If you're implying you have no value, then you're implying the husband has a right to treat you like dirt at the bottom of his shoes. What's less value than that?
question about submission
- Thread starter JFSurvivor
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If you're implying you have no value, then you're implying the husband has a right to treat you like dirt at the bottom of his shoes. What's less value than that?
Last edited:
Issues arise in the course of family life. Incentives or necessity can impose the need for a family to change lifestyle, location , or priorities.
In dealing with these issues it is good for a man, who seeks to love his wife in a self sacrificing emulation of Jesus, to discuss them with his wife and sometimes even with his children.
Having discussed the issues and considered his wife's and his children's needs and preferences; if consensus can not be reached, the man must decide what is best for the family [ not on the basis of his own preferences; but on the basis of God's leading as he perceives it].
IMO: It is the wife's responsibility to make sure that her husband considers possible ramifications of of available courses of action and to express her preferences; but once a decision is made she should accept it and support it gracefully.
In dealing with these issues it is good for a man, who seeks to love his wife in a self sacrificing emulation of Jesus, to discuss them with his wife and sometimes even with his children.
Having discussed the issues and considered his wife's and his children's needs and preferences; if consensus can not be reached, the man must decide what is best for the family [ not on the basis of his own preferences; but on the basis of God's leading as he perceives it].
IMO: It is the wife's responsibility to make sure that her husband considers possible ramifications of of available courses of action and to express her preferences; but once a decision is made she should accept it and support it gracefully.
S
ScriptureLook
Guest
I totally agree with what you are saying. Submission is for both. No, it is not shameful in fact it is quite powerful. And because a husband submits to a wife it does not mean he loses his authority. The key in that verse is the submission is fitting to the Lord. We submit one to another because it is God's very desire.
Just as Jesus, who has been given the name above every name and has all power in heaven and earth, willingly submits to the Father, I truly believe this passage denotes that trust in the authortiy of God governing our lives. A husband and a wife who are both called of God by His salvation can experience the very power of submission of Jesus by applying submission one to another.
I will be honest this is an area I am just really begining to taste and seeing how good God
Why do you think kids need both their mom and dad in their life? It's because both parents have such responsibilities to prepare their child for life. The father can't be the mother, and the mother can't be the father. It takes a team effort. What is a team? It's a group of people linked for a common purpose. So that implies working TOGETHER. Not for someone. That means husband and wife submit and work alongside one another.
Specifically what there is not clear?
Reminder: don't confuse unbelief with lack of clarity. . .
Last edited:
Umm...like I don't get how we went from talking about submission to the bride of Christ having no value. So are you saying women have no value outside of their husbands? I understand the bit about the Bride of Christ that we are worthless without God however a lot of times people can read the Bible and make it sound like women are less valuable IN CHRIST and are less smart fot the only reason being that they are female.
Elin I'll ask again. If the wife has no value, why is she such an important figure in her kid's life and why does it take teamwork for a marriage to work?
Where does Scripture tell anyone to submit to the bride of Christ?
How do you get from "submission" to "no value"?
That's the way the ungodly culture thinks, that's not the way Scripture thinks.
Good! . . .because that is a very important basic Biblical truth.
But is what matters how some make it sound, or what the Bible actually teaches?
Is "smart" valued by God more than godliness?
Let's think in God's terms and using God's values.
Last edited:
That's "no value in herself " apart from the grace of Christ.
Perhaps JF could explain it to you, she understands it.
And many unbelievers do naturally good things, and are important figures in their kids' lives. . .but they are still condemned.
G
GaryA
Guest
No, honey - you are not garbage. You are simply misunderstanding what is being said.
God made the man Adam as part of His [ originally ] perfect creation. He then took a rib from Adam and made the woman Eve.
Genesis 2:
[SUP]23[/SUP] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
The word 'woman' literally means 'taken out of [ a ] man' or 'from [ a ] man' -- because Eve was made from a rib taken out of Adam. They were both [ originally ] made without sin -- woman was not made from "flawed sinful man" -- so, get that out of your head. The Bible does not say that.
The verse above is the first verse in Genesis whereby the word 'man' is speaking in the sense of an individual human male. All occurances of the word 'man' before this verse are speaking in the sense of 'mankind' ( human beings ).
Genesis 1:
[SUP]27[/SUP] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In this verse - in the 'grammar of the language' - the words 'man', 'him', and 'them' are actually all referring to the same thing - but, in a 'peculiar' sense - the closest [ modern English ] "grammatical match" of which would be something like ( i.e., we would say it something like ):
"God created mankind in His own image - first Adam, then Eve."
~ 'man' refers to "mankind" in the general sense of His Creation.
~ 'him' refers to "mankind" in the more specific and particular sense of 'Adam' which means "mankind" ( see below ).
~ 'them' refers to "mankind" in the very specific sense of the actual two people Adam and Eve.
Genesis 5:
[SUP]2[/SUP] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
God named "mankind" Adam. The word in the original language is actually 'adam' ( transliteration; see below ). It literally means "ruddy"; as a label, it means "all of mankind" ( mankind in general ) or "a human being" ( a person ), depending on context. This is the word that is translated into every word 'man' in Genesis before 2:23 ( as well as many other places after it in the O.T. ).
From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:
120 'âdâm aw-dawm' ; from 119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):- X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
+ denotes a rendering in the A. V. of one or more Heb. words in connection with the one under consideration.
X denotes a rendering in the A. V. that results from an idiom peculiar to the Heb.
A. V. = Authorized Version
In answer to your question 'why...???':
1 Timothy 2:
[SUP]13[/SUP] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [SUP]14[/SUP] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
So -- you can "blame":
~ God - because He made Adam first.
~ Eve - because she is the one who was "tricked" by Satan, and sinned against God.
~ Satan - because he "tricked" Eve into sinning against her God.
( I wrote it this way to make a point -- I would most certainly not suggest that you "blame" God for anything; rather, accept what God has done and said. )
None of this "devalues" women in any way.
No, honey - you are not garbage. You are simply misunderstanding what is being said.
God made the man Adam as part of His [ originally ] perfect creation. He then took a rib from Adam and made the woman Eve.
Genesis 2:
[SUP]23[/SUP] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
The word 'woman' literally means 'taken out of [ a ] man' or 'from [ a ] man' -- because Eve was made from a rib taken out of Adam. They were both [ originally ] made without sin -- woman was not made from "flawed sinful man" -- so, get that out of your head. The Bible does not say that.
The verse above is the first verse in Genesis whereby the word 'man' is speaking in the sense of an individual human male. All occurances of the word 'man' before this verse are speaking in the sense of 'mankind' ( human beings ).
Genesis 1:
[SUP]27[/SUP] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In this verse - in the 'grammar of the language' - the words 'man', 'him', and 'them' are actually all referring to the same thing - but, in a 'peculiar' sense - the closest [ modern English ] "grammatical match" of which would be something like ( i.e., we would say it something like ):
"God created mankind in His own image - first Adam, then Eve."
~ 'man' refers to "mankind" in the general sense of His Creation.
~ 'him' refers to "mankind" in the more specific and particular sense of 'Adam' which means "mankind" ( see below ).
~ 'them' refers to "mankind" in the very specific sense of the actual two people Adam and Eve.
Genesis 5:
[SUP]2[/SUP] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
God named "mankind" Adam. The word in the original language is actually 'adam' ( transliteration; see below ). It literally means "ruddy"; as a label, it means "all of mankind" ( mankind in general ) or "a human being" ( a person ), depending on context. This is the word that is translated into every word 'man' in Genesis before 2:23 ( as well as many other places after it in the O.T. ).
From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:
120 'âdâm aw-dawm' ; from 119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):- X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
+ denotes a rendering in the A. V. of one or more Heb. words in connection with the one under consideration.
X denotes a rendering in the A. V. that results from an idiom peculiar to the Heb.
A. V. = Authorized Version
In answer to your question 'why...???':
1 Timothy 2:
[SUP]13[/SUP] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [SUP]14[/SUP] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
So -- you can "blame":
~ God - because He made Adam first.
~ Eve - because she is the one who was "tricked" by Satan, and sinned against God.
~ Satan - because he "tricked" Eve into sinning against her God.
( I wrote it this way to make a point -- I would most certainly not suggest that you "blame" God for anything; rather, accept what God has done and said. )
None of this "devalues" women in any way.
Rib is the side of the body. Hence women and men work side by side. As far as Eve being tricked, it was Adam who stood by and watched and didn't say anything. God put Adam in charge. Adam is just as much at fault as Eve is. If he wasn't, wouldn't you think it's just women who suffer from sin?
G
GaryA
Guest
"I did not say this quite right"...
The use of the word 'man' with the article 'the' ( Genesis 2:8,15,16,18,22 ) refers to "Adam the man" - see the "dual meaning" discussion of the word 'adam'...
G
GaryA
Guest
In general, I have no problem with this statement; albeit, it has nothing [ directly ] to do with what I wrote in post #213. And, you have left out a few of the other details of this 'man-reasoned' idea...
The Bible does not actually make this statement ( put forth this idea ); although, it can be supported - in part - by what the Bible does say. However, the statement does not "tell the whole story" from a biblical point of view.
The Bible does not say that. And, in any case - it is moot - because God made Adam responsible for Eve.
Adam's "guilt" is associated with the responsibility that God gave him concerning his wife.
Yes, because God made Adam responsible for Eve.
Authority always comes with responsibility.
Only in the sense of the fact that God had made him responsible for Eve.
No - that is not the way 'sin' works in the equation of the Creation. Sin "taints" everything it touches. Once "the deed was done", the whole earth ( literally ) became "condemned"...
In general, I have no problem with this statement; albeit, it has nothing [ directly ] to do with what I wrote in post #213. And, you have left out a few of the other details of this 'man-reasoned' idea...
The Bible does not actually make this statement ( put forth this idea ); although, it can be supported - in part - by what the Bible does say. However, the statement does not "tell the whole story" from a biblical point of view.
The Bible does not say that. And, in any case - it is moot - because God made Adam responsible for Eve.
Adam's "guilt" is associated with the responsibility that God gave him concerning his wife.
Yes, because God made Adam responsible for Eve.
Authority always comes with responsibility.
Only in the sense of the fact that God had made him responsible for Eve.
No - that is not the way 'sin' works in the equation of the Creation. Sin "taints" everything it touches. Once "the deed was done", the whole earth ( literally ) became "condemned"...
Responsible for? Are women supposed to be pets and not humans? Or little kids instead of adults? And well it's like if you saw an assault take place. Sure you didn't actually assault the person. But you were with said person who did the assaulting, and didn't do anything to stop it from happening, which makes you just as guilty as the assaulter. And if women are so beneath us men, why does God's Holy word speak so heavily of women such as Ruth and Esther. Surely God wouldn't have chapters solely on them if women were beneath us.
Yes, Adam ate the fruit just as Eve did, but Eve was first in the transgression because of deception.
Adam was not deceived, he just loved Eve too much.
Last edited:
Adam knowingly let Eve get deceived, and knowingly let her eat the fruit. He didn't do or say anything to stop her. If you're with someone and the person commits a crime and you don't do anything to stop it, you're an accessory to the crime.
I said Adam was guilty of eating the fruit, in disobedience with full knowledge and consent--he was not deceived.
What are you not understanding?
Last edited: