The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule

[windblown]

However, submission is always willing. A wife is always able to rebel. Even if there are only two choices, between obedience and disobedience with negative consequences - she can still choose the second option. It's not about forcing women to obey - it's about setting the direction, setting the parameters, and desiring willing submission.

Thank you, FH. That's what I tried to infer with Jesus' example. Of course, we have free will. But I highly doubt deciding whether to submit or rebel are truly "free" choices. Both have myriad factors which sway heavily from one side to the other.

Force---to make someone do something against their will. Again, the very definition of submission....doing something against your will. How else would actual submission be achieved??

 

[windblown]

I further assume that embracing submission wasn't something that was second nature to you but a path that you embarked upon because, in the very intense dance between your female nature and the particular nature of your husband's maleness, you became convinced that submission on your part was, among other things, the very thing that would bring out the best in your husband's potential headship.

I doubt it's second nature to anyone, although some of us may be naturally more head strong than others. You know, all those pesky laws Paul described in Romans. I wish it was as spiritually profound as the way you describe. Lol. Basically, it's "well, I don't want 50 years of hell, so...."

I find it fascinating that the flip side of the "free will" conversation is that once we accept Christ we then become slaves to Him. He is most definitely the Master and Ruler to which we now must learn how to not only submit completely to His will but eventually learn to conform our will to His.

 

[Nikud]

Your contention seems to be that all application of the term rule is negative therfore we should not rule our wives. I disagree.

Thats not what I'm saying I'm saying we are told not to seek the rule others. G-d stated in first Samuel. His intention was for Him to rule us. We rejected Him. Man chose mortal rulers. So mans authority to rule anyone is not of G-ds design.

Gen 24:2 Now Abraham was old, advanced in years, and Adonai blessed Abraham in everything. 2 Then Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household who managed everything that belonged to him, “Now put your hand under my thigh, 3 so that I may make you take an oath by Adonai, the G-d of heaven and the G-d of earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from among the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I am dwelling.

Whos authority was the oath made by?

Gen 41:43 Then he had him ride in the chariot as second-in-command, the one that belonged to him, and they called out before him, “Kneel down!” So he appointed him over the whole land of Egypt.

Joesph authority was not his own. He did not rule. This is shows neither positive or negative aspects of rule. The Jews were saved from starvation by his delgated postion of authority that G-d made possible.

Gen 43:16 16 When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the one over his house, “Bring the men into the house. Slaughter an animal and prepare it, for the men will eat with me this afternoon.

This is also does not shows the positive or negative aspects of rule. Are you trying to say a wife is a husbands servant? You can't be a servant G-d and money but you can serve two master who rule over you?

Gen 45:8 So now, it wasn’t you, you didn’t send me here, but God! And He made me as a father to Pharaoh, lord over his whole house and ruler over the entire land of Egypt.

Joesph giving credit to G-d. Stating by who's authority he lead. Your assuming because it says lord he ruled, but he was a servant of the ruler. He did not rule.

Exodus 18:21 But you should seek out capable men out of all the people—men who fear G-d, men of truth, who hate bribery. Appoint them to be rulers over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

Pronounce: sar

Strong: H8269

Orig: from 8323; a head person (of any rank or class):--captain (that had rule), chief (captain), general, governor, keeper, lord, ((-task- ))master, prince(-ipal), ruler, steward

Exodus 24:31 only has 15 verses.

Prov 17:2 A wise servant will rule over a disgraceful son and will share the inheritance with the brothers

A moral lesson or religious allegory, called a nimshal. This isn't about ruling your brother or taking your brothers inheritance, its about helping your brother get right will G-d, glorifying Him and sharing in the inheritance of G-d.

Isaiah 32:1 Behold, a king will reign in righteousness
and princes will rule in justice.

This is prophecy which also needs to be looked at in content of what is being said, what is being phropecied and remember that it might not apply to us. There is contention about if it is about Yeshua and the apostles or the millennial kingdom. So how are you applying this to a husband's right to rule?

Matthew 24:45-47 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master put in charge of his household to give them food at the proper time? 46 Blessed is that servant whose master finds him so doing when he comes. 47 Amen, I tell you, his master will put him in charge of all his possessions.

Delegated authority not rulership.

Matthew 25:21-23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You were faithful with a little, so I’ll put you in charge of much. Enter into your master’s joy!’

22 “The one who had received the two talents also came up and said, ‘Master, you handed me two talents. Look, I’ve gained two more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You were faithful with a little, so I’ll put you in charge of much. Enter into your master’s joy!’

Example of good stewardship.

Luke 12:42-44 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their food portion at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whose master finds him so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I tell you, his master will put him in charge of all his possessions.

Great example of someone being rewarded for leading acording to G-ds will/rule.

The rest are the same. Results G-ds rulership, yes man's leadership by G-ds rule, yes. Man th I king he has the right to rule......pride.

 

[andrew]

This idea that men shouldn't 'pay attention' to the passages instructing women to submit is just a passive aggressive way of telling men not to confront their rebellious wives. I'm sure they'd deny that; hence the passive aggressive part.

ROFL! (We need a good laughing-so-hard-I'm-crying emoji....)

The only thing "passive-aggressive" going on here is your chronic refusal to actually engage the text of scripture or the things that are actually said in this thread, because you're so busy running around waving your arms yelling "the feminists are coming" and trying to change the subject.

Nobody said we shouldn't pay attention to what wives are taught, nobody's saying we shouldn't teach our wives. Try again.

 

[andrew]

Pacman, it's because I believe you are sincere that I am spending a lot of time on this. If you ever feel I am badgering you or just arguing for argument's sake, just let me know and I'll cheerfully leave you alone. Otherwise, I'm in it for as long as you are.

Weather we are to rule them or not is the purpose of the thread.

Well, yes and no. The original purpose of the thread was to propose a logical equivalence between the written biblical instruction ("call") to love our wives and an implied "call to rule" our wives. Since then (during which time you've conceded that maybe that wasn't the best way to get into this topic), we've been all over the map, and even off the map for some of us. We've clearly established that there's a strong difference of opinion here about the wisdom and/or the scriptural basis for husbands thinking of themselves as "rulers" of their wives; there's not going to be a convergence here, and this thread is not going to determine "whether we are to rule them or not" to everyone's satisfaction. So what would you like to get out of this conversation at this point?

However imo there is no debate about the fact that we are to teach our wives the scriptures.

None whatsoever. That's not just your opinion; that is easily supported through a handful of scriptures and simple practical wisdom. I'll even stipulate it's implied in the concept of "headship". Can't imagine why anyone would want to argue about that.

Including the parts that instruct her how to behave toward us.

Takes about five minutes for any female over the age of about 6. "The bible says wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. Says so here, here, and here." Done.

So I will also be paying close attention to those passages as well.

After you've paid close attention to and absorbed the lessons from the passages that are actually directed at you, I'd say pay close attention to whatever floats your boat. Otherwise you're giving in to simple human nature that would always rather talk about someone else's problems than our own; it merely distracts us from the real work we're 'called' to do. Don't be the "let me help you with your speck" guy; be the "I'm working on my beam" guy. Keith captures the sense of that in parts of his testimony above.

And I think every Christian should pay close attention to all of scripture.

Here I think you're just being pious. Obviously at some level every follower of Christ should care about and pay close attention to everything in the scriptures. No argument there either, stated as a sort of un-profound fact of discipleship. I was talking about priorities, though, and all of us as simple-minded, time-bound human creatures have to make decisions about where to focus our sorely limited attention spans. Personally, I'm a big fan of the MYOB rule; I find it a great simplifier of priorities. YMMV.

Anyway, brother, this is your thread, so again, what are you hoping to see here at this point?

 

[Pacman]

Reminder, just in case: Nothing I've said should be taken as a criticism of how you and your wife manage your relationship (or your 'dance', as Keith would say), about which I actually know very little. We are just a couple of guys talking in general terms about how to apply scripture to our lives. That's all.

I have not taken anything as criticism and I think you have brought up some very good points. Honestly this thread has definitely been beneficial to me and I have enjoyed digging deeper into the scriptures with everyone involved.

 

[Pacman]

Here I think you're just being pious.

Not intentionally I am aware that it was an obvious statement. I apologize if it came across as pious.

 

[Pacman]

Takes about five minutes for any female over the age of about 6. "The bible says wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. Says so here, here, and here." Done.

I agree that it should but based on my observations of most marriages or even daughters treatment of dad very few are teaching it. And very few women are living it.

 

[andrew]

Not intentionally I am aware that it was an obvious statement. I apologize if it came across as pious.

No worries, and to be clear it wasn't meant as a criticism or putdown, just an observation re a very human tendency to sort of 'state the obvious'.

I agree that it should but based on my observations of most marriages or even daughters treatment of dad very few are teaching it. And very few women are living it.

Well, then would you also agree that the issue really isn't "teaching" our wives about submission, since the plain doctrine is basically self-evident from scripture? Any woman who cares enough about following Christ to read the bible every once in awhile is going to trip over this eventually, and it can certainly be brought to her attention in the meantime, right? So again, I'll stipulate that 'teaching' is implied in 'headship', but I don't think that's really what's driving this conversation....

 

[Pacman]

Anyway, brother, this is your thread, so again, what are you hoping to see here at this point?

How about we talk practical application. I gave a simplistic example earlier about finances and also described "force"

The use of consequences (or the threat of consequences) to compel obedience. I gave an example earlier about financial wisdom. Obviously there are clear limits to the consequences. Nothing abusive either emotionally or physically. And as I have been discussing with @Kevin the authority is not absolute and is deligated by God and must be kept within the boundaries of scripture regarding love and such...

@Keith Martin gave what I thought was a good example of consequences as well.

When my wife goes through a period of reluctance to address the problems between us, I put agreeing to fund or participate in unnecessary activities on hold as well.

What do you think a husband could do or should do to deal with things? Are you in favor of any consequences?

 

[Pacman]

Perhaps we can have a parallel conversation I don't recall anyone other than @ZecAustin responding to this claim.

We also see the word married found in several places throughout the old testament actually means:
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Definition
to marry, rule over, possess, own
(Qal)
to marry, be lord (husband) over
to rule over
(Niphal) to be married

I'm curious the about the Hebrew definition of the word "baal" translated into English as married in some places in the old testament. What do your study resources say? For example:

Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

 

[Keith Martin]

You answered your own question sir.

Question:

If a husband gives a directive to his wife, and then if the wife refuses to comply, what power would that husband actually be able to use to force compliance? What could he possibly do to force her into doing what he wanted her to do?

Answer:

When my wife goes through a period of reluctance to address the problems between us, I put agreeing to fund or participate in unnecessary activities on hold as well. The only decision I'm making is to refrain from making a decision or from granting my approval. Sometimes leadership requires standing firm or retreating -- ruling would assert that those under my authority should be required to behave in a way that I determine.

But, @Pacman, I didn't come close to answering my actual questions. This entire discussion is centered around the crucial importance of choosing the right words to describe what we're doing or what we're trying to accomplish. Words mean things. It matters what words we use, so I request that you re-read my question(s), and then read what you mistakenly took to be an answer to those questions, because the words 'consequence' and 'punishment' are distinctly different, as are the words 'reaction' and 'rule' or 'lead' and 'rule.' Please bear with me as I repeat my questions:

If a husband gives a directive to his wife, and then if the wife refuses to comply, what power would that husband actually be able to use to force compliance? What could he possibly do to force her into doing what he wanted her to do?
​

If you take my statement out of the context of the entire post it does not completely explain the point I am making.

Agreed.

In the 'answer' quote of mine you pulled out of an earlier post to address the 'question' post I wrote later, I mentioned behaviors I chose to exhibit or not exhibit in response to Kristin's reluctance. In a sense, my response was a consequence in reaction to Kristin's reluctance, but this is every important to recognize: I have no power to force Kristin to stop being reluctant or to submit to me in general. I have power over my own behavior, but I have no power over Kristin's behavior, and, while I agree that isolated Bible verses exist that hint that there might be some way that husbands have the power to rule their wives, in my nine times reading the Old and New straight through and countless other biblical studies throughout the years I have never come across scriptures that either confirm the hints about ruling or describe how on Earth a husband would implement such a thing. I wouldn't even want the power to force Kristin to comply, but it doesn't really matter whether I want that power or don't want that power, because I cannot make her comply with my wishes. Submission is voluntary; otherwise it is something akin to or worse than slavery.

Based on the description you just gave "putting agreement on hold" is the consequences you have chosen to use in order to compel the behavior you expect from her. This is actually a very good example of what I am talking about. It may well be that we are simply defining the word rule differently. Having the power does not necessarily mean that you use the power. I contend that all husbands have the power but few use it ever. Some who do use it also abuse it. Some have actually used it the right way within the context of love and the results are amazing.

Pacman, you have made similar comments to a number of us, just within this particular forum thread. I believe there is some truth to the sentiment that we might just be defining the word 'rule' differently -- but the problem with that is two-fold: (a) you continue to dispute the explanations given to you by the people you assert you might just have definitional differences with, and (b) again, words mean things, and 'rule' simply does not mean 'lead' or 'be the head of;' it means 'have authority over and control of.' We cannot justify using proof texting with isolated pieces of verses to create a compelling case that Scripture asserts anywhere that wives are forced or can be forced to submit to the will of their husbands. We can't make wives comply with our every wish, even when those wishes are laudable or righteous. Heck, we can't require our wives to read Scripture, much less absorb the parts we want them to absorb or comply with the parts we want them to comply with. When it comes down to it, we can't even require that our wives believe anything we think they should believe.

I want to backtrack a bit on this last point, though, before closing, because there is one more point I feel like I'd be remiss about if I failed to make it: I do recognize that you are very actively and passionately engaged in this discussion, and I applaud and honor you for hanging in there despite the somewhat contentious nature of such a discussion. And, while I don't think you and I yet have the same definitions of some fairly basic words, I do simply assume that you're not only sincere about thinking we might just be caught up in having different word definitions but are at the very least on the path to common ground. However . . . when I write, and even when I write in direct response to statements you in particular have made, I am never (in a public forum) writing just to you; I am always very mindful that I'm writing, first of all, to anyone in the Biblical Families community who might drop by, and, secondly and more pointedly, to others involved in this discussion who have made it abundantly clear that they are actively defending taking a ruling approach to their wives to a greater degree than you have.

I'll end by inserting the following, which is an eloquent example of Andrew getting at the very crux of the matter in three short sentences what would have taken me at minimum three long paragraphs to articulate:

Ladies, if you want to know what love is (why do I hear music?...[Because Foreigner is playing ...]), get your submission on. Men, if you want to see your wives willingly submit without force or compulsion, get your love on. It really is that simple.

Spot on!

I couldn't improve on your comment. Absolutely. "Spot on!" And in those three sentences, Andrew has nailed why we're to lead rather than to attempt to rule.

And it has nothing to do with polygamy.

 

[Keith Martin]

How long and in what circumstances is a woman required to submit to a jerk (dictator) and in what circumstances does a loving king give an ultimatum, without becoming a dictator, or losing his kingship in the process?

GREAT question!

 

[Keith Martin]

The use of consequences (or the threat of consequences) to compel obedience.

This definition you've given for 'force' is an example of what I was describing earlier. We have the power to control our own behavior. We can even threaten our wives with consequences, but we would be hard put to be able to compel obedience. God is our ruler, so He can compel us to do anything. We have earthly rulers who have the power to compel us. Our employers even have a degree of power to compel submission, but even that is voluntary based on personal choice to put up with demands in order to keep a job.

My question remains: how can we compel obedience?

 

[andrew]

Let's cut to the chase: We can't, and those who say they can are all bluster.

Without recourse to physical violence to enforce corporal punishment, fines/confiscation, imprisonment, or execution as a credible threat of punishment, we are left with feminine/subordinate tactics of manipulation and withholding to control the behavior of others as far as those tactics will work. That is, if control is what we're after....

 

[andrew]

Pacman, I'm not ignoring you, but it will probably be tomorrow....

 

[The Revolting Man]

Are you comparing your self to G-d then? Saying you as a husband have the same authority as Him?

We are not told to Emulate G-d the father but Yeshua the Son.

"Ding, Ding"

Scripture is clear that G-d the Fathers ways are not our ways. We dont get to do the things the Father does for example vengeance. Yeshua is the example set for us to follow.

You don't know me well if you think you can see my legitimate Biblical point and raise me one extremely ridiculous obfuscation and expect me to fold.
The answer to your question is yes. God described Himself as a husband in order to communicate with us in ways we can understand. So yes we can look to His example of husbanding as an example we can follow. And yes, Numbers 30 does see to imply that God has gifted some of His authority to husbands and fathers.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Let's cut to the chase: We can't, and those who say they can are all bluster.

Without recourse to physical violence to enforce corporal punishment, fines/confiscation, imprisonment, or execution as a credible threat of punishment, we are left with feminine/subordinate tactics of manipulation and withholding to control the behavior of others as far as those tactics will work. That is, if control is what we're after....

I've been accused of blustering before but I can assure that this is possible. It's hard. It requires discipline and hard work. But that is a really good indication in this culture that it's the right thing.
Think about your argument, it's too hard in this culture so just forget about it. That's not an argument for a countercultural change maker. If the argument can't be made from scripture then it's nothing more than background.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Thats not what I'm saying I'm saying we are told not to seek the rule others. G-d stated in first Samuel. His intention was for Him to rule us. We rejected Him. Man chose mortal rulers. So mans authority to rule anyone is not of G-ds design.

Gen 24:2 Now Abraham was old, advanced in years, and Adonai blessed Abraham in everything. 2 Then Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household who managed everything that belonged to him, “Now put your hand under my thigh, 3 so that I may make you take an oath by Adonai, the G-d of heaven and the G-d of earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from among the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I am dwelling.

Whos authority was the oath made by?

Gen 41:43 Then he had him ride in the chariot as second-in-command, the one that belonged to him, and they called out before him, “Kneel down!” So he appointed him over the whole land of Egypt.

Joesph authority was not his own. He did not rule. This is shows neither positive or negative aspects of rule. The Jews were saved from starvation by his delgated postion of authority that G-d made possible.

Gen 43:16 16 When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the one over his house, “Bring the men into the house. Slaughter an animal and prepare it, for the men will eat with me this afternoon.

This is also does not shows the positive or negative aspects of rule. Are you trying to say a wife is a husbands servant? You can't be a servant G-d and money but you can serve two master who rule over you?

Gen 45:8 So now, it wasn’t you, you didn’t send me here, but God! And He made me as a father to Pharaoh, lord over his whole house and ruler over the entire land of Egypt.

Joesph giving credit to G-d. Stating by who's authority he lead. Your assuming because it says lord he ruled, but he was a servant of the ruler. He did not rule.

Exodus 18:21 But you should seek out capable men out of all the people—men who fear G-d, men of truth, who hate bribery. Appoint them to be rulers over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

Pronounce: sar

Strong: H8269

Orig: from 8323; a head person (of any rank or class):--captain (that had rule), chief (captain), general, governor, keeper, lord, ((-task- ))master, prince(-ipal), ruler, steward

Exodus 24:31 only has 15 verses.

Prov 17:2 A wise servant will rule over a disgraceful son and will share the inheritance with the brothers

A moral lesson or religious allegory, called a nimshal. This isn't about ruling your brother or taking your brothers inheritance, its about helping your brother get right will G-d, glorifying Him and sharing in the inheritance of G-d.

Isaiah 32:1 Behold, a king will reign in righteousness
and princes will rule in justice.

This is prophecy which also needs to be looked at in content of what is being said, what is being phropecied and remember that it might not apply to us. There is contention about if it is about Yeshua and the apostles or the millennial kingdom. So how are you applying this to a husband's right to rule?

Matthew 24:45-47 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master put in charge of his household to give them food at the proper time? 46 Blessed is that servant whose master finds him so doing when he comes. 47 Amen, I tell you, his master will put him in charge of all his possessions.

Delegated authority not rulership.

Matthew 25:21-23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You were faithful with a little, so I’ll put you in charge of much. Enter into your master’s joy!’

22 “The one who had received the two talents also came up and said, ‘Master, you handed me two talents. Look, I’ve gained two more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You were faithful with a little, so I’ll put you in charge of much. Enter into your master’s joy!’

Example of good stewardship.

Luke 12:42-44 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their food portion at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whose master finds him so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I tell you, his master will put him in charge of all his possessions.

Great example of someone being rewarded for leading acording to G-ds will/rule.

The rest are the same. Results G-ds rulership, yes man's leadership by G-ds rule, yes. Man th I king he has the right to rule......pride.

/
All interesting examples, none of them wives. Wives are in a different category. I should never seek authority over other men or women who aren't my wife. That's what all of those scriptures say and I agree %100. But that's not what we're talking about.

 

[Pacman]

/
All interesting examples, none of them wives. Wives are in a different category. I should never seek authority over other men or women who aren't my wife. That's what all of those scriptures say and I agree %100. But that's not what we're talking about.

Zec in fairness to Kevin he was responding to the list of passages I gave him as positive examples of ruling.

I wasn't claiming that those passages apply to how a husband should rule mearly that not all ruling in the scriptures is negative. Also it's worth pointing out (for the second time now) that the difference in versions used is having some impact here. In the kjv every passage I pointed out uses the word rule. But several of the verses posted by Kevin do not...