I don’t want to add fuel to the fire, but it dawned on me that rather than debate the meaning of a word (in this case “serve”) based on our own preconceived notions (which will inevitably vary), we should examine exactly how the term is defined in English and, more importantly, in the context of the original passages. I agree that narrowly defining terms matters, and I wasn’t as specific as I perhaps should have been when I started this thread. So, here’s a little factual info that will hopefully shed some light on the topic for us all...
From what I’ve looked up, all English dictionaries define serve in essentially the same way, which is “to perform services for another.” As many have rightly pointed out, Christ’s servitude was and is, first and foremost, to the Father. The question, then is, did He serve others in any way at all? Of course, all of His service is ultimately for the Father, as all things are for the Father (Rom. 11:36). As husbands, our allegiance is also first and foremost to Christ and the Father, but does that mean we never “serve” others in any sense at all?
Next, let’s closely examine the Greek. Our English Bibles use “serve” or “minister” as the translation of the Greek diakoneō. Strong’s defines the word (G1249) as “to be an attendant, i. e. wait upon (menially or as a host, friend or, figuratively, a teacher).” The context examples, according to Strong’s outline of biblical usage, are to be domestic, to wait upon, to minister to another, to serve food or drink to a guest at a table, to take care of the poor or sick, or to relieve another of burdens (among others).
We don’t have to create our own definition in this case - nor do we in most others - and we should certainly determine our understanding based on what Scripture communicates. Well, it seems to me that the scriptural term the disciples used denotes acting in ways - even domestic at times - to help others in need. Would anyone argue that caring for the poor and sick or feeding another are not examples of service as clearly defined by the original Greek? Those are a couple of the very examples given, and this is the context of the word Christ used when He said He came not to be served but to serve.
So, based on the context of Scripture, it seems that Christ in fact did “serve” others in numerous ways, and well beyond those mentioned in the Concordance. He healed people miraculously, He forgave, He made wine for a wedding celebration, and He ultimately endured unimaginable suffering. Christ did all of this in an absolute sense for the Father, but we benefit immensely. To understand this, you have to first understand absolute versus relative truth - a very important topic deserving of its own lengthy discussion. Not to mention, the Father Himself is in no need of the many blessings Christ bestowed upon others, so to say Christ’s service benefited only the Father drastically misses the mark. The Father doesn’t need fed, doesn’t need His feet washed, doesn’t need provided for, doesn’t need nourished back to health, doesn’t need financial assistance... WE do!
Now, when Christ washed His disciples’ feet as a display of servitude, He informed them that His purpose was to teach them that no servant is greater than his master and that if He could do that for them they should adopt the same mindset toward one another. The act was meant to be instructive and to lead them closer to the Father. So too as husbands, we should teach our wives - through our actions - that while we are the masters of our wives and children, our goal is to bring them closer to the Father. Doing that often requires various acts of service on our part, although this doesn’t mean we serve our wives or children above the Father or Christ!
Several of you have asked for me to clarify my exact stance, and hopefully this post has helped clear things up. In case it hasn’t, I’ll make my understanding plain: we are the masters of our families, and we serve Christ and the Father, first and foremost. Christ is our head, and we are the heads of our families, and our aim has to be to do what they would have us do, not what our wives may prefer we do. Modern feminism is one of the most destructive, godless philosophies to ever plague the human race. To serve our families properly means also serving our wives and even our children in various ways, although this does not mean that our wives are in any way our masters. We work and earn money to provide necessities for our families. Are our wives and children our “masters” because they partake of the things we provide? Are we not serving them in a sense by providing when they are the ones who benefit most from our provision? Rather, it means we care for them in the exact sense of the original Greek by doing things intentionally to draw them closer to the Father, recognizing that they are the weaker vessel. Often times that means leading in ways that cause them fear or any other number of negative emotions, yet we lead with complete allegiance to our Savior and Father above all else, no matter the cost.
For those of you who have taken an unwavering stance on our wives serving us as our helpmeets and us not serving them at all, I have a simple question: Would you then not take care of your sick wife or child? Would you not do the dishes or cook the meals if no one else in the family was capable at a given moment? Would you demand that your wife repair the car if you didn’t feel like it since it’s her job to help you? Would you not change your baby’s diaper if your wife was gone? Remember, Scripture defines Christ’s service in the context of hospitable acts for others, which the Father is in no need of Himself and which benefit us, so you would most certainly be “serving” your wives in such cases.
I’m so confident you would all be borderline offended by this simple question that I’d suggest the real issue in this discussion is much deeper than I originally intended. The issue clearly isn’t so much about service; rather, it’s about delineating proper marital roles and our function within them, as well as fighting against the wicked feminist ideology of husbands being subordinate to their wives, which tears families apart. I would hope that everyone on this forum recognizes that husbands are the heads of their families and that we ultimately serve Christ and the Father above all others, and this truth is one I am incredibly passionate about. We act in service every day to our wives in multiple ways, based on the biblical definition of the word, but that does not mean we are their servants in the absolute sense. We are servants of Christ; but just as Christ served the Father by often performing acts of service that directly benefit us, we serve Christ by often providing acts of service for our families.
One last point (and I know this post is a bit long)... the dynamics of marriage and family become far more complex with two wives than one, and I imagine the level of complexity would increase exponentially beyond that with a third wife added. I joke with friends that I went from having one wife to two but the complexity factor quadrupled rather than doubled. To be a successful husband to more than one wife requires patience and an ongoing willingness to not be rigid in your thinking. We can’t sacrifice fundamental truths or give up our devotion to the proper hierarchy, but acting like a tyrant won’t get you very far. Furthermore (and this should go without saying), no one can fully understand or appreciate the dynamic of having more than one wife without actually experiencing it. I’m not at all implying that I have all the answers. Yes, I lead a successful plural family, but I have many flaws - just ask my wives! My thoughts are intended only to be helpful, and I hope this clarifies where I stand in terms of my views.
