Obedient Woman

Let's set fire to them all....I'm wanting to make s'mores over the coals.

ROFL

Ask and ye shall receive 1 Pet. 3:7

You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.


7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered.NTL

You asked if I think a husband's duty to give himself up for his wife is heavy? Absolutely. However, like Agape love, giving yourself up (dying) for your spouse is also a mutual responsibility in marriage. Wives are not exempt.

Christians are instructed to die for each other in the following verses:

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.
And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.1 John 3:16

the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Rom 6:11-12

Most husbands will never be in a situation where they have to physically die for their wives. However, there will be countless opportunities in a marriage for BOTH spouses to "die to sin" per Rom 6:11-12.

A Christian woman's duty to die to sin and lay down her life for another doesn't end when she gets married, but that duty extends into marriage. Therefore, a Christian wife has to Agape love her husband AND die for her husband too. That's why it is odd to me when someone asserts that men have a heavier responsibility in marriage.

Giving one's self up for, dying to sin and laying down one's life for another are not masculine duties. They are Christian duties, and BOTH men and women instructed to do it.

From what I have read, polygamy was not commonly practiced among the Jews in the Grecco-Roman world, but I suspect there could have been some who did it. And Paul's restriction would have applied to that as well.

But I see no reason to read 'sarcasm' into the statement or the idea that the elder/bishop or deacon is necessarily Gentile.

You said, "Laws guaranteed concubines rights like other wives."

Hagar did not have the same rights as Sarah. After Abraham died, Isaac got everything, and Ishmael (the eldest son) only got a gift. Gen 25:5-6

CONCUBINE, n. L., to lie together, to lie down.
1. A woman who cohabits with a man, without the authority of a legal marriage; a woman kept for lewd purposes; a kept mistress.
2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws
https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/concubinate.html

CONCUBINE, a slave woman in ancient societies who was the legal chattel of her master, and could enter in legitimate sexual relations with her master...
The concubine was not a mere servant yet she was not free and did not have the rights of the free wife.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Concubine

In the Bible, a concubine is a woman who lives with a man as if she were a wife, but without having the same status as a wife. Concubines in the patriarchal age and beyond held an inferior rank—they were “secondary” wives. A concubine could not marry her master because of her slave status, although, for her, the relationship was exclusive and ongoing. Early on, it seems that concubines were used to bear children for men whose wives were barren (see Genesis 16:1–4). Later, it seems that concubines were kept simply for sexual pleasure. 2 Chronicles 11:21). Concubines in Israel possessed some of the same rights as legitimate wives, without the same respect.

https://www.gotquestions.org/concubine-concubines.html

You said, "A better understanding of 'concubine' would be a slave RAISED to the status of wife."

Slave, inferior rank, chattel,
without respect, being used for her reproductive abilities, being keep for lewd purposes and the master's sexual pleasure certainly don't sound like elevation or being raised to the status of a wife. It pretty much sounds like what it was - sex trafficking. No need to try to sanitize it or make it more palatable. Concubinage was not an elevation for certain women. Concubinage was a degradation of God's original plan for marriage. We find God's original plan for marriage in Genesis before the Fall and in Eph 5.

Judaism had different sects or groups. In the first century, there were Saducees-- probably 'Zadokites'-- from the priestly family, scribes and Pharisees, and other groups like Herodians, Essenes, and radicals like the Sacarii and Zealotes. Within the Pharisees, there were two main groups we know of, the Hillel school and the Shammai school. Hillel was quite old and Shammai lived on for a while during the time of Jesus' early childhood. The Shammai group was in control for a while, and even assassinated a bunch of the Hillel adherents at a Bible study. There was the 'Torah cult' with scribes, Pharisees, etc. There was the priestly or temple 'cult' focused on the priesthood. Then, among the Diaspora, there was a whole culture of Hellenistic Judaism. Many of them likely considered the Septuagint translation was inspired and argued for doctrine off the turn of phrase of their Greek translation.

Some time after the temple was destroyed, the Hillel Pharisees rebuilt the religion, with a focus on the synagogue.

We don't know to what extent your average first century Jew relied on the traditions that came to be known as the Talmud.

The Bible tells believers to submit to one another, wives to submit to husbands, children to (obey) parents, servants to (obey) masters. It tells us who is to submit to whom in this case. Wives submitting to husbands is specifically emphasized. The words 'obey' and 'obeyed' are used. The Bible says the husband is the head of the wife.

right

and Christ is to be the head of the husband

it's just so disconcerting that so many men who say they are Christians seem to forget that

oh...and then the part about husbands loving their wives sacrificially? where did that go? so often missing

and why are men needing to be told to love their wives?

the onus is always on the men. so try to be one....not just intended for you presidente...I just replied to your post

men need to stop blaming women for their failures

I don't disagree with the content of your post in general, but men do have the bigger responsibility

women are not called the priest of the home

nor have they ever been priests according to scripture

well like you said, IMO, meaning in your opinion. but it is your opinion and not fact

a concubine is neither a slave nor a wife

concubine
[ kong-kyuh-bahyn, kon- ]SHOW IPA




noun
a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.
(among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.
(especially formerly in Muslim societies) a woman residing in a harem and kept, as by a sultan, for sexual purposes.

That was before the laws about such things were given through Moses.

Meh.... this particular authors definition. The second is probably true of Abraham's time. The lexicographer here is doesn't make a distinction between Roman and Jewish culture in what you quoted.

Read the Bible. After a Jewish man takes a concubine, he can't sell her as a slave. She may have been a slave before, but she's a wife after.

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia entry for Pilegesh.

I would say, yes, she is still lower status because these women are called 'concubines' in scripture, which we might argue is a label that showed their slave social status prior to marriage. But they do get full rights as wives in the Old Testament after Moses. Ishmael was not to be heir with the son of the free woman, but half the patriarchs of the tribes of Israel were born to concubines and their tribes inherited their land.

In translation, Keturah is called both 'concubine' and 'wife.'

Defining concubine as 'kept for lewd purposes' when talking about Hebrew concubines is a ridiculous definition. A Jewish man in the first century who married a household servant who then became a Christian and was taught, 'Husbands love your wives' was required to love his wife, who was a concubine. If he only had one wife/concubine, then she wasn't a 'secondary wife' either. And their having sex and having children would not have to be any more 'lewd' than if he had married a free woman.

Exodus 21 did not allow men in this situation to sell the woman if he wanted to separate from her. I am not sure if a divorce certificate were required or not. It was not identical to marrying a free virgin girl, but it was a form of marriage back in their day.

Compare that to your own quote from Biblegateway. Legally,, concubines in Israel were raised to the status of wife.

I wonder why the II Chronicles verse was presented as evidence that 'concubines were kept simply for sexual pleasure.'

The passage it says:
21 Rehoboam loved Maakah daughter of Absalom more than any of his other wives and concubines. In all, he had eighteen wives and sixty concubines, twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters.

Does the commentator think Rehoboam only kept the concubines for sexual pleasure, and not the wives? He could have had some of those kids with the concubines, too. It is unlikely that a concubine was chosen for a political alliance, but he could have had romantic interest in his wives also. Anyway, the verse doesn't prove its point. I would assume a man that filled a harem like that did for political reasons (in the case of wives), for reasons related to sex and female companionship, or to demonstrate what a powerful high status man he was, or just because that is what kings did back then and he was following the culture....or some combination of those factors.

They weren't allowed to sell concubines, so not 'chattel.'

Well, that depends on the husband and the wife you are talking about.

God allowed it and regulated it. Not allowing concubines to be sold and requiring they had wife rights to food, clothing, and sex probably elevated their status quite a bit.

And if a man took a woman who was a servant in his household as concubine/wife, that does not mean there marriage was bad or that they could not love each other. Think about Ben Hur in that Charleston Heston movie. He probably would have been a good husband to a concubine if that rock hadn't fallen off the roof when the Roman official went by.

I agree this is biblical. The Husband is the head of the wife and wives should submit to their husbands as long as the husband is fulfilling his role in the marriage and putting Christ first and doing things that please God and not only himself.


My question is... how far should wives go to be obedient. Should they submit to everything that their husband wants?

For instance, say a woman and man attend a Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal (whatever denomination) church before getting married....then after marriage, the man changes his mind and wants to only attend Catholic churches. He then forbids his wife to go to any other church than the Catholic and instructs her that she is only allowed to worship God as the Catholics do. Should a woman have to submit to something like this even if she doesn't feel like it is what God wants?

Admittedly it may be a translation-dependent point, but one seen across translations.

Bold emphasis mine:

Genesis 25
1 Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah.
(ESV)

I Chronicles 1:32
32 The sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bore Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. The sons of Jokshan: Sheba and Dedan.
(ESV)

Notice Keturah is called both 'wife' and 'concubine.'

I'm starting to think that maybe I did write that post to you...and you only

calling someone a feminist because she dares to question your opinions or interpretation?

really...sounds like you are uncomfortable with women who can read and write...and gasp! possibly vote or express their own thoughts

since most women probably do get married (let's forget about the high divorce rates for the sake of what I am about to say) how convenient that all women everywhere should 'submit' to them...the priest of the home, aka husband person

submit to one another does not equate though. right

hey men? get it straight from a woman and probably most women.

women have brains and do not want to be ruled over, yelled at, told what to do, given no choice, treated like they are children, and then have the Bible waved at them and be told they are being disobedient to God

if you are being the man the Bible...you know the big book with God's stamp of ok on it?...tells you to be, in most cases you will not have to wave the Bible at your wife. notice I said most cases; there are always exceptions

You are being too restrictive. Peter applies his instructions to husbands who do not obey the word.

But everyone must put submission to God first. Wives are to submit to husbands 'as unto the Lord', not in opposition to the Lord.

notice Sarah was dead at that point and Abraham married for the 2nd time

wife one dead....enter wife two, Keturah

Abraham took another wife.....in this case meaning he married again, and again, AFTER Sarah died

leaving out the little details sure does seem to be a favorite thing of yours to do

definitely not what God 'wants'. God wants honesty....truth. I would simply say again that a man actually being that man that we are told is the one defined in scripture, is the one that will elicit the woman who stands by him and does not give him grief

many women give men grief because those same men are going back on who they were before marriage

you know? seems the 'hunt' is exciting and all but once you get your 'prize', it seems to tarnish some

men really have no excuse. it's always but but but...this is the woman you gave me...the same old excuse as in the garden...no responsibility and in fact, even sounds like God is being blamed here somehow

you know, far too much b$ is passed around as biblical injunctions. I don't think women should accept harmful behavior on the part of any man as their lot in life

And that is part of the problem. It perpetuates the weakness instead of making the man be a man. Trust God with the situation. If the individual obeys the Lord in what they are meant to do, God will not hold them responsible. God does not need our help. The story of how Saul was rejected as King is a great example of how not to do it. Saul rationalised his reasons disobey, but God rejected his reasoning. The Satanic world system has been undermining the role of men for decades. Why? Because women are easier to deceive. It's getting worse and worse. Christians should be a witness to the world, not falling in line with it.

That's actually the point I was trying to make. I don't see how any woman would have a problem with submitting to her husband if he was actually putting God first and carefully praying out any decisions that needed to be made.

The thing is there are many men who are not willing to do that. Some want to push their own agenda whether it is what God wants or not.