Christ Came NOT to be Served

[ostephenu]

As a husband, I often have to remind myself that I represent Christ to my wives (Eph. 5:23-33). That can get very complicated, but the confusion turns into simplicity when I remind myself that I am to reflect Christ in the most basic sense. Just as Christ simplified the many (roughly 613) mitzvah of the Mosaic Law by stating that the entire Law is summed up in the commandments to love the LORD and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:37-40, Gal. 5:14), the primary job of husbands can be boiled down to the fundamentals of Christ’s dealings with believers. At the root of everything, that boils down to two basic tasks: service and sacrifice.

Matthew, Mark and John recount Jesus’ plain statement that He came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom. He states His primary purpose plainly, and that purpose is centered upon service and sacrifice.

Do we not, as the God-ordained leaders of our families, often succumb to the notion that our wives really exist to serve us as our helpmeets and that we shouldn’t need to sacrifice as much as we often have to? Remember that Jesus was the Messiah of an historically rebellious and stiff-necked people who ultimately killed Him, and yet He pleaded with His Father to forgive them even while He was dying and had just endured the most torturous pain and humiliation imaginable.

Living up to that example is unbelievably difficult, to say the least; yet it’s our calling as husbands and it’s all the more important for husbands of multiple wives. We shouldn’t beat ourselves up for failing to meet that goal (which we often won’t - even Paul gave in to the flesh more often than spirit after being personally taught by the resurrected Savior), but it helps to remember that the overwhelming responsibility we bear can be simplified to a more manageable degree.

Dwell on the two fundamentals of service and sacrifice, which by nature both defy selfishness, and you’ll be poised to be a good leader to your wives and children.

 

[Keith Martin]

Excellent, @ostephenu!

I'd just add a couple thoughts (neither of which mean that anything was missing from what you wrote):

1. Isn't it perhaps the case that the second most effective path as a husband to inspire submission (after modeling his own submission to Christ) is to demonstrate commitment to maximizing the well-being of one's wives?
2. I've always loved the Concordant Literal New Testament's translation of Matthew 22:39: "Love your associate as you would love yourself." In other words, treat everyone with whom you associate as you would want to be treated -- and certainly our wives should be at the very top of our list of those with whom we associate.

 

[ostephenu]

Excellent, @ostephenu!

I'd just add a couple thoughts (neither of which mean that anything was missing from what you wrote):

1. Isn't it perhaps the case that the most effective path as a husband to inspire submission is to demonstrate commitment to maximizing the well-being of one's wives?
2. I've always loved the Concordant Literal New Testament's translation of Matthew 22:39: "Love your associate as you would love yourself." In other words, treat everyone with whom you associate as you would want to be treated -- and certainly our wives should be at the very top of our list of those with whom we associate.

Yes, exactly. Commitment to maximizing another’s well-being requires continual service and sacrifice. In reality, treating others (including even our wives) as we want to be treated is a tall order and one we’re likely to fail at pretty often. I always have to remind myself that, generally speaking, Christ and the Father made it a point to give commandments for and remind us of goals that are difficult, not easy.

 

[rockfox]

Isn't it perhaps the case that the most effective path as a husband to inspire submission is to demonstrate commitment to maximizing the well-being of one's wives?

Nope. The most effective path is to live out radical submission to Christ; a path which is likely to harm one's material well-being and at times be challenging to ones spiritual well-being (purifying fire and all that) though to it's ultimate benefit.

 

[ostephenu]

Nope. The most effective path is to live out radical submission to Christ; a path which is likely to harm one's material well-being and at times be challenging to ones spiritual well-being (purifying fire and all that) though to it's ultimate benefit.

I don’t think Keith was implying that we should put our wives above Christ. I assume that is a given in his mind, as he knows it’s something we (hopefully) all agree on. I understood his comment as simply an encouragement to be Christ-like by prioritizing the well-being of our wives. And you’re certainly correct in pointing out that radical submission to Christ inevitably leads to multiple hardships, which is guaranteed in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:12).

 

[The Revolting Man]

As a husband, I often have to remind myself that I represent Christ to my wives (Eph. 5:23-33). That can get very complicated, but the confusion turns into simplicity when I remind myself that I am to reflect Christ in the most basic sense. Just as Christ simplified the many (roughly 613) mitzvah of the Mosaic Law by stating that the entire Law is summed up in the commandments to love the LORD and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:37-40, Gal. 5:14), the primary job of husbands can be boiled down to the fundamentals of Christ’s dealings with believers. At the root of everything, that boils down to two basic tasks: service and sacrifice.

Matthew, Mark and John recount Jesus’ plain statement that He came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom. He states His primary purpose plainly, and that purpose is centered upon service and sacrifice.

Do we not, as the God-ordained leaders of our families, often succumb to the notion that our wives really exist to serve us as our helpmeets and that we shouldn’t need to sacrifice as much as we often have to? Remember that Jesus was the Messiah of an historically rebellious and stiff-necked people who ultimately killed Him, and yet He pleaded with His Father to forgive them even while He was dying and had just endured the most torturous pain and humiliation imaginable.

Living up to that example is unbelievably difficult, to say the least; yet it’s our calling as husbands and it’s all the more important for husbands of multiple wives. We shouldn’t beat ourselves up for failing to meet that goal (which we often won’t - even Paul gave in to the flesh more often than spirit after being personally taught by the resurrected Savior), but it helps to remember that the overwhelming responsibility we bear can be simplified to a more manageable degree.

Dwell on the two fundamentals of service and sacrifice, which by nature both defy selfishness, and you’ll be poised to be a good leader to your wives and children.

Not one word of this screed is true, well maybe one but definitely not two. I am aghast at the otherwise intelligent people who liked it.

Christ is not and never has been our servant. His purpose was not and never has been to serve us.

We are His servants, literally bondservants. We’re told He has bought us. He owns us on the deepest level. We are to serve Him. To suggest anything else is a lunacy that borders on heresy.

We are called to sacrifice all, endure even torture, rather than deny Him. We are called to complete obedience. What you are suggest is the vilest of an insidious feminism, at the bare minimum.

If you think your main job is to serve your wives then I pity them. If you think that Jesus’ main role was to serve you then you should not be attempting to teach anyone anything.

You are called to represent Christ to your wives, but not simpering weakling you think He is but rather the conquering King of Revelation 19:11-16. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and take care that those you’re in charge of don’t recognize him because of your portrayal of our Savior as a base sugar daddy a neutered Santa Claus.

 

[ostephenu]

The very example Paul gives in Ephesians 5:25-28 of how to be godly husbands is Christ’s sacrifice in giving Himself up for us. Every believer knows we have been bought by Christ and are now servants (slaves) to righteousness, but our marriage(s) will be fraught with hardship if we don’t have a desire to, and understand the importance of, serving our wives and sacrificing for them. Servitude does not mean submission, as we can serve others without submitting to them; rather, it denotes care.

I serve and sacrifice for my wives every day in numerous ways that many would consider typical and take for granted (working to earn an income as a provider being a big one). We’re also called to contribute to the needs of the saints (Rom. 5), but this certainly isn’t a command to place fellow believers above Christ!

I strongly encourage any husband who holds the view that his wife/wives exist solely to serve him to abandon that view in favor of the Scriptural one that was plainly established by Christ and reinforced by Paul. Believe me - your marriage(s) will drastically improve when you adopt a servant’s heart and exemplify Christ.

 

[Keith Martin]

Not one word of this screed is true, well maybe one but definitely not two. I am aghast at the otherwise intelligent people who liked it.

Christ is not and never has been our servant. His purpose was not and never has been to serve us.

We are His servants, literally bondservants. We’re told He has bought us. He owns us on the deepest level. We are to serve Him. To suggest anything else is a lunacy that borders on heresy.

We are called to sacrifice all, endure even torture, rather than deny Him. We are called to complete obedience. What you are suggest is the vilest of an insidious feminism, at the bare minimum.

If you think your main job is to serve your wives then I pity them. If you think that Jesus’ main role was to serve you then you should not be attempting to teach anyone anything.

You are called to represent Christ to your wives, but not simpering weakling you think He is but rather the conquering King of Revelation 19:11-16. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and take care that those you’re in charge of don’t recognize him because of your portrayal of our Savior as a base sugar daddy a neutered Santa Claus.

OK, @The Revolting Man, your post qualifies for my biggest belly laugh of the day award, so thanks first off for inspiring that for me today. I do understand, after knowing you as long as I have, exactly where you're coming from, but don't forget that @ostephenu doesn't yet know you and therefore hasn't had enough experience with you to know when you've gone into hyperbolic overdrive. Your points are well taken, but I believe you're also a tad guilty of over-interpreting much of what @ostephenu wrote. He's not pointing toward some kind of feminism but just toward recognizing that, as members of the Body of Christ, we're all exhorted to serve each other. And if we're going to serve each other, then who other than our wives would be at the top of our service recipient list? (After Christ, of course.) Nowhere did @ostephenu suggest that it was supposed to be a one-way ass-kissing street from husbands to wives (aka feminism).

You and I don't always see eye to eye, but you and I are both light years from promoting feminism, and I can promise you that is the case with @ostephenu as well.

But that line about a neutered Santa Claus almost inspired pants-wetting. Just the image of a world with a neutered Santa Claus -- my goodness, if he were neutered, how would he ever be able to get anything done, given that it would have prevented him from siring all those elves with the reindeer?

 

[ostephenu]

Your points are well taken, but I believe you're also a tad guilty of over-interpreting much of what @ostephenu wrote. He's not pointing toward some kind of feminism but just toward recognizing that, as members of the Body of Christ, we're all exhorted to serve each other.

You and I don't always see eye to eye, but you and I are both light years from promoting feminism, and I can promise you that is the case with @ostephenu as well.

I’m the least feminist person most people would ever meet. Thank you, @Keith Martin, for reinforcing that fact. You know me well!

 

[Keith Martin]

Nope. The most effective path is to live out radical submission to Christ; a path which is likely to harm one's material well-being and at times be challenging to ones spiritual well-being (purifying fire and all that) though to it's ultimate benefit.

I don’t think Keith was implying that we should put our wives above Christ. I assume that is a given in his mind, as he knows it’s something we (hopefully) all agree on. I understood his comment as simply an encouragement to be Christ-like by prioritizing the well-being of our wives. And you’re certainly correct in pointing out that radical submission to Christ inevitably leads to multiple hardships, which is guaranteed in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:12).

You are both correct about me. @ostephenu is correct that I'm not implying that we should put our wives above Christ, but @rockfox, you are correct that, minus the assumption @ostephenu mentions, it would be easy to conclude that I had done just what you confronted.

Please note that I have already amended my earlier post to reflect my desire to be correct according to your admonition.

Now I'm going to risk further embroiling this particular concept by asserting that we and @The Revolting Man are all more correct than we realize in what we've been writing: isn't it the case that perhaps one of the most effective paths to inspiring submission in our wives is to submit to Christ's exhortation that we treat others as we would have ourselves be treated, including being in service (as opposed to being in submission) to our wives. @rockfox, you're the only one in the group I don't know personally, i.e. face-to-face, but if it were the case that you're not serving your wife according to @ostephenu's definition, then I'd be surprised that you were the exception to the rule, especially given that Mrs. Rockfox has already testified on this site that you are a mightily awesome and attentive husband.

 

[ostephenu]

Christ is not and never has been our servant. His purpose was not and never has been to serve us.

One last point on this, @The Revolting Man, because I was surprised to read these couple sentences you wrote. Christ stated Himself that He came not to be served, but to serve. Three of the gospel accounts record His words. That, of course, was spoken prior to His crucifixion and resurrection, after which point He ascended and has since been given the titles you rightly mentioned. I don’t know you, but I trust that your words in this context were meant to describe the ultimate truth of Christ (that He is ultimately the King of kings and Lord of lords), not to deny the words that He Himself spoke.

But, is it not His service and sacrifice for us that cause us to now love and praise Him? It is precisely His service and sacrifice that we praise and which, in large part, make Him worthy of it. We praise Him because He “bought” us, as you rightly stated, and that purchase came at an immense cost - so immense that He pleaded with the Father to not have to endure it, if possible.

One could argue that we should praise Christ even if He didn’t die and conquer death for us, but that’s not what the apostles taught. Their entire message (the “good news” gospel message) was centered upon what Christ did, which was rooted in selfless service and sacrifice and makes Him worthy of our total devotion. He’s counted worthy primarily because of what He has accomplished for our sake (Rev. 5:9).

Christ’s service and sacrifice are the defining traits that led to His glory and are deserving of our praise, and they had to happen first for us as the recipients to now respond (with the measure of faith granted us by the Father).

I would argue that the exact same formula pertains to our marriages. As the representatives of Christ, we husbands lead in demonstrating service and sacrifice, and our wives subsequently respond to that. Christ gave us a mind-blowing reason to follow and praise Him, and our wives are not likely to submit to us or respect us if we don’t lead with a selfless example that demonstrates our love. That, of course, begins with our complete devotion to Christ, apart from which we could never properly lead.

 

[steve]

The word “serve” means different things to different people. As always, the devil is in the details.
I am a servant of Yeshua, and in that context do I serve others as appropriate.

Yeshua washed his disciples feet once, to shame them. To portray him as continually being their servant would miss the mark. He led in service to his Father. That is our example.

 

[Pacman]

I strongly encourage any husband who holds the view that his wife/wives exist solely to serve him to abandon that view in favor of the Scriptural one that was plainly established by Christ and reinforced by Paul. Believe me - your marriage(s) will drastically improve when you adopt a servant’s heart and exemplify Christ.

Having met you and witnessed your interactions with your women I know that you are not a feminist or egalitarian. However I disagree with you on this point. The vast majority of men are not suffering from what you are pointing out here. The vast majority of men are suffering from a radical feminist understanding of marriage. Most need to be taught that they are the master of the home and that they should start acting like it. Most do not have the authoritarian dictator mindset that you are (poorly) speaking against.

Yeshua is my master. YHWH is Yeshua's master and I am my woman's master. YHWH and Yeshua both demand 100% obedience and submission. And yes they also protect and provide as they see fit.

 

[The Revolting Man]

One last point on this, @The Revolting Man, because I was surprised to read these couple sentences you wrote. Christ stated Himself that He came not to be served, but to serve. Three of the gospel accounts record His words. That, of course, was spoken prior to His crucifixion and resurrection, after which point He ascended and has since been given the titles you rightly mentioned. I don’t know you, but I trust that your words in this context were meant to describe the ultimate truth of Christ (that He is ultimately the King of kings and Lord of lords), not to deny the words that He Himself spoke.

But, is it not His service and sacrifice for us that cause us to now love and praise Him? It is precisely His service and sacrifice that we praise and which, in large part, make Him worthy of it. We praise Him because He “bought” us, as you rightly stated, and that purchase came at an immense cost - so immense that He pleaded with the Father to not have to endure it, if possible.

One could argue that we should praise Christ even if He didn’t die and conquer death for us, but that’s not what the apostles taught. Their entire message (the “good news” gospel message) was centered upon what Christ did, which was rooted in selfless service and sacrifice and makes Him worthy of our total devotion. He’s counted worthy primarily because of what He has accomplished for our sake (Rev. 5:9).

Christ’s service and sacrifice are the defining traits that led to His glory and are deserving of our praise, and they had to happen first for us as the recipients to now respond (with the measure of faith granted us by the Father).

I would argue that the exact same formula pertains to our marriages. As the representatives of Christ, we husbands lead in demonstrating service and sacrifice, and our wives subsequently respond to that. Christ gave us a mind-blowing reason to follow and praise Him, and our wives are not likely to submit to us or respect us if we don’t lead with a selfless example that demonstrates our love. That, of course, begins with our complete devotion to Christ, apart from which we could never properly lead.

You are confusing terms and concepts and cross pollinating ideas you don’t understand. Christ served in a post, a position, and He served sacrificially, but He did not serve us. At lest not in any sort of way that you’re implying, like He was a butler or something. I’ll go in to why more later.

 

[ostephenu]

You are confusing terms and concepts and cross pollinating ideas you don’t understand. Christ served in a post, a position, and He served sacrificially, but He did not serve us. At lest not in any sort of way that you’re implying, like He was a butler or something. I’ll go in to why more later.

Nothing could be more foreign to my understanding than Christ serving as a “butler.”

 

[ostephenu]

The vast majority of men are suffering from a radical feminist understanding of marriage. Most need to be taught that they are the master of the home and that they should start acting like it.

Yeshua is my master. YHWH is Yeshua's master and I am my woman's master.

I agree with both of these statements.

 

[FollowingHim]

Although the majority of husbands in the world have the problem of being too feminist, the minority who have the problem of being more authoritarian are far more likely to consider polygamy (most of the feminist ones wouldn't dare). So, in this particular ministry, both problems turn up with fairly similar frequency, and it's reasonable to address both.

 

[rockfox]

Servitude does not mean submission, as we can serve others without submitting to them; rather, it denotes care.

Christian men are commonly taught servant leadership and the details of that service does amount to their submission to their wives. Care is not service. Service generally implies labor for ones superior. When you talk of men serving their wives and how their wives are not here to serve them, it is hard not to read that as flipping the hierarchy.

Men serve Christ, they serve their mission, they serve by leading. They don't serve their wives.

This is the same problem with @Keith Martin's "maximizing the well-being of one's wives". What does that mean? It could mean a lot of things good and bad. But your average Christian will read that as support for their insistence that anyone not providing their wife a comfortable upper middle class life is sinning. As @steve says, the devil is in the details.

 

[Keith Martin]

This is the same problem with @Keith Martin's "maximizing the well-being of one's wives". What does that mean? It could mean a lot of things good and bad. But your average Christian will read that as support for their insistence that anyone not providing their wife a comfortable upper middle class life is sinning. As @steve says, the devil is in the details.

@rockfox, I think that anyone who believes that the average Christian is their audience here on Biblical Families Dot Org is seriously delusional. I believe that, despite our many differences here, the men in this group have some shared assumptions (e.g., seeing the evils of feminism) that are in play every time I post something. So I don't give a s*** how the average Christian would interpret what I'm writing; I'm having faith that we here generally see what would maximize the well-being of our wives in very similar ways. You create a red herring when you argue against something that isn't being asserted. The original point here is about how to foster a successful marriage, most especially in the context of plural marriage, and @ostephenu is simply sharing his viewpoint that is not only based on his own success but that has been requested from him because people are sincerely interested in what it is that makes his family work so well. Therefore, the point of this discussion is what works in a functional way and is not just yet another opportunity to soapbox about the dangers that we might all be falling into feminist traps.

I simply do not worry about anyone casually dropping into Biblical Families Dot Org and getting the wrong impression. First of all, I'm not defensive about being in favor of patriarchy. Secondly, it's nowhere near the top of my priority list that I have to make sure everyone knows that I would never foster a pro-feminist atmosphere in my home. Thirdly, I can't even imagine that any casual drop-in to this web site could fail to comprehend within an hour of reading things here that feminist approaches are the opposite of welcome. Therefore, your insistence on grinding your axes about the possibility that we're going to risk coming off as pro-feminist only comes across to me as distracting straw-man virtue signaling.

The Devil can actually very often be in the details of the interpretations one manufactures in one's own mind.

 

[FollowingHim]

The original point here is about how to foster a successful marriage, most especially in the context of plural marriage, and @ostephenu is simply sharing his viewpoint that is not only based on his own success but that has been requested from him because people are sincerely interested in what it is that makes his family work so well. Therefore, the point of this discussion is what works in a functional way

Exactly.

In my observation, those who are successful are those who can find the correct application of "love your wives", and properly understand what that means - how to apply it correctly, how not to apply it incorrectly. There's a band of behaviour here that is sensible and reasonable, and bands of behaviour each side of that (both totalitarian and feminist) that are incorrect and destructive. It is that sensible middle ground that we should be finding, and I appreciate @ostephenu's perspective on finding and operating within that.

The monogamists here (including myself) can head off into rants on our own personal pet peeves, but it's far more useful to hear how successful polygamists manage to be successful. I really want threads like this to stand as advice that others can read and learn from, not be waylaid into unnecessary arguments over words.

This:

Servitude does not mean submission, as we can serve others without submitting to them; rather, it denotes care.

Care is not service. Service generally implies labor for ones superior.

Is nitpicking over words. I think it's very clear exactly what @ostephenu is talking about in practical, real terms. Arguing over whether that should be called "submission" or "servitude" or "care" or whatever is a pointless waste of time. What matters is what he means - and that's very clear from his statements taken in their entirety.