Is it proper to correct another mans wife/family?

[Verifyveritas76]

A spoken word of correction is all I’m comfortable with another man giving my family unless it involves serious imminent danger. I have trained my family especially my wife to operate as she/they understand my will and have allowed them a certain level of autonomy within boundaries that they are very aware of. Anything more than a spoken word would doubtless initiate self defense protocols that I would fully support to whatever level my child or wife thought necessary. It would be best if anyone were concerned about proper behavior of my family to speak with me prior to anything beyond a spoken correction. I am a very jealous/protective Adown when it comes to authority over my family

 

[FollowingHim]

I have taught my wife and daughters to be respectful of and submissive to men in general. If a man gives instruction that is not contrary to what I have taught her and also not clearly contrary to scripture I expect her to obey that instruction.

That goes a lot further than what I would be comfortable with. I would want them to obey men in authority positions within the context of their actual authority where that did not contradict my instructions (e.g. obey an employer within the context of their job, obey a church elder within the context of a church ministry). But teaching them to obey men in general seems to be rather risky, in my opinion. Too much potential for a naive daughter to allow herself to be abused (and I'm not talking only in a sexual context, this is much broader than that) while thinking she was doing what I'd want. And I see no scriptural reason for it. We are to submit to those in authority over ourselves, but not to everybody.

 

[IshChayil]

ב"ה

This reminds me of one time I was listening to Christian talk radio driving home from work years ago in Texas. They were discussing a new law in neighboring Arkansas where police could fine individuals for driving "slower than the flow of traffic" while being in the passing lane, even if they were speeding. So the idea is if the speed limit was 55mph, and a guy is in the passing lane going 60mph but the flow is going faster, he needs to move OUT of the passing lane to let the flow pass him otherwise he can get a ticket. The host of the program was mocking the law and said he personally enjoys going exactly the speed limit in the passing lane (in Texas) in order to force other people to "obey the speed limit".
I found that deeply annoying and called in and discussed it with him.
Without getting into all of my points the fundamental issue was "who makes you mr. Radio host an officer of the law for misdemeanors?"
Why can say why someone may need to go a bit faster, or may unknowingly be going a bit faster, or mr. host has a busted speedometer, or whatever.
Anyway, this seems to fit the issue of correcting someone else's wife. She's the speeder and only her husband (and the L-rd) are the police with the right to enforce misdemeanor offences.

If she bumps into another car, then the equation changes, or if she is the one in the passing lane driving the exact limit (policing others), well she deserves correction from whomever she's blocking/hindering, etc. If she flips the bird to someone, or starts disrespecting other drivers or driving incorrectly then the analogy may break down; they can respond to her in the moment without needing to find out who is her husband, etc.

***I am not speaking to any concrete situation with anyone I know other than the radio host I mentioned so if anyone thinks this is about you, it's not***
shalom ​

 

[Cap]

ב"ה

This reminds me of one time I was listening to Christian talk radio driving home from work years ago in Texas. They were discussing a new law in neighboring Arkansas where police could fine individuals for driving "slower than the flow of traffic" while being in the passing lane, even if they were speeding. So the idea is if the speed limit was 55mph, and a guy is in the passing lane going 60mph but the flow is going faster, he needs to move OUT of the passing lane to let the flow pass him otherwise he can get a ticket. The host of the program was mocking the law and said he personally enjoys going exactly the speed limit in the passing lane (in Texas) in order to force other people to "obey the speed limit".
I found that deeply annoying and called in and discussed it with him.
Without getting into all of my points the fundamental issue was "who makes you mr. Radio host an officer of the law for misdemeanors?"
Why can say why someone may need to go a bit faster, or may unknowingly be going a bit faster, or mr. host has a busted speedometer, or whatever.
Anyway, this seems to fit the issue of correcting someone else's wife. She's the speeder and only her husband (and the L-rd) are the police with the right to enforce misdemeanor offences.

If she bumps into another car, then the equation changes, or if she is the one in the passing lane driving the exact limit (policing others), well she deserves correction from whomever she's blocking/hindering, etc. If she flips the bird to someone, or starts disrespecting other drivers or driving incorrectly then the analogy may break down; they can respond to her in the moment without needing to find out who is her husband, etc.

***I am not speaking to any concrete situation with anyone I know other than the radio host I mentioned so if anyone thinks this is about you, it's not***
shalom ​

I'm moving to Arkansas.

 

[Pacman]

That goes a lot further than what I would be comfortable with. I would want them to obey men in authority positions within the context of their actual authority where that did not contradict my instructions (e.g. obey an employer within the context of their job, obey a church elder within the context of a church ministry). But teaching them to obey men in general seems to be rather risky, in my opinion. Too much potential for a naive daughter to allow herself to be abused (and I'm not talking only in a sexual context, this is much broader than that) while thinking she was doing what I'd want. And I see no scriptural reason for it. We are to submit to those in authority over ourselves, but not to everybody.

FYI I have not had this come up... But an example would be say one of my girls or my wife were in a store and she bumped something off the shelf onto the floor. She proceeds to walk away from it rather than picking it up. I would be totally on board with a man telling her she should go and pick up the items... And I would expect her to obey. Chances are that in 2018 no one would say anything and they would simply shake there head and think she was rude. Probably won't happen even from someone who knows us. Let alone a stranger ...

As far as correcting her I was mostly referring to men at church etc... Who know us well and know how I expect her to behave.

1 Corinthians 11:7-10 KJV
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. [10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

As far as I can tell this is a principle taught all through scripture that women in general should be submitting to men in general. Certainly she should use discretion and not obey something immoral or even something questionable but I do believe this is a scriptural stance.

 

[steve]

As far as I can tell this is a principle taught all through scripture that women in general should be submitting to men in general. Certainly she should use discretion and not obey something immoral or even something questionable but I do believe this is a scriptural stance.

I see what you are saying, but I would turn the dial a bit further towards the “My wives are not under the authority of other men” position.
Admittedly, our positions are not extremely defineable and we may be saying pretty much the same thing.

 

[andrew]

I would go further than Steve, then, and say that I believe that position is wrong.

[T]he woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

The man. The woman. Definite articles. What Paul teaches here is that THE woman is the glory of THE man, is created of THE man, and created for THE man. Extrapolating from the story of Adam and Eve (one woman, one man), we see that God created a specific remedy for a specific lack of Adam's, creating a specific helper with a specific kind of relationship, and we infer that the same motives and purposes apply in other husband/wife relationships.

Pacman, you do you, and run your house however you want, but as a matter of bible teaching, for what you're saying to make sense Paul would have had to say something along the lines of "women are the glory of men, for women are of men and created for men". That's not what he said.

Anybody that tries to assert any authority over my women on the basis of some generic male privilege is going to get told where to get off. By the women.

 

[Pacman]

I would go further than Steve, then, and say that I believe that position is wrong.

The man. The woman. Definite articles. What Paul teaches here is that THE woman is the glory of THE man, is created of THE man, and created for THE man. Extrapolating from the story of Adam and Eve (one woman, one man), we see that God created a specific remedy for a specific lack of Adam's, creating a specific helper with a specific kind of relationship, and we infer that the same motives and purposes apply in other husband/wife relationships.

Pacman, you do you, and run your house however you want, but as a matter of bible teaching, for what you're saying to make sense Paul would have had to say something along the lines of "women are the glory of men, for women are of men and created for men". That's not what he said.

Anybody that tries to assert any authority over my women on the basic of some generic male privilege is going to get told where to get off. By the women.

I guess my view of that passage taken in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 (which is largely Paul dealing with order in the Church and not marriage) is that he points to the creation order to explain authority structure in the church, and not that he is specifically talking about the first marriage relationship. Although it clearly also applies to marriage. Another observation is if he were only speaking about marriage he would have used the terms husband and wife as he did in other passages.

Not trying to argue. I am truly trying to learn. Which is why I joined the forum to begin with.

 

[andrew]

Paul's order in church teaches that the woman is accountable to her husband, not 'the church', not 'the men of the church'.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

There are no Greek words for husband or wife. Those English translations are inferred from context.

 

[rockfox]

1 Cor 11: 1-16 deals with generic order in creation. God->Christ->Man->woman. It doesn't imply that any given women is under the authority of all other men. By way of illustration (on the subject of glory): if my wife or daughter acts virtuously it reflects positively on me, husband/father, not on men in general.

FYI I have not had this come up... But an example would be say one of my girls or my wife were in a store and she bumped something off the shelf onto the floor. She proceeds to walk away from it rather than picking it up. I would be totally on board with a man telling her she should go and pick up the items... And I would expect her to obey. Chances are that in 2018 no one would say anything and they would simply shake there head and think she was rude. Probably won't happen even from someone who knows us. Let alone a stranger ...

This isn't a matter of obedience, but of common courtesy. Of esteeming others higher than yourself. Of behaving in a Way that reflects well on husband and Christ. We needn't posit general male authority over our wives to cover cases like this.

 

[FollowingHim]

I would also add that in that case, if anyone told her to pick it up, I'd expect her to be courteous enough to do it, not out of obedience to the person who said so, but out of obedience to the basic manners and courtesy I had taught her. And the same goes for one of my sons in that situation being rebuked by a woman - again he should take it as a reminder to be courteous and just do it. Nothing to do with obedience.

I agree with Andrew that this idea of women being generally in submission to men in general is scripturally wrong. But I say this with no animosity, I see where you've got it from and why you came to think that. I just believe you're wrong.

 

[Pacman]

After studying this a bit deeper and looking at the points made here I think I agree that I need to temper my stance. I will be sitting down with my wife and girls and teaching them to be respectful but only that they are required to submit to authorities when they are given instructions that are within the boundaries of said authority. Thank you all for your input on this I have changed my mind.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

After studying this a bit deeper and looking at the points made here I think I agree that I need to temper my stance. I will be sitting down with my wife and girls and teaching them to be respectful but only that they are required to submit to authorities when they are given instructions that are within the boundaries of said authority. Thank you all for your input on this I have changed my mind.

I think that you will find this stance to provide maaaaaany unintended benefits that you would have never imagined would come from it. I’ll just say that in general, if you position yourself (or your family) as being under another man’s authority under whatever context, your family will subconsciously respond to you in that manner. However, if you make it clear to your family (and anyone else) that you are the king and priest over your home and that you will back any action they make as long as it is within your boundaries, and perform that function or office, they will subconsciously respond to you in that manner. There’s much more that I could post on this topic in regards to how my wife and children have responded in the past, but I think I’ll leave it very generic for now. I applaud you for examining this and encourage you to be watching for the unintended benefits

 

[andrew]

I agree with Andrew that this idea of women being generally in submission to men in general is scripturally wrong. But I say this with no animosity, I see where you've got it from and why you came to think that. I just believe you're wrong.

Just to be all crystal clear, @Pacman, I didn't say anything with any animosity toward you either.

If you go back and look at your first two posts in this thread, a post and a half was you sharing your thoughts on the subject of how your family operates, but then you closed out the second post with a statement that you believe it is scriptural for women in general to submit to men in general, in fact, it's "a principle taught all through scripture".

Well, that changes the framing quite a bit, and I told you what I thought about that position—I think it's wrong.

The rest of it, like I said, is "you do you", and I'll do me. You took a few paragraphs to tell everybody how you're teaching your women; I took one sentence to tell everybody how I'm teaching mine. Peace.

 

[FollowingHim]

After studying this a bit deeper and looking at the points made here I think I agree that I need to temper my stance. I will be sitting down with my wife and girls and teaching them to be respectful but only that they are required to submit to authorities when they are given instructions that are within the boundaries of said authority. Thank you all for your input on this I have changed my mind.

The willingness to change your mind is a very important character trait. Good on you.

 

[Pacman]

Just to be all crystal clear, @Pacman, I didn't say anything with any animosity toward you either.

If you go back and look at your first two posts in this thread, a post and a half was you sharing your thoughts on the subject of how your family operates, but then you closed out the second post with a statement that you believe it is scriptural for women in general to submit to men in general, in fact, it's "a principle taught all through scripture".

Well, that changes the framing quite a bit, and I told you what I thought about that position—I think it's wrong.

The rest of it, like I said, is "you do you", and I'll do me. You took a few paragraphs to tell everybody how you're teaching your women; I took one sentence to tell everybody how I'm teaching mine. Peace.

Thank you for calling me out on it. I am quickly realizing that I need to dig quite a bit deeper before I reach such final conclusions. And I will try to be more careful about making definitive statements in the future.

 

[Pacman]

The willingness to change your mind is a very important character trait. Good on you.

It seems I have changed my mind a lot lately. The fact that I have joined this forum discussing topics that I had considered immoral as recently as a year ago is clear evidence of that. Truly it's uncomfortable to be presented with hard facts that contradict what I have always believed. Thank you for your input.

 

[Pacman]

I think that you will find this stance to provide maaaaaany unintended benefits that you would have never imagined would come from it. I’ll just say that in general, if you position yourself (or your family) as being under another man’s authority under whatever context, your family will subconsciously respond to you in that manner. However, if you make it clear to your family (and anyone else) that you are the king and priest over your home and that you will back any action they make as long as it is within your boundaries, and perform that function or office, they will subconsciously respond to you in that manner. There’s much more that I could post on this topic in regards to how my wife and children have responded in the past, but I think I’ll leave it very generic for now. I applaud you for examining this and encourage you to be watching for the unintended benefits

I would definitely like to see more of what you have experienced about this. Thank you for your input.

 

[Pacman]

Paul's order in church teaches that the woman is accountable to her husband, not 'the church', not 'the men of the church'.

There are no Greek words for husband or wife. Those English translations are inferred from context.

Perhaps you can help me. I have always been taught that I should be causous about going back to the Greek because I don't speek Greek and it's difficult to infer meaning from a language that I do not understand. For example there are words in English that have multiple meanings and we understand the meaning based on the context of what's being said. Therfore my tendency is to simply accept the English (more specifically KJV) as it's written because the translators did have a much deeper understanding of the original text and implied intent. The only times I typically would look at the Greek would be to clarify portions of scripture that are difficult to understand in English.

Am I off base with my ideas on this? If so what would you suggest as a more appropriate approach?

 

[PeteR]

Perhaps you can help me. I have always been taught that I should be causous about going back to the Greek because I don't speek Greek and it's difficult to infer meaning from a language that I do not understand. For example there are words in English that have multiple meanings and we understand the meaning based on the context of what's being said. Therfore my tendency is to simply accept the English (more specifically KJV) as it's written because the translators did have a much deeper understanding of the original text and implied intent. The only times I typically would look at the Greek would be to clarify portions of scripture that are difficult to understand in English.

Am I off base with my ideas on this? If so what would you suggest as a more appropriate approach?

Blessings, @Pacman. What you wrote here sounds like the standard line the Roman Catholic Church used for 1500 years to limit scripture reading to the priesthood. Beware anyone who tells you that you can't understand the scriptures for yourself or that digging in the ancient languages belongs to the ivory towers.

All of us today are without excuse.... the internet and readily available tools online give you the ability to not just dig in the Greek but to understand the Hebrew concepts and words underlying the Greek! One really good online tool is blueletterbible.org. . Excellent tool.

I have esword on my laptop and mysword on my phone for word studies. I also have youversion on my phone to have multiple translations at my fingertips. Hint: NO translation is perfect. ALL have translator bias..... the only way to overcome that is learning to do word studies and read multiple translations.