My wife wants a divorce and wont even consider trying to 'work it out'

[presidente]

Not "allowing" someone to set a boundary... refusing to leave.

I haven't read the Townsend and Cloud book. But I have read plenty of cases of people using 'boundaries' as an excuse to cover sin or just to be selfish.

A wife doesn't have the right to set a 'boundary' of kicking her husband out of the house. That's not a legitimate boundary, certainly not when they are splitting up just because she is not content with the marriage and there is no concrete reason aside from the regular difficulties all married couples go through.

.. not caring what her feelings are ("if she cries, she cries.").

That's not true and that wasn't the point I was making in context. If a wife cries to get her husband to go along with sin or something just utterly foolish, he may just have to let her cry. He can let her cry and care about her feelings and comfort her.

You mentioned children. We do that with children. I have a three-year-old who cried last night wen I put her to bed. She still went to bed. I patted her on the back. I know wives aren't children (in normal cases, we aren't talking about Afghanistan). That's not my point. My point is letting someone cry doesn't have to mean you don't care.

Justifying your control by making the assumption that she is having an affair.

I don't know that she's having an affair. I've just read that story several times on forums. Not too long ago I heard a preacher on the radio describe a situation like this, genders reversed in this case, and he says during counseling he asks 'what's her name' and it usually works.

It's not always the case. And I'm not saying it is. But I do think it's worth considering.

As far as 'controlling behavior' goes, I don't go around demanding my wife to submit to me. She does pretty much whatever she wants 99% of the time. And since she is a godly, responsible woman, that turns out fine. The husband of the Proverbs 31 woman has full confidence in her.

If my wife and I had an argument where she wanted to divorce over something like that, I might say I forbid it like that, partly to communicate my absolute opposition to the idea, and partly to give her another layer to think through in realizing that what she is doing is immoral. I'd might also remind her that she wants to keep a good relationship with God, and she knows this isn't what the Lord wants. Basically, I'd use the approach (' a male approach') of logic, and also scripture and things like that to counter an emotion-based bad decision.

I haven't encountered the situation of having a wife who had made up her mind to divorce over emotional reasons and continually pushed for it, either. But if I did, I'd oppose it rather than go along with it.

Making the assumption that she is trying to manipulate and cause her husband to cheat (if he does, it's her fault somehow because she pushed him to do it? Whereas she is completely to blame if SHE has an affair?).

Some women do that sort of things. It's his wife. I don't know her and I don't know how she ticks. But I think it's worth considering. And no, if he has an affair, it's his fault, even if his wife wanted him to find someone else. That would probably only be the case if she had someone else. And I don't know that that is the case. But I know a lot of other people in his situation find out that the wife has some other fellow in mind if not an actual relationship. I wouldn't say all women are in this situation. For me, her being too happy about ending the marriage seems to be suspicious. If she's just not content with the marriage, I wonder would actually make her happy about him going along with it.

You know who has these patterns of thought? You know who controls their wives and refuses to respect them? ABUSERS!!!

And you know who jumps on the abuse button so quickly? Feminists. And also women who have been abused who read and hear thing through a very narrow lens of their past experience. Dr. Phil says hurt people hurt people. Accusing men wrongly of being abusers is a pretty bad slander, especially in this culture.

I don't hit my wife, and she's probably had to struggle more with being controlling in her attitude towards me in our marriage than vice versa. I'd say the topic of submission comes up as something related to our marriage maybe every six months to a year or so. That's not counting discussing it as a Biblical topic or discussion of friends having marriage problems.

But if my wife were wanting to do something sinful or just really, really bad that I was opposed to, I would bring the topic up. And it is not immoral to do so. The Bible really does teach wives to submit to their own husbands. The Bible is not abusive for teaching this. And men aren't abusive for bringing it up. Some abusive men might like to talk about submission. But so do righteous men like Peter and Paul did.

 

[Sirk]

When a woman is done with the push and pull of a toxic relationship.....if you push or pull.... she will run away as fast as she can and divorce papers will arrive at your door. If you give her emotional space and time she might soften toward you again.

 

[presidente]

The role of the husband as the head does not mean that he exercises parental authority over her. While their roles might be distinct, their value and worth before God are equal because they were both made in His image.

I don't see how what you are saying so far contradicts what I have written. I do believe that a wife is to submit to her husband, and Peter uses 'obeyed' to illustrate that. It's not a parent-child relationship, but not all relationships that require submission and obedience are.

I almost never play the 'submission card' in marriage. I don't give my wife a list of things to do or boss her around or give her orders. If I were a wife, I wouldn't want to be in that situation.

Treating the woman as though she's not equal with you in that sense is a direct affront to God and His image. Being heirs to the promise as the above verse was talking about actually affirms this.

This passage says nothing about 'equality.' If the point of the passage were against wives submitting to their husbands, Paul wouldn't have later told wives to submit to their husbands. The context is about being heirs according to the promise-- not about getting rid of family, social, legal, or occupational responsibilities in this life.

The fact that you would fail to recognize the equality that exists on that very important level and instead try to point out numerous ways in which there is not technically equality is concerning.

I think you are reading western political philosophy into scripture where it doesn't exist. The passage isn't about equality. We can all be heirs according to the promise while some are greater than others.

I think the scriptures are pretty clear that some people are greaters than others. I don't have any reason to think that gender has anything to do with it. There was no greater prophet than John the Baptist, but the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. He that is the greatest among the disciples shall be the servant of all. The one who does and teach the commandments shall be great in the kingdom of heaven. Greater is he who prophesies than he who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets.

I don't see where the Bible teaches that we are all 'equal.' I can see where we aren't all 'equal' at least on certain dimensions. Equality only makes sense if you are talking about equality on a certain dimension.

If you are talking about 'authority' in the home, then no, husbands and wives are not equal.

I believe that a wife should submit to her husband as well, but that does not mean that she begrudgingly obeys him as he tells her what to do.

That's certainly not ideal. It's much better if she freely and joyfully chooses to submit.

There have been times I have had to begrudgingly force myself to submit to the Lord when I didn't really want to. It would have been better if I had done so joyfully. But it's better to force myself to submit than to not submit at all. The Lord can work on my attitude so I can improve going forward. It's better for a wife to begrudgingly submit than to rebel.

Submission means that she freely chooses to follow her husband as he leads the family in a way that is all about the glory of God and the good of his family.

If a wife has no good reason to be divorced, then wouldn't not divorcing be for the good of the family, maybe even for the glory of God?

If someone submits begrudgingly, it can also be done 'freely.' Unless he ties or locks her up, he's not forcing her to stay. No one is saying to lock her in a cage.

If I were in that situation, I might play the submission card during an argument. My wife knows she's supposed to submit to me. It would be one of many reasons. I don't consider it sinful to tell my wife to submit to me, because the Bible tells her so. Husbands are to follow the example of Christ who washes the bride with the water of the word. Why should submission be off topic if a man shares the word of God with his wife?

Some people say they believe in submission, but submission is so counter-cultural, that they consider the idea of a husband actually telling his wife that she should submit (as the Bible teaches) as something sinful. Is it wrong or self-serving to remind teenage children that they should obey their parents? They are old enough to know. They should submit willingly and freely. Is it abusive or self-serving to remind them of what they should do?

The Bible says, "Wives, submit to your husbands," not "Husbands, your wives are to submit to you. Make sure it happens."

The Bible says elders/the bishop should be the husband of one wife and rule his house well. Elders are to be examples to the flock. If ruling one's house well involves reminding wives of their responsibility before God, what is wrong with that?

It is your role to fulfill what has been commanded of you and leave the convicting to God and His Word.

The Bible says to exhort one another daily lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. The Bible speaks of admonishing one another. The Bible says not to love your neighbor and not to despise your neighbor, but to rebuke your neighbor frankly lest you share in his sin.

There are times when a family member wants to do something sinful or harmful to himself or others, and the right thing to do is to fight tooth and nail (metaphorically speaking) against it.

I suspect there are a lot of women who push for divorce who are really disappointed if their spouses don't have the resolve to oppose it. That aspect of their character may be why they want the divorce in the first place. It's really messed up. But some people are like that, and don't really know what they want. They want different and conflicting things.

Eli wasn't firm enough with his adult kids. He asked them why they did such things. He'd stated his disagreement. That wasn't enough. He wasn't just to leave it to God. God was displeased with him, and his descendants lost their prominent role over his negligence.

I am a firm believer that if a husband will humbly fulfill his role in laying himself down for his wife, she will be compelled to walk in her role as well. Only appealing to the man's authority as the head--while that does exist--is filled with nothing but complete and utter pride.

And some people think letting people that they are responsible to lead treat them like dirt is spiritual. I think we may have a thread on that topic going already. That's a form of false humility. Appealing to one's own God-given authority is not 'complete and utter pride.' It could be done in pride. But Moses was the meekest man in the world. And on occasion, he pointed out the authority God gave him. Consider Korah's rebellion.

If someone is a leader, with God-given responsibility, he may think letting people not follow his leadership and leaving it up to the Lord is the spiritual thing to do. But he is accountable to God for what he has been entrusted. A godly leader can also be strong in that role and exercise God given authority without sinning.

In the case we are talking about, I mentioned a husband reminding his wife of her responsibility to submit to him, and then forbidding her from doing something that the Lord forbids. So how is there any sin in that? Just about anything could be done with pride, but why would that situation have to be done with pride? Why can't that be done with humility? There isn't anything inherently unrighteous about it, is there?

Is it a sin to remind a fellow believer to obey God's word?
No.

Is it a sin for a husband to tell his wife to do something?
No.

It's just a counter-cultural idea, not something sinful. And there is this picture we get from TV (if you've seen LifeTime, maybe) that the man who expects that a wife will submit to him must be abusive, but that is not a Biblical concept. The righteous, godly man wants his wife to submit to him, because that is one way she submits to the Lord. And the righteous, godly married man wants his wife to submit to the Lord.



It's about trying to maintain a position of power rather than seeking a position of humility. True biblical manhood is laying down your life, humbly and wisely serving as the head, and leading with love. Your advice seems to be more about the man winning than about actual biblical wisdom.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sirk]

I don't see how what you are saying so far contradicts what I have written. I do believe that a wife is to submit to her husband, and Peter uses 'obeyed' to illustrate that. It's not a parent-child relationship, but not all relationships that require submission and obedience are.

I almost never play the 'submission card' in marriage. I don't give my wife a list of things to do or boss her around or give her orders. If I were a wife, I wouldn't want to be in that situation.



This passage says nothing about 'equality.' If the point of the passage were against wives submitting to their husbands, Paul wouldn't have later told wives to submit to their husbands. The context is about being heirs according to the promise-- not about getting rid of family, social, legal, or occupational responsibilities in this life.



I think you are reading western political philosophy into scripture where it doesn't exist. The passage isn't about equality. We can all be heirs according to the promise while some are greater than others.

I think the scriptures are pretty clear that some people are greaters than others. I don't have any reason to think that gender has anything to do with it. There was no greater prophet than John the Baptist, but the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. He that is the greatest among the disciples shall be the servant of all. The one who does and teach the commandments shall be great in the kingdom of heaven. Greater is he who prophesies than he who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets.

I don't see where the Bible teaches that we are all 'equal.' I can see where we aren't all 'equal' at least on certain dimensions. Equality only makes sense if you are talking about equality on a certain dimension.

If you are talking about 'authority' in the home, then no, husbands and wives are not equal.



That's certainly not ideal. It's much better if she freely and joyfully chooses to submit.

There have been times I have had to begrudgingly force myself to submit to the Lord when I didn't really want to. It would have been better if I had done so joyfully. But it's better to force myself to submit than to not submit at all. The Lord can work on my attitude so I can improve going forward. It's better for a wife to begrudgingly submit than to rebel.



If a wife has no good reason to be divorced, then wouldn't not divorcing be for the good of the family, maybe even for the glory of God?

If someone submits begrudgingly, it can also be done 'freely.' Unless he ties or locks her up, he's not forcing her to stay. No one is saying to lock her in a cage.

If I were in that situation, I might play the submission card during an argument. My wife knows she's supposed to submit to me. It would be one of many reasons. I don't consider it sinful to tell my wife to submit to me, because the Bible tells her so. Husbands are to follow the example of Christ who washes the bride with the water of the word. Why should submission be off topic if a man shares the word of God with his wife?

Some people say they believe in submission, but submission is so counter-cultural, that they consider the idea of a husband actually telling his wife that she should submit (as the Bible teaches) as something sinful. Is it wrong or self-serving to remind teenage children that they should obey their parents? They are old enough to know. They should submit willingly and freely. Is it abusive or self-serving to remind them of what they should do?



The Bible says elders/the bishop should be the husband of one wife and rule his house well. Elders are to be examples to the flock. If ruling one's house well involves reminding wives of their responsibility before God, what is wrong with that?



The Bible says to exhort one another daily lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. The Bible speaks of admonishing one another. The Bible says not to love your neighbor and not to despise your neighbor, but to rebuke your neighbor frankly lest you share in his sin.

There are times when a family member wants to do something sinful or harmful to himself or others, and the right thing to do is to fight tooth and nail (metaphorically speaking) against it.

I suspect there are a lot of women who push for divorce who are really disappointed if their spouses don't have the resolve to oppose it. That aspect of their character may be why they want the divorce in the first place. It's really messed up. But some people are like that, and don't really know what they want. They want different and conflicting things.

Eli wasn't firm enough with his adult kids. He asked them why they did such things. He'd stated his disagreement. That wasn't enough. He wasn't just to leave it to God. God was displeased with him, and his descendants lost their prominent role over his negligence.



And some people think letting people that they are responsible to lead treat them like dirt is spiritual. I think we may have a thread on that topic going already. That's a form of false humility. Appealing to one's own God-given authority is not 'complete and utter pride.' It could be done in pride. But Moses was the meekest man in the world. And on occasion, he pointed out the authority God gave him. Consider Korah's rebellion.

If someone is a leader, with God-given responsibility, he may think letting people not follow his leadership and leaving it up to the Lord is the spiritual thing to do. But he is accountable to God for what he has been entrusted. A godly leader can also be strong in that role and exercise God given authority without sinning.

In the case we are talking about, I mentioned a husband reminding his wife of her responsibility to submit to him, and then forbidding her from doing something that the Lord forbids. So how is there any sin in that? Just about anything could be done with pride, but why would that situation have to be done with pride? Why can't that be done with humility? There isn't anything inherently unrighteous about it, is there?

Is it a sin to remind a fellow believer to obey God's word?
No.

Is it a sin for a husband to tell his wife to do something?
No.

It's just a counter-cultural idea, not something sinful. And there is this picture we get from TV (if you've seen LifeTime, maybe) that the man who expects that a wife will submit to him must be abusive, but that is not a Biblical concept. The righteous, godly man wants his wife to submit to him, because that is one way she submits to the Lord. And the righteous, godly married man wants his wife to submit to the Lord.



It's about trying to maintain a position of power rather than seeking a position of humility. True biblical manhood is laying down your life, humbly and wisely serving as the head, and leading with love. Your advice seems to be more about the man winning than about actual biblical wisdom.

[/QUOTE]

I made to the "I almost never play the submission card". I would like to hear an example of how that card is played other than those almost never times. Just outa curiousity more than anything.

 

[Joidevivre]

So much advice - some of which is very good. You've heard it all.
Only one more thing:

Your daughter is at the most vulnerable age when this sort of thing affects her most deeply. Little girls need their daddy. What you can't pour into your wife at this time, at least pour into this child. Play with her more than ever. Talk to her. Listen to her.
Here is a place for you to give your best, and I'll just bet it will be received 100%.

She is the one this whole marriage should be about and nurtured for. I am sure that she already discerns that her parents are very distracted, and whether she shows it or not, she is concerned.

This is the one person who is there for you now. I wish my father had done that for me so many years ago when my parents divorced. And I was 4-5.

 

[Sirk]

So much advice - some of which is very good. You've heard it all.
Only one more thing:

Your daughter is at the most vulnerable age when this sort of thing affects her most deeply. Little girls need their daddy. What you can't pour into your wife at this time, at least pour into this child. Play with her more than ever. Talk to her. Listen to her.
Here is a place for you to give your best, and I'll just bet it will be received 100%.

She is the one this whole marriage should be about and nurtured for. I am sure that she already discerns that her parents are very distracted, and whether she shows it or not, she is concerned.

This is the one person who is there for you now. I wish my father had done that for me so many years ago when my parents divorced. And I was 4-5.

And there you have it. Best advice thus far.

 

[JesusLives]

Women like to feel loved and appreciated and when we feel that from the man that we love then it makes life so much easier to want to do the lovable things. I enjoy doing nice things for my husband because he is so loving and helpful to me. Most men don't want to go near the kitchen but he is so thoughtful in helping out and cooking a meal here and there and sometimes the whole day. He is faster to do the dishes than I would ever be. That is just one area there is so much more that he does that makes me feel loved, safe and secure.

We need to know that we are valued and it is the little things that mean so much. We love to hear you look pretty today or you smell nice, your hair looks really nice. Those little compliments mean so much to us. Makes us feel loved and then when you just automatically take out the trash or sweep off the porch it is noticed by us and our hearts melt because you thought of us.

It isn't as though we want you to do everything it is just when we have little children to take care of and some of us have to work a 40 hour job too and then there is the laundry and dust on the furniture and dishes piling up and what are we fixing for dinner? We get over whelmed with the tasks that just make life function and then you want sex?

But you didn't even talk to us, you ran off to work this morning and we haven't had time to talk for a few days and you want to resent us because we don't feel like being special? I am not saying this is how your marriage went just saying that life is a fast merry-go-round and sometimes wives just want to get off......

You can't change the other person you can only change yourself. Do you want your wife to be a fantastic wife? Then you become a fantastic husband.....Remember that both of you need to put God first for anything to work. I'd start there and then work on you. She will come along if you make the change....Pray constantly pray if you really want your marriage to work...

If you don't then complain and file marriage is work/love you don't want to do either then it is over.....

 

[mystikmind]

Women like to feel loved and appreciated and when we feel that from the man that we love then it makes life so much easier to want to do the lovable things. I enjoy doing nice things for my husband because he is so loving and helpful to me. Most men don't want to go near the kitchen but he is so thoughtful in helping out and cooking a meal here and there and sometimes the whole day. He is faster to do the dishes than I would ever be. That is just one area there is so much more that he does that makes me feel loved, safe and secure.

We need to know that we are valued and it is the little things that mean so much. We love to hear you look pretty today or you smell nice, your hair looks really nice. Those little compliments mean so much to us. Makes us feel loved and then when you just automatically take out the trash or sweep off the porch it is noticed by us and our hearts melt because you thought of us.

It isn't as though we want you to do everything it is just when we have little children to take care of and some of us have to work a 40 hour job too and then there is the laundry and dust on the furniture and dishes piling up and what are we fixing for dinner? We get over whelmed with the tasks that just make life function and then you want sex?

But you didn't even talk to us, you ran off to work this morning and we haven't had time to talk for a few days and you want to resent us because we don't feel like being special? I am not saying this is how your marriage went just saying that life is a fast merry-go-round and sometimes wives just want to get off......

You can't change the other person you can only change yourself. Do you want your wife to be a fantastic wife? Then you become a fantastic husband.....Remember that both of you need to put God first for anything to work. I'd start there and then work on you. She will come along if you make the change....Pray constantly pray if you really want your marriage to work...

If you don't then complain and file marriage is work/love you don't want to do either then it is over.....

That is fairly spot on.

The counseling session did not go well. She does not want to consider any options to work on saving the marriage. She does not want to read anything or learn anything or do anything to save the marriage. All the combined knowledge of mankind regarding saving a marriage - not interested. She is only interested in how soon we can sell the house.

I think i am slowly loosing my respect for her, i don't think this is going to end well, i am trying very hard to love, i am trying so hard, i pray to God to lift me up and give me strength.

 

[ChandlerFan]

First of all, presidente, I believe that we agree on what the Scriptures teach about the roles assigned to men and women in Scripture, so any points of contention I make in this post are not me being disagreeable. While we agree on the roles God has assigned to men and women, it seems like perhaps we look at them differently in terms of their application. I'll try to elaborate as I work through parts of your last post.

The passage isn't about equality. We can all be heirs according to the promise while some are greater than others.

Do you see how you just contradicted yourself in these two sentences? If we can all be heirs, that means that there is equality that exists on that level even though there may be inequality at other levels (I freely admit that there is). What I said (I believe more than once) in my last post was that we are all equal in terms of value, worth, and dignity before God*. I believe us all being heirs to the promise is indicative of that equality on that level. Another way I could say it is that before God no human life is worth more or less than any other.

*Somehow you failed to quote this part of my last post even though it was the most significant and relevant piece to this discussion. I'm not sure the reason for this, but felt I should emphasize that my definition of equality should not be overlooked if you are to understand what I'm trying to say.

I don't see where the Bible teaches that we are all 'equal.' I can see where we aren't all 'equal' at least on certain dimensions. Equality only makes sense if you are talking about equality on a certain dimension.

And that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm talking about equality in that overarching dimension of our dignity and worth before God.

If you are talking about 'authority' in the home, then no, husbands and wives are not equal.

Agreed. But we must hold that in tension with the fact that the husband and wife were both created equal in dignity and worth before God, so while the husband is given authority, that does not make him greater in terms of his worth or value as a human being.

If someone submits begrudgingly, it can also be done 'freely.' Unless he ties or locks her up, he's not forcing her to stay. No one is saying to lock her in a cage.

Agreed. The main point I was making is that the husband can help make it easier for her to submit by how faithfully he carries out his own role as one who is to lay his life down for her.

If I were in that situation, I might play the submission card during an argument. My wife knows she's supposed to submit to me. It would be one of many reasons. I don't consider it sinful to tell my wife to submit to me, because the Bible tells her so. Husbands are to follow the example of Christ who washes the bride with the water of the word. Why should submission be off topic if a man shares the word of God with his wife?

Here is where I suggested above that we may or may not be in agreement on the application of gender roles. Here's the perspective that I'm coming from: There are many men who call themselves Christians who manipulate, control, and abuse their wives. Some have even used the "submission card" in order to do this. There are also many ways in our world and in American society where women are marginalized and degraded by men. Because of this, for a woman to put herself in the position of submitting to a man, it takes a great degree of trust both in God and in her husband. For women who aren't in a relationship, the prospect of submitting to a man is a scary one because there are so many selfish and abusive men out there. For single women, it's hard to imagine meeting and marrying a guy that she could submit to.

Now in all of this, I still do say and agree with you that Christian wives are called to submit to their Christian husbands, but when you forcefully assert that a wife must submit to her husband, it sounds less like a defense of the beauty of God's design for marriage and more like a man defending a position of power and control, even if that's not the intent. Does that make sense? So when you talk about the call to women to submit to their husbands, it's certainly not sinful as you said, but it needs to be talked about with tenderness and understanding because the idea of submitting to a man is a scary prospect for many women.
When you say "I don't consider it sinful to tell my wife to submit to me, because the Bible tells her so," it comes across as very domineering even though I don't think you mean it that way. But regardless of your intent, it still comes across as though you are standing over your wife commanding her to obey you. Ultimately, it all depends on your heart in it, though. It can be sinful to tell your wife to submit to you if you're doing it out of a heart of pride. But if you're doing it out of a heart of lovingly desiring for your wife to experience the joy of obedience to God and you are making every effort to lay yourself down for her as the Bible calls you to, then that's another thing altogether. And this I will say again: God is a lot more glorified by joyful submission than He is glorified in begrudging submission. A man is a lot more likely to reap joyful submission from his wife in leading out in fulfilling his own role as best he can than by telling her she needs to submit. So as you preach about the submission of wives, you had better be prepared to talk the efforts you are making to fulfill your own role as husband and servant leader of your household. Your words will carry a lot more biblical weight that way and people will actually see the beauty of God's design for marriage rather than a cold apologetic of wifely submission.

Some people say they believe in submission, but submission is so counter-cultural, that they consider the idea of a husband actually telling his wife that she should submit (as the Bible teaches) as something sinful. Is it wrong or self-serving to remind teenage children that they should obey their parents? They are old enough to know. They should submit willingly and freely. Is it abusive or self-serving to remind them of what they should do?

Well, allow me to remind you that we both agreed that the husband-wife relationship is not like a parent-child relationship, so that analogy doesn't really work that well in this discussion. As I said before, a husband telling his wife that she should submit can be sinful if he's doing it out of a prideful heart, or even out of a place of attempting to manipulate or control his wife.
Also, I think for the majority of husbands, a conversation where he says, "You should submit to me because the Bible says so" is not going to go well, and that is not only because the wife's heart is sinful or prideful (although that could be part of it). There are a lot of better ways to have that conversation. Rather than "You should submit to me," a conversation like this might go a little better: "It seems like you have been really disagreeable and have had a difficult time trusting me lately. Why is that? I know I have not been perfect, so how can I better lead and love and serve you so as to help you out in this way?"

For the reasons I've stated above, tenderness and understanding are going to go a lot farther than belligerence and assertion. While we're talking about how wives should submit to their husbands, we can't forget that husbands must also love their wives, and a husband simply telling his wife that she should submit to him is not loving her well. In coldly commanding her to follow even a biblical command, a man is actually being disobedient to the command given to him.

The Bible says elders/the bishop should be the husband of one wife and rule his house well. Elders are to be examples to the flock. If ruling one's house well involves reminding wives of their responsibility before God, what is wrong with that?

I only quote this separately to reiterate my point. There is nothing wrong with that if it is done out of a heart of love and that it is communicated with grace, because if it's not communicated lovingly and with grace, you're actually not fulfilling your responsibility as a husband in leading well and with love. You're really sowing discord instead.

In the case we are talking about, I mentioned a husband reminding his wife of her responsibility to submit to him, and then forbidding her from doing something that the Lord forbids. So how is there any sin in that? Just about anything could be done with pride, but why would that situation have to be done with pride? Why can't that be done with humility? There isn't anything inherently unrighteous about it, is there?

I think this is a great point. It certainly can be done in humility as you say The husband just needs to check himself to be sure that that's where his heart is at, and be sure that he is communicating with humility.

In the straight-forward and assertive way that you've addressed people in this thread, I would say that it's given some the idea that you don't really approach this topic with humility, but as I read what you're saying I think that you actually do, and I appreciate that a lot.

Is it a sin for a husband to tell his wife to do something?
No.

Simply to reiterate my point one last time, I think you have to be careful about oversimplifying things here. Is it a sin for a husband to tell his wife to do something?
Rather than a straight "no," I would say that it is not sinful as long as 1) he is coming from a place of humility as well as understanding and love toward his wife, and 2) as long as that something is biblical and honoring to God.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The Christian male feminist is a man who pushes secular feminism in Christian circles without regard to the numerous hypocrisies and double-standards endorsed by secular feminism.

Wasn't it you ChandlerFan that advocated divorce if a husband falls with respect to viewing pornography and misused the metaphors of Christ to "support" that action by Christian women. That's 50% of all CHRISTIAN marriages right now that need to go to divorce court and break up their families because ChandlerFan said so based on his incorrect understanding of scripture.

Pretty sick thing to advocate for ChandlerFan. Don't you know GOD HATES DIVORCE? The fall of a Christian male in a pornography drenched society to viewing it is a problem to be rectified not a scriptural mandate to breakup half of the Christian families in the U.S..

 

[ChandlerFan]

The Christian male feminist is a man who pushes secular feminism in Christian circles without regard to the numerous hypocrisies and double-standards endorsed by secular feminism.

Wasn't it you ChandlerFan that advocated divorce if a husband falls with respect to viewing pornography and misused the metaphors of Christ to "support" that action by Christian women. That's 50% of all CHRISTIAN marriages right now that need to go to divorce court and break up their families because ChandlerFan said so based on his incorrect understanding of scripture.

Pretty sick thing to advocate for ChandlerFan. Don't you know GOD HATES DIVORCE? The fall of a Christian male in a pornography drenched society to viewing it is a problem to be rectified not a scriptural mandate to breakup half of the Christian families in the U.S..

Well this got way off-topic. You can put labels on me all you want, but I take careful steps to be sure my views are rooted in Scripture. If it's demonstrated to me reasonably that my views are not correct, I am willing to change them. If telling a man that he should love his wife is "secular feminism" then so be it. It's also biblical.

And I do not advocate for divorce. What I said was that repeatedly and unrepentantly viewing pornography is sexual infidelity and is biblical grounds for divorce. I never said that a woman should divorce her husband on those grounds, but that it would be biblically permissible.

And yep, I know that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). God also hates the degradation and dehumanization of people made in His image.

I think you need to slow your roll, quit assuming so much, get off your high horse, and contribute something of value to the discussion. This attack was unwarranted and unnecessary.

 

[ChandlerFan]

Also, AgeofKnowledge, I respect your insights and appreciate your passion for the Word of God. I assure you that my views are not as out-of-line as you seem to think that they are.

I do my best to approach every discussion with respect and humility. I try to be reasonable as I interact with people, and I try not to assume the worst about anyone even though that can be easy to do at times. If you will not approach a conversation with humility and grant me the same respect, I will not engage in discussion with you. Your attack assumes things about me and my views that are inaccurate and untrue, and because of that it seems that you are assuming the worst about me. I am always willing to engage in respectful discussion, but I will not put up with attacks, and those types of posts will be ignored from this point on.

 

[mystikmind]

Well, without going into all the subtle nuances, when i try to put myself in my wife's shoes and imagine what i would be feeling to do what she is doing, this is what i come up with....

"I want him gone, i cannot stand the sight of him anymore but i have to try to maintain our friendship for our daughters sake"

"He wants us to try to work it out, but even if that was possible somehow, i won't do it because what i really want is to one day find someone younger and more ambitious so i can live my dreams"
(my lack of ambition career wise and her dreams of travel and adventure are two things she did openly say to me)

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Why repeatedly? Jesus said in Matthew 5:28, "but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Using your logic, a single incident of a man looking at any woman even one time with lust constitutes the justification for divorce. So any wife is fully justified in filing divorce papers and breaking up her family if she learns that her husband at any time in the course of their marriage ever looked at a woman with lust.

If he was walking down the street and let his eye wander, divorce. If he was watching television and saw a pretty girl and though a lustful thought, divorce.

See, if you're going to misuse scripture to help the devil break up Christian families in opposition to God's will in arguing that a woman is fully justified in divorcing her husband because he looked "at a woman with lust" then you have to at least be logical and consistent with the scripture that you're misusing.

Jesus never said that a man has to look at pornography repeatedly to commit adultery in his heart. He said a single incident qualifies.

But you're wrong, of course, because Matthew 5:28 is not a grounds for divorce. It's a statement against lust and they are not same thing.

Immediately following Jesus’ warning against adultery in the heart (Mat. 5:28), Jesus explains just how seriously we should fight against it: "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. "And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell” (Mat. 5:29-30).

In both passages, Jesus uses figurative language to get His point across more vividly. In verses 29-30, hyperboles are used. A hyperbole is an “obvious and intentional exaggeration; an extravagant statement or figure of speech, not intended to be taken literally, as in “to wait an eternity” (From dictionary.com).

Jesus is not advocating self-mutilation anymore than he is justifying divorce. Instead, what Jesus is teaching us, through figurative language, is that we must make whatever sacrifices are necessary in order to resist sin (e.g., TV, Internet, certain friends, career, where we go, how we spend our time, etc.).

The “adultery in the heart” of Matthew 5:28 is no more literal than Jesus’ discourse of plucking out the eye or cutting off the hand.

Adultery (moicheuo), by definition, is unlawful sexual intercourse, specifically with another person’s spouse (See Thayer & Vine definitions). “Adultery in the heart” does not involve the physical act of adultery, for it takes place in the heart, not the body. The adultery committed in Matthew 5:28 is figurative, not real or physical, yet nevertheless a sin, an offense to God.

Whether adultery is committed in the heart only (Mat. 5:28) or with the body also (Rom. 13:9), sin has been committed. However, each type of sin does not result in the same exact consequences. While both kinds of sin can condemn a person eternally, there are significant differences in the consequences or results that each one brings.

Mental adultery makes one morally unclean before God (Mark 7:21), yet it is not a sin against the body like physical adultery nor a justification for Christian divorce.

Jesus had already stated what constitutes the grounds for divorce earlier in Matthew 19:9 when he said, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

The devil doesn't need your help in misusing scripture to increase the divorce rate amongst Christians ChandlerFan. He's got enough help already.

What I said was that repeatedly and unrepentantly viewing pornography is sexual infidelity and is biblical grounds for divorce. I never said that a woman should divorce her husband on those grounds, but that it would be biblically permissible.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

"Jesus introduced a stricter ethic based not on the biblical law of divorce (Deut 24:1–4) but on the biblical principle of marriage (Gen 2:24)—that is, he opposed divorce because the permanence of marital harmony is God’s ideal.

Jesus offered a general prohibition of divorce in a graphic, hyperbolic saying that portrayed all divorce as invalid and remarriage as adulterous (Mk 10:11; Lk 16:18). Given the context of Jesus’ Jewish teaching style, Matthew and Paul are undoubtedly correct to allow exceptions for the innocent party whose marriage is broken against his or her will (for infidelity and abandonment, respectively—Mt 5:32; 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15; see Stein; Keener 1991). "

Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments. 1997 (R. P. Martin & P. H. Davids, Ed.) Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

“To the married I give this command (not I but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife” (1 Cor 7:10–11).
Plainly Paul, a considerable time before Mark’s Gospel was written, knew what Jesus had laid down on the subject of marriage and divorce, and knew it in the same sense as Mark’s account."

Kaiser, W. C., Jr., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., & Brauch, M. T. (1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (435). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

"In comparing the words of Jesus in Mt. 5:32; 19:3–12; Mk. 10:2–12; Lk. 16:18, we find that he brands divorce and remarriage as adultery, but does not say that man cannot put asunder what God has joined together.

In both passages in Matthew fornication (RSV ‘unchastity’) is given as the sole ground on which a man may put away his wife, whereas there is no such qualification in Mark and Luke. Fornication is commonly taken as here being equivalent to adultery; similarly, the conduct of the nation as Yahweh’s wife is branded both as adultery (Je. 3:8; Ezk. 23:45) and as fornication (Je. 3:2–3; Ezk. 23:43); in Ecclus. 23:23 an unfaithful wife is said to have committed adultery in fornication (cf. also 1 Cor. 7:2 where ‘immorality’ is Gk. ‘fornication’).

The reason for the omission of the exceptive clause in Mark and Luke could be that no Jew, Roman or Greek ever doubted that adultery constituted grounds for divorce, and the Evangelists took it for granted. Similarly, Paul in Rom. 7:1–3, referring to Jewish and Rom. law, ignores the possibility of divorce for adultery which both these laws provided.

There is a strong body of opinion both among Protestants and Roman Catholics that 1 Cor. 7:10–16 gives another ground for divorce. Here Paul repeats the teaching that the Lord had given when on earth, and then, under the guidance of the Spirit, gives teaching beyond what the Lord had given, since a new situation had arisen.

When one party in a pagan marriage is converted to Christ he or she must not desert the other. But if the other insists on leaving the Christian ‘a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases’. This latter clause cannot simply mean that they are free to be deserted, but must mean that they are free to be remarried. This further ground, which on the face of it is of limited application, is known as the ‘Pauline Privilege’.

In the present modern tangle of marriage, divorce and remarriage the Christian church, in dealing with converts and repentant members, is often compelled to accept the situation as it is. A convert who previously has been divorced, on sufficient or insufficient grounds, and who has remarried, cannot return to the original partner, and the present marriage cannot be branded as adulterous (1 Cor. 6:9, 11)."

Wright, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (1996). b. In the New Testament. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (736). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

 

[DyingToSelf]

Father GOD,

I continue to pray for this situation and all situations that involve marital strife, LORD. I believe in Your restoration, for have You not said and will You also not do?

I believe in Your Word for marriage, that divorce is NOT in Your design. Jesus has said that divorces happen because men have hardened their hearts, and so I pray for all estranged spouses to soften their hearts and forgive each other, I pray that each husband will find renewed favour in the eyes of their wives and I pray that each wife will find favour in their husband's eyes and hearts.

I claim Jesus' Word over each and every situation, that Man and Woman may come to realise that GOD has ordained for us to become one flesh, and that which GOD has joined together, no man should tear apart. I pray that You expel the spirits of anger and stubbornness over each situation, that You remove the obstacles of egotism and self-righteousness in each family that is going through this right now.

LORD, raise a hedge of protection over us, and preserve our families in this time of need. I recognise that I can do nothing except through Christ Jesus. I beg Your healing over every broken heart, Your peace over every disobedient tongue and Your grace over each and every person who is suffering under this oppression.

I pray that our families learn to forgive one another, and humbly ask that we be changed into a new creation that we may become better husbands, wives, parents and spiritual leaders in our household.

O LORD, remind us that as husbands, we are to love our wives like Christ loved the Church. Remind us that we are not to forsake our families because Christ would never forsake us. Remind us that as Christ continually forgives our sins, we are to forgive each other continually.

Father, remind our wives that submission in Your Word, is not equivalent to subservience. Remind us that to submit to their husband is to simply recognise the role that their husbands holds in their hearts, to put their spouse first in their heart and not let anything, or anyone, take that sacred place.

LORD, we need Your supernatural restoration and healing in these situations, I pray all these in the name of my Kinsman- Redeemer, Jesus Christ,

Amen

 

[presidente]

MystikMind,

Leviticus says to love your neighbor, not to despise your neighbor in your heart, but to rebuke your neighbor frankly lest you share in his sins. Many Christians are unaware of the huge number of verses requiring Christians to admonish, and if necessary, rebuke those among us who sin. We are instructed to pray for those who sin, restore those who sin, and encourage one another so that we don't sin. It goes against western cultural norms to actually live this way.

On another thread, you said that you had been loyal for 3 years and married for six, and your wife slept with you only twice in the last three years. Are you saying you weren't loyal for three years? It read that way, but I'm going to assume you were just trying to say you'd been faithful but that she'd only had sex with you twice in two years, and it made you angry to read about another man who cheated on his wife. I can understand the anger.

But I read a bit about your wife and probably feel the same way. It sounds like she has been a lousy wife to you, assuming you have been faithful the whole time and haven't caused any trauma that led to her defrauding you of sex, or there isn't some major health or other issue keeping her from having sex.

Romans 1 says that covenant breakers are worthy of death. It sounds like she's trying to break covenant with you for no reason other than being discontent and bored, and not loving you and respecting her as she should. She should be repenting for her lack of respect and her attitude. That's the solution out of her sin, one part of it at least, if you have painted an accurate story.

I wonder if your approach so far has been sort of begging and telling her you are sorry for not meeting whatever need of hers that she can't adequately explain that you haven't met. Beating yourself up for not being enough to meet whatever it was that you cant' figure out. Is that accurate? If that's the case, I think you need to change your tune. You should be communicating to her, IMO, what a lousy wife she has been. She hasn't slept with you. She is being unfaithful by not keeping covenant, a crime the Bible says is committed by those worthy of death. She's going down a sinful path. She needs to repent, respect you, be your help meet, sleep with you, love you, etc. She should be happy that you would be willing to reconcile with a disloyal woman like herself. If you are concerned about her being a bad role model as a mother by teaching your daughter bad things about marriage-- in addition to destroying her daughter's family to selfishly satisfy her emotional needs.

If she's being selfish, let her know she's being selfish. If you see her hurting your daughter and her future, let her know. Get some stats about what is more likely to await her daughter if you divorce.

You can pray to communicate this with meekness. But if you haven't rebuked your neighbor frankly so that you don't share in her sin, I think you should. Rebuking your neighbor, at times, is one of the ways God wants us to love our neighbor. The Bible associates not doing so with despising your neighbor in your heart. What neighbor lives closer than your own wife?

If you have fallen short, sinned, etc. confess that. You may have been lacking as a husband in many ways. What husband isn't? What husband doesn't have room for improvement? That doesn't justify covenant-breaking.

Your goal should be to help your wife get back on track with the Lord. It doesn't sound like divorce is part of that plan. Going along with a separation or divorce isn't holding her accountable.

I wouldn't go to an unbelieving counselor over such things. Their idea of what's good for a couple may include divorce. Also, a counseling session with a pastor or Christian counselor may be a good place to air some of your concerns about how lousy your wife has been in so many ways.

I'm also wondering when she cut you off from sex, did you try to correct that problem in any way, or just let her do that without being strong in objecting to it? Cutting a spouse off from sex is a bad sign, and it also hurts the intimacy in the marriage. It could also be an indication of an affair, especially if she enjoyed sex before she cut you off. If it were me, I might bring the affair topic up in the marriage counseling situation and see if the counselor has some skill in picking up clues. Counselors hear the same symptoms and same stories over and over again and some of them may be able to pick up on things.

 

[Sirk]

"In comparing the words of Jesus in Mt. 5:32; 19:3–12; Mk. 10:2–12; Lk. 16:18, we find that he brands divorce and remarriage as adultery, but does not say that man cannot put asunder what God has joined together.

In both passages in Matthew fornication (RSV ‘unchastity’) is given as the sole ground on which a man may put away his wife, whereas there is no such qualification in Mark and Luke. Fornication is commonly taken as here being equivalent to adultery; similarly, the conduct of the nation as Yahweh’s wife is branded both as adultery (Je. 3:8; Ezk. 23:45) and as fornication (Je. 3:2–3; Ezk. 23:43); in Ecclus. 23:23 an unfaithful wife is said to have committed adultery in fornication (cf. also 1 Cor. 7:2 where ‘immorality’ is Gk. ‘fornication’).

The reason for the omission of the exceptive clause in Mark and Luke could be that no Jew, Roman or Greek ever doubted that adultery constituted grounds for divorce, and the Evangelists took it for granted. Similarly, Paul in Rom. 7:1–3, referring to Jewish and Rom. law, ignores the possibility of divorce for adultery which both these laws provided.

There is a strong body of opinion both among Protestants and Roman Catholics that 1 Cor. 7:10–16 gives another ground for divorce. Here Paul repeats the teaching that the Lord had given when on earth, and then, under the guidance of the Spirit, gives teaching beyond what the Lord had given, since a new situation had arisen.

When one party in a pagan marriage is converted to Christ he or she must not desert the other. But if the other insists on leaving the Christian ‘a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases’. This latter clause cannot simply mean that they are free to be deserted, but must mean that they are free to be remarried. This further ground, which on the face of it is of limited application, is known as the ‘Pauline Privilege’.

In the present modern tangle of marriage, divorce and remarriage the Christian church, in dealing with converts and repentant members, is often compelled to accept the situation as it is. A convert who previously has been divorced, on sufficient or insufficient grounds, and who has remarried, cannot return to the original partner, and the present marriage cannot be branded as adulterous (1 Cor. 6:9, 11)."

Wright, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (1996). b. In the New Testament. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (736). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Well my ex wife has taken on a buddhist name so I think I'm in the clear.

 

[mystikmind]

Thank you Dyingtoself

Presidente - Over the weekend i had thought about a non condemning rebuke done with love, i know it is something i will have to do sooner or later, i just wasn't sure the time was right, it is hard to say, i think i feel i need to wait for some reason.

Valentines day is coming up, i was thinking of buying her a promise ring as a symbol of my commitment to change, i plan to ask her if she can keep valentines day open for me.....

I do not know if i mentioned this yet, she has been messaging on her phone allot since she broke it off. I noticed her messaging parked in the driveway after coming home from work, i noticed her messaging in the bedroom in the dark, she gets up late at night to go messaging. Something else she has never done before, she got a phone call and went outside so i could not hear. Other than that, she is also messaging all the time even right in front of me. perhaps she has always been like that and i never noticed, but definitely going outside to talk on the phone and leave me inside to look after our child is a new thing.

Anyway, i suppose the point is, if she 'will' have Valentines day open for me or someone else?

She says there is no one else, and i accept that is possible, but the fact is, there will be someone else sooner or later, and as much as it kills me, i hope he looks after her better than i did, and i hope he is good with my daughter.