Christ Came NOT to be Served

[rockfox]

In a rightly ordered house this would come about when he fell into temptation and commanded her something he'd previously taught her was sinful.

In your usual house this is just her following after other leaders and using spiritual sounding excuses to justify ruling the house or disobeying her husband.

The problem is, much of the time women who think they're the first case are actually the second case.

Which is why I usually take an 'obey your man and let God sort it out' approach to the subject. That's what Sarah did, who was held up as the example for wives on this subject by Peter.

OTOH Peter spoke dead a nice counter example.

 

[Stranger]

Why would you not say;
Children must be obedient to the commands of Christ as well as their parents but since they are fallible and He is not, we must recognize that they must at times chose obedience to Christ over obedience to parents.

Honestly I would say that. Christ says some people will need to leave their father and mother for the Kingdom of God's sake and says that to be His disciple we must love (which towards God implies obedience) Him more than our father and mother.

 

[steve]

Honestly I would say that. Christ says some people will need to leave their father and mother for the Kingdom of God's sake and says that to be His disciple we must love (which towards God implies obedience) Him more than our father and mother.

At what age do children get to start judging their parents?

 

[Stranger]

You're applying that passage out of context (both of them actually) the counsel that told Peter not to preach did not have as much authority as a man has over his women. It's a completely different relationship. Also Yeshua wasn't telling them to obey everything they said (that would make him schizophrenic as he defied them at every turn). Only the Scriptures was read from "the seat of Moses" that's what they were supposed to obey. Not everything they told them. The structure that applies to our discussion is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3

Regardless of whether or not the authority of a man over a woman is equivalent to the authority of the Sanhedrin, the principle that in any instance where God and man's directives conflict that God's directives are to be obeyed still stands.

 

[Stranger]

At what age do children get to start judging their parents?

At what age do people become adults?

That is not the point though. The relevant question is, at what age does any particular person begin to understand the commandments of God? If the parents are actively raising their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord their children will begin to be able to understand God's commands sooner than those who are negligent in this regard. But good parents are also less likely to give their children situations where chosing between obedience to God and themselves is necessary.

 

[Pacman]

Regardless of whether or not the authority of a man over a woman is equivalent to the authority of the Sanhedrin, the principle that in any instance where God and man's directives conflict that God's directives are to be obeyed still stands.

Except we have no such statement or example in scripture when it comes to a man and his woman. And in fact we have the exact opposite example. Abraham and Sarah.

 

[Stranger]

Except we have no such statement or example in scripture when it comes to a man and his woman. And in fact we have the exact opposite example. Abraham and Sarah.

The whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commandments.
Are you contending that it is impossible for a husband's commands to conflict with the commands of God, that the only command encumbent on married women is to obey their husband, or that a woman must obey her husband even if his command is contrary to God's? I'd only entertain the last notion if you thought that all failures of obedience towards God on the wife's part resulting from her obedience to her husband were counted against the husband instead of her.

To my knowledge none of what Abraham told Sarah to do that is recorded in scripture ever would have involved her violating a command from God, nor is there any example I can think of from scripture where a woman ends up in the kind of situation we are debating.
Then again I am not contending that this is common.

I will however always defend the position that obedience and love to God is always to be before anyone or anything else, in all circumstances, for all creation, and for all time.

 

[steve]

But good parents are also less likely to give their children situations where chosing between obedience to God and themselves is necessary.

And the same is true of a good husband, but modern believers automatically default to the “but what if the husband is wrong” argument to deny a husband’s right (responsibility) to lead his wife, while ignoring that potentiality when it comes to his children.

 

[Stranger]

And the same is true of a good husband, but modern believers automatically default to the “but what if the husband is wrong” argument to deny a husband’s right (responsibility) to lead his wife, while ignoring that potentiality when it comes to his children.

I aggree. I am not saying that the operating assumption of the wife or child should be that their husband or parents are wrong unless proven otherwise. The burden of evidence operates in the opposite direction.

 

[Pacman]

I'd only entertain the last notion if you thought that all failures of obedience towards God on the wife's part resulting from her obedience to her husband were counted against the husband instead of her

Exactly

To my knowledge none of what Abraham told Sarah to do that is recorded in scripture ever would have involved her violating a command from God,

Genesis 20 she knew full well that it would result in adultery if Yah did not intervene. She still obeyed Abraham.

 

[Keith Martin]

At what age do children get to start judging their parents?

I just had this conversation with my wayward daughter today. I informed her that from now on I will be out the door whenever she begins judging me or attempts to negotiate with me. I will be happy to talk with her about any other topic, as long as it doesn't involve judging either of her parents or attempts to negotiate changes in our rules in exchange for her obedience. If she's going to be disobedient, so be it, but it will not be with my continued cooperation.

@Stranger, I would not wish on you what I am going through with my family right now, but I hear echoes of where I have come from philosophically, and all I can say is you better get prepared for some misery in your future. Focusing on the potential for the weird exceptions to the rule and insisting on what amount to progressive bromides that change truth from absolute to relative are invitations for your children (and perhaps even your wives) to end up being inescapable Trojan Horse monsters -- and all in the name of wanting to signal one's purity. I say that, because I assume that each time you mention this exception or that exception to being a proper husband or father, you aren't also insisting that you're the one demonstrating these negative examples of giving commands that are contrary to Christ.

 

[steve]

I aggree. I am not saying that the operating assumption of the wife or child should be that their husband or parents are wrong unless proven otherwise. The burden of evidence operates in the opposite direction.

Nevertheless, you are still saying that the husband is the leader secondarily to Christ, or whatever the wife believes that Christ wants.

 

[Gary Slaughenhaupt]

@Stranger let me give you a real life story of a wife having that mindset. Pastor Wolf and his hireling talk to her, mishandling God's Word to bring an accusation against the husband of adultery of the mind and encourage her to leave her husband. And the hens surrounding her nod up and down then flock to their home to help her carry her worldly belongings away.

See, she believes she is righteous by obeying God rather than man.

 

[Keith Martin]

@Stranger let me give you a real life story of a wife having that mindset. Pastor Wolf and his hireling talk to her, mishandling God's Word to bring an accusation against the husband of adultery of the mind and encourage her to leave her husband. And the hens surrounding her nod up and down then flock to their home to help her carry her worldly belongings away.

See, she believes she is righteous by obeying God rather than man.

Bingo.

And the wife, who originally claimed to be certain that the husband was only studying Scripture to justify his desire for more sex, can now start reading Scripture herself (despite her own tenuous belief in God, which is part of what caused her to doubt her own husband's faith) to bolster the supposed righteousness of her grievance against her husband.

 

[Stranger]

Exactly



Genesis 20 she knew full well that it would result in adultery if Yah did not intervene. She still obeyed Abraham.

I can see where that framework is plausible. I believe that those who teach (husbands in this case) are judged more strictly by God. The wording of James 3:1 only establishes differences in degrees of judgement, not that those who are taught are wholly without their own responsibility.
I think you are extending the kind of sin covering relationship Christ has over the church to the relationship between man and woman?
If correct then I'd concede that the woman is absolved from responsibility for her actions when obeying her husband.

I will need to think about this as something still seems off about it. Or something may just be off regarding my understanding of it or a related issue.

Of course if the responsibility for the wife's obedience to Christ is then transferred in whole to the husband, then he should constantly be concerning himself with ensuring that His wife is commanded to obey Christ. Elsewise he might do better to take the advice Jesus offers should any other part of his body cause him to sin: cut it off.

Whatever the case may be, Christ must be all in all and He, as head, must be obeyed.

 

[Keith Martin]

Is anyone saying that women are supposed to submit to Godless men?

And, if not, isn't the whole question of whether the woman should obey Christ or the husband a moot point?

Conversely, isn't the context of this discussion men who are striving to be patriarchs under the authority of Christ, which includes being the spiritual leaders of their wives according to the dictates of Scripture. I continue to find the subset of what wives would legitimately think they were supposed to do to obey Christ that would be in conflict with what their Christ-following husbands would require of them to be such a small subset of human possibilities to be nearly invisible if not non-existent.

 

[Stranger]

Nevertheless, you are still saying that the husband is the leader secondarily to Christ, or whatever the wife believes that Christ wants.

The husband is obviously secondary to Christ. Christ is Lord of ALL. ALL things are placed under Him except the One that put all things under Him. I am not the Father and I am not an exception to being under Christ. My wife is not the Father and she is not an exception to being under Christ. Therefore if both of us are under Christ yet I am still over her, then my authority must be subordinated to His.
My wife knows that I do not want her to do anything that violates her conscience because anything that is not according to conscience is sin. She also knows that I want her to communicate with me when something I ask of her violates her conscience so that we can search the scriptures together to know whether or not her concern is valid. If it is then I will withdraw what I have requested. If there does not appear to be any scriptural problem with it but she still feels uncomfortable with it then I will leave the request on the table to be fulfilled at whatever point she is comfortable.

 

[Stranger]

Is anyone saying that women are supposed to submit to Godless men?

And, if not, isn't the whole question of whether the woman should obey Christ or the husband a moot point?

Conversely, isn't the context of this discussion men who are striving to be patriarchs under the authority of Christ, which includes being the spiritual leaders of their wives according to the dictates of Scripture. I continue to find the subset of what wives would legitimately think they were supposed to do to obey Christ that would be in conflict with what their Christ-following husbands would require of them to be such a small subset of human possibilities to be nearly invisible if not non-existent.

You are probably right. I just want to be sure we are on the same page concerning obedience to Christ being paramount.

 

[Pacman]

If there does not appear to be any scriptural problem with it but she still feels uncomfortable with it then I will leave the request on the table to be fulfilled at whatever point she is comfortable.

And she is violating Ephesians 5:22-23

 

[Pacman]

You are probably right. I just want to be sure we are on the same page concerning obedience to Christ being paramount.

We are and that means the woman obeys her man IN EVERYTHING.