult that have trouble with rebellious women.

If this then is of the same family of deception, the other option, that his covering indemnifies her before God, must be true. Is there any other answer? Otherwise God put her in a defenseless no-win situation, which He has promised He will not do. Her leaving, by the way, is also rebellion.

This is the only answer I've found. Well, she could also get on her knees before him and beg another way, beg forgiveness for her inability to obey him in this matter. But that's not how this goes down with women using 'sinful commands' as an excuse for rebellion. Most of the time their husbands aren't even giving sinful commands, this catch-22 situation is just used as the excuse why they don't have to obey their husband at all unless they feel like it.

So i guess another pertinent question would be, is the woman responsible for her sins? I'd like to know if anyone has any scripture for either side of that case.

There actually is. And this situation is one of the few explanations for a perplexing verse...

1 Timothy 2: In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

Because Eve was deceived she is not to teach (as to dictate what is or is not sin), nor to have dominion over a man (as to dictate to her husband how she shall behave) but rather shall be saved through x,y,z.

However, in the case of a woman who refuses to obey her husband and commit an egregious sin - I am not going to judge her actions and declare that she was wrong, because I recognise the difficulty of her position. Every option she had before her was sinful - to obey was to commit a sin, to disobey was also sinful. Who am I to tell her that obeying and commiting murder was less bad than disobeying? How can I know which sin God would least dislike? Surely that truly would depend on the circumstances - the example you give of a mercy killing for instance being potentially very different from an abortion.

Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. Is the penalty for this sin he commands worse than that for witchcraft?

I have yet to see in women a general wisdom on judging what is justifiable rebellion against their husbands, about what situations are evil enough to warrant divorce. They leave marriage and utterly destroy the lives of their children for the lightest of reasons, frequently not about sin at all; Christian and non-Christian women alike. They are easily deceived. Frankly, if it is so bad she feels it necessary to rebel, tell it to the church, and let the men sort it out.

 

[rockfox]

She is still tied to him in marriage, but she doesn’t really have a husband.

No, she does have a husband, and she is under his law until he dies. This is why Paul commands her NOT to leave and if she does, that she MUST remain single or return. His bad behavior does not justify her leaving; to argue so is the pandora's box of the societal destruction of marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 KJV
[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: [11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Which is not permission to leave. Paul clearly states the Lord commands her not to leave. This passage commands not to leave, it does not grant permission to do so.

What it does do is answer the common situation: if she has left, now what? She is commanded on what to do next so as not to multiply her error.

The problem is many women convince themselves leaving is justified. And their very next action after leaving, is to find another husband. This passage nixes that idea, forcing the women to face the choice of either the rest of her life alone without a man or finding a way to work it out.

What happens when people use this as permission to divorce is the women hear that and then continue following the world's playbook as they monkey branch to the next man.

Marriage is for life.

 

[raulus]

No, she does have a husband, and she is under his law until he dies. This is why Paul commands her NOT to leave and if she does, that she MUST remain single or return. His bad behavior does not justify her leaving; to argue so is the pandora's box of the societal destruction of marriage.


Which is not permission to leave. Paul clearly states the Lord commands her not to leave. This passage commands not to leave, it does not grant permission to do so.

What it does do is answer the common situation: if she has left, now what? She is commanded on what to do next so as not to multiply her error.

The problem is many women convince themselves leaving is justified. And their very next action after leaving, is to find another husband. This passage nixes that idea, forcing the women to face the choice of either the rest of her life alone without a man or finding a way to work it out.

What happens when people use this as permission to divorce is the women hear that and then continue following the world's playbook as they monkey branch to the next man.

Marriage is for life.

I'd like to add to, that before the feminization of the modern world the woman that left, left by herself. It was always considered the man's house. The woman and the kids always belonged to the husband first, and the woman second, if applicable. Biblically too, whenever you read, it is the man's house, children(seed), wives, etc. She'd have to go and carve out a niche of a life for herself if she were to leave, alone. Or unless she went to be with her father or a friend. This is the correct way for a wife to depart.

The stakes are hardly the same today, and the man often loses everything due to rebellious women that leave and go and snitch to the government, seeking to strip the man of everything. Which I can't stand.

I'm sure most of you know this, but I just wanted to throw it out there. Just as a statement, adding on to rockfox for what a good and biblical departure should look like.

 

[NBTX11]

Marriage is for life.

I agree with you, however, what if the woman commits adultery. Can't the man divorce her with a writing of divorcement and send her out of his house? Does he have to remain married to her? Wouldn't it be his choice to divorce her at that point?

Matthew 19
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

 

[NVIII]

I agree with you, however, what if the woman commits adultery. Can't the man divorce her with a writing of divorcement and send her out of his house? Does he have to remain married to her? Wouldn't it be his choice to divorce her at that point?

There is a deep dive into the topic of divorce here: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/one-flesh-is-“marriage”-and-here’s-why.16498/

If you haven't read it, I recommend checking it out. @The Revolting Man set up a good discussion.

 

[NBTX11]

There is a deep dive into the topic of divorce here: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/one-flesh-is-“marriage”-and-here’s-why.16498/

If you haven't read it, I recommend checking it out. @The Revolting Man set up a good discussion.

Thanks, I will read it!

 

[The Revolting Man]

There is a deep dive into the topic of divorce here: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/one-flesh-is-“marriage”-and-here’s-why.16498/

If you haven't read it, I recommend checking it out. @The Revolting Man set up a good discussion.

I need to go back to that. The Jacob thing needs more attention and no one dealt with the contrast of one flesh and divorce and the complete absence of breaking a covenant involved with a divorce.