Wives submit to their husband - If you have a problem with that TALK to GOD!

You have a problem with submission?  Talk to GOD!

Wife's Submit to your Husbands....women can be scared of that verse, especially you have a man on a power trip telling you if you have problem with it go talk to God or Paul.  I wonder if they feel that 'biblical instruction' using sarcasm is good in God's eyes?

I have heard many times people commenting on Sarah, and how she called her husband Lord.  They like to use that example to show HOW they feel submitting is to be seen.  I have to giggle a bit, because if you read the story?  Sarah doesn't give me the impression she was whom they feel she was.  She could be a bit of a bugger at times, but I'm not saying she didn't love and respect her husband.  Its clear she did, but she doesn't seem like an always easy going gal.  She must have been a challenge for Abraham at times.

The other day a I was reading some statements from a gentleman on A Wife's Submission blog.  I see in a gentleman's statements clear messages that have been taught to him that aren't healthy nor loving for either himself or his wife.

I read this type of attitude from many, and it comes from an arrogant sense of entitlement.  This sense of entitlement is taught when you have men and women are pushing the 'authority' of the husband more than the WHOLE 'role' they claim he has.

They hold onto that authority card so hard and strong that they don't place as much emphasis on the rest of the role they claim they provide.  Grudem does this in my below example.  He is attempting to show there is confusion, when actually it more like he doesn't care for their version of scripture.  Why?  It doesn't mention his authority.

Grudem's book Gender Neutral Bible Controversy talks about Colossians 3:18-19:

Colossians 3:18-19 offers key instructions concerning the relation of husband and wife in marriage.

Colossians 3:18 tells us, “Wives, submit9 to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (NIV). You would never know it from the CEV, which has the highly weakened expression, “put others first.” “A wife must put her husband first. This is her duty as a follower of the Lord” (CEV). What does “put ... first” mean? Precisely what is a wife supposed to do? It is not clear. Readers might guess that a wife is supposed to put her husband’s needs before her own, as Philippians 2:4 says, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (NIV).

But in such a situation, there is really no sense of being subject to or obeying someone else who is in authority, but only a general idea of sacrificially caring for him. In the end, a wife does for her husband exactly what the husband does for her: serve sacrificially. What for Paul are different commands for different roles have become in the CEV equivalent commands for identical roles. The CEV has distorted the picture.

I realize some different versions of the bible do upset people.  I have seen myself that items are changed into something completely different.  I think we all have our preferences, and our own reasons why.

I'm not endorsing any version, but was more concentrating on his point of authority.

Grudem states that sacrificially caring for one another is not enough, because the man's authority is not being represented.  He states that people will not understand what 'put others first' will mean.  I'm sorry but if they read the entire chapter in question?  It should be pretty clear!

If Grudem feels that the wife wouldn't  know precisely what they are suppose to do?  Then later states this is what the man is suppose to do?  You have to wonder WHY the confusion.  Why would the wife get confused, and not the husband also if this is so confusing?



Do men know this instinctively, and women don't?  I mean it seemed pretty clear to me what it meant, and he didn't even have to throw in Philippians 2:4.  I would assume it would be the same for others as well.

I guess what he is hinting at is this doesn't make sense for HIM due to the fact his authority wasn't mentioned.

The line wasn't drawn clear enough for the roles he says are in place, and the only true WRONG in that version of scripture was his position of authority wasn't represented.  Without authority of the man the picture is distorted. 

Why doesn't he just say that instead of doing flip flops over how that version of scripture makes it confusing?

Its not confusing!  Its pretty clear, because the spirit behind how they worded that scripture seems to be repeated though out the bible.  It targets both genders.

In fact THIS entire chapter talks about transformation of your whole attitude/being once you give your life to Christ.  


He places confusion there, and there truly isn't any.  Once you are transformed you wish to serve others due to fact that is what God would wish for his Glory.

They tend to concentrate to much on their 'authority', and not the reason for the scripture itself - Glory to GOD!  Its for his benefit, and not man's in the end.

We treat others as God would wish to show our obedience, and  he seems to be griping about a portion that is important to HIM personally.  The chapter speaks of transformation, and he wants to talk 'authority'.  Then says the translation is confusing, because 'authority' isn't present.

Sounds like he is the one that is confused!

When people want to hold on to their authority role to tight?  They seem to forget that submission is to be voluntary, and it is not something that God would wish the husband to command from his wife.  When you are told you are to obey someone - being human we will command that.

When you empathize obey and authority to much?  What are you going to get?  Remember we are HUMAN here - not Jesus!  You are going to get men that command that from their wifes, and the loving her like Christ loved the church?  Well he will always tell her what that looks like. 

I liked a quote I saw recently:

The definitive interpretation of this passage in the Eastern church is a homily by St. John Chrysostom. He is adamant that the submission a wife owes her husband is not the obedience of a slave to a master, and in fact says that a husband who expects that sort of obedience is dishonoring and shaming his wife, and thereby dishonoring and shaming himself.

The submission that is required is that of a free woman, given by her own choice.

It can't be demanded by the husband, but only offered by the wife.

If she is not free to say no, she cannot say yes.

If she is not free to refuse, she cannot submit.

A husband, according to St. John, is not free to insult or abuse his wife. His obligation is to love his wife, doing whatever is needed for her well-being. There is no limit to that requirement, as there is no limit to Christ's love for the Church.

A man that truly loves his wife the way Christ would have him love her?  He isn't going to concentrate to much on authority part of some role the church states he has.  Why?  As the bible says it is love that is the more important.

The way authority is taught is blind obedience.  The only one that is justified to receive that is Christ.  The rest of us are human, and if you are dealing with a man that doesn't understand his 'role' as they say they teach it?  He can be a tyrant!

To me they spend to much time and effort placing blame on women whom they label 'feminist'.  They are very quick to throw out that label as well.  Its normally used when you question their definitions of authority or submission, and it seems to be used as a diversion so they don't have to dig to deep to truly LOOK at what they bible is saying.

They can claim that is not what they teach (men being tyrants), but its clear that is what people are hearing.

There are good men that do understand how to love their wive as Christ Loves the church. If you notice they don't concentrate on these points of authority and obey me.  Their eyes and hearts to focused on God.  They realize that the 'feminist' or anyone else can't take what God has blessed them with.

When you read some of the comments the gentleman left on the Wife's Submission blog?  He seems to be a great example of what I'm talking about.

  He said:

If there is any leadership or drive or motive or direction to do anything, the man must always be the one leading, and the family the one following, even if the idea or direction didn’t come from him. THAT is bibilical. All else is selfish, rebellious contention which is idolatry.

I commented:

Proverbs 31:
10 [c] A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.

11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.

12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.

When you read the description of this women her husband has full confidence in her, and it doesn’t say she must follow even if it was her idea. She leads in the areas of her life that are described, and he lacks nothing of value.

The mother that is telling her son about noble characteristics of a man, and noble character of a women.

When scripture mentions she considers a field and buys it – notice she didn’t follow. She knew her husband had confidence in her, and he didn’t have to be the one leading in this example.

I have to wonder if your wife is not confused by your messages. If I can’t do anything by myself without my husband ‘leading’ the way? I would feel he doesn’t have the confidence in me as the husband as shown in the example of Proverbs 31. What a huge burden for both of us if I had to run everything past him. With that statement we have to remember to use common sense of course. The biggies should be discussed, and of course areas that we know are important to the other.

The last portion states:
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

She earned it, and didn’t have to hand it over to be lead. It could be your wife is getting confused by your legalism. She feels the burden, and the yoke that is restricting her.

You stated you serve her, and ask how you can serve her everyday. I’m sure you see it that way, but if she feels any decision she makes on her own is rebellious or selfish? She will not feel served.

If she can’t lead in any area of her life, because YOU must do that? She may feel that you ‘want your own way’. You can’t say you want a wife who has her own thoughts and feelings about things if you discourage her from leading in areas she feels she needs to. The contradictions in your words, and in your actions maybe what is causing tension.

When you say you wish to have open communication, and throw in comments like:

NOTE: It was God himself who made the husband the head of the wife. If any woman has an issue with that, you can take it up with Him; I don’t even want to hear it.

That is disrespectful of her, and can come across as truly arrogant.

He Say:
Look, let me just tell you what men want because contentious women just don’t get it. Men want RESPECT. Give a man respect first and foremost, and he’ll climb Mount Everest for you. Disrespect him, and he won’t even take out the trash. Its your choice.

Everyone wants respect, and I’m sorry but if you feel Jesus would approve of you NOT taking out the trash due to you feeling ‘disrespected’? You need to check your attitude.

Jesus didn’t say you are LOVE your wife as he loved the church IF THESE conditions apply. Loving your wife as Christ has commanded you is your choice, because he didn’t say love her only if you feel she deserves it.

You see Christ loves us, and we don’t deserve it. See the connection?

YOU being human wants something first if someone expects something from you. Christ says that a Godly man will not place those conditions out there, but does it anyway because that shows obedience to his word.

Doing the opposite is being rebellious to what God has asked of you.

We humans aren’t always respectful of God’s ways, and yet he shows respect in return.

We don’t always show love towards him, and yet his love is always present.

Loving your wife as Christ loved the church? Christ has no conditions that you are putting forth on your wife. You are basically placing her role as ‘wife’, and how she isn’t doing it to your preference as an excuse NOT to do as Christ asks of you.

Christ would ask you to take out the trash, because it needs to be taken OUT! He doesn’t say pout like a child, and not do it because you hurt my feelings.

No Sir – Its your choice! You seem to expect your wife to fill the bill as you see it, and yet you see no need to do so yourself.

Unfortunately, I see this attitude being taught in churches.

They can say its a two way street when the ‘leader’ says I will be respectful only if you deserve it.

Normally, that's HIS opinion or definition of respect only.

He refuses to listen because she is to follow.

That shuts off all communication. “ITS MY WAY” is what is seen, but sadly not seen from the one that is touting it. They feel justified in acting this way, due to some ‘leadership’ idea that gives them permission to act entitled. Entitlement is not of God.

(end of comment)

It seems to me this authority that man claims he has from God is causing the confusion.  When they hear things like: if you have problem with it go talk to Paul.  The love of Christ is not what is being seen, heard, or acted upon.

The confusion seems to be WHY they can't see that!

If you enjoyed this post and wish to be informed whenever a new post is published, then make sure you subscribe to my regular Email Updates. Subscribe Now!

Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it: