Kobojunkie:
I am afraid I cannot relate to whatever it is you may be dealing with there. I only take the Words of Jesus Christ, the one who is master over me, seriously.

And here we have it folks. A confused feminist. Not surprising.

Lanretoye:
i don understand your reasoning,abeg pass

You def don't like the application and implication of your reasoning.

Kobojunkie:
I will summarise for you and then you tell me how you were able to read and not see the following:

▦ What God declared in Matthew 23 vs 8 - 10, Luke 20 vs 34 = 36 & Genesis 3 v 16

---

A. Jesus Christ alone is the Head(Master) over each man and each woman who belongs to Him in the Kingdom of God
B. Men and Women are equals in the Kingdom of God
C. There are no special rules that apply to married men and women in the Kingdom of God
D. Marriage has no place in the Kingdom of God as all our brothers and sisters in the eyes of God

▦ What the author of Ephesians 5 vs 22 - 33 instead states

---

A. The husband of a woman and Jesus Christ are both heads over a wife
B. Man is not equal in the Kingdom of God
C. There are special rules that apply to married men and women in the Kingdom of God
D. Marriage holds a special status in the Kingdom of God.

What in the world are you talking about?

These are your own missinterpretation of what apostle Paul said and you quoting scripture that doesn't address the topic at hand

It is clear to me, from your interpretation that you probably didn't read the full length of my replies, especially the first one, before making your comments.

You are stuck on the words "head" and "submit" and you interpret them to mean that they are purposed to place the man above his wife so that he's superior to her in the kingdom of God, but there is no reference to the kingdom of God. Only an analogy using the relationship of Christ and the Church to explain the expected order in marriage.

Instructing that the husband is the head is meant to forestall any rancor in the marriage on who leads. You are the one bringing the kingdom of God into the discuss.

You also conveniently ignore the call to sacrifice, in that same Ephesians 5:22-31, that comes with the role of the husband as the head, to the point of "giving up himself" for her, which shows that it's not about superiority but about order and responsibility

If the order of who coordinates or leads in the union of two people isn't established from the very beginning, what would ensue would be chaos and disorder. All of which will eventually lead to the death of the union.

Let me ask you then.

If you are a practicing Christian, do you follow your pastor's instructions or follow his leadership in church?

If you do, does it then mean that he is superior to you in God's kingdom because you follow his lead?

Does it mean that all men are not equal in the Kingdom of God because your pastor is leading in church?

Does it mean that there are special rules that apply to pastors because they lead in church over the oordinary church members, in the kingdom of God?

Of course not.

Being head in the marriage doesn't mean that the husband is superior to the wife, the same way that a pastor being the leader in church doesn't mean that he is superior to the ordinary church members.

Why do you think we have a pastor in church who leads the congregation and every member submits to the authority placed on him to lead? For order and better coordination.

Why do you think that the first thing that God does when he has any project with the children of Israel , in the old testament, is to look for a leader. And all the children of Israel submit to him as leader? For order and better coordination.

Even Christ chose Peter out of all his disciples, to "feed his sheep," to ensure order and proper coordination among his disciples when he returns to the Father.

Do you think a vehicle with two drivers holding the same steering have a better chance of success than a vehicle with just one driver holding the steering and an assistant driver sitting beside him?

Do you think a kitchen with two Chefs coordinating the menu has a better chance of getting things done, better, quicker and more orderly than a kitchen with just one Chef and a Su-Chef helping him?

Do you think a football team with two team captains who both give instructions to their team mates would operate better as a team compared to a team with just one captain giving instructions on the pitch?

When the Bible says "and the two shall become one," what do you think the "one" means?

They become one body, right?

Have you ever seen a body of any kind, human or animal, that doesn't have a head?

Do you think a body without a head, or one that has two heads coordinating one body, has a better chance of success compared to the one that has only one head coordinating the body?

Do you think a marriage without a head has a better chance of success compared to the one that has a head?

These are analogies that should question your conclusions.

Two cooks, they say, spoil the brooks..

The instructions in Ephesians isn't about positions or superiority in God's kingdom but rather about order and better coordination in Christian marriages

If you're not a practicing Christian, then it means that we don't subscribe to the same authority and therefore, we have different ways of thinking, different ways of life, and different ways of going about the things of God, making this back and forth a futile exercise.

Leonel55:
■ What in the world are you talking about? These are your own missinterpretation of what apostle Paul said and you quoting scripture that doesn't address the topic at hand
■ It is clear to me, from your interpretation that you probably didn't read the full length of my replies, especially the first one, before making your comments. You are stuck on the words "head" and "submit" and you interpret them to mean that they are purposed to place the man above his wife so that he's superior to her in the kingdom of God, but there is no reference to the kingdom of God.
■ Only an analogy using the relationship of Christ and the Church to explain the expected order in marriage.
■ Instructing that the husband is the head is meant to forestall any rancor in the marriage on who leads. You are the one bringing the kingdom of God into the discussion.

1. Misinterpretation of what Paul said? Please be very specific because I see a lot of accusations but nearly no substance to specify them exactly here.

2. No reference to the Kingdom of God? What do you mean by that? Was the letter to the Epistles not there addressing even those who supposedly belonged to the Kingdom of God — the born-agains — as opposed to those who have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God at all — the non-believers?

3. Jesus Christ said in His Gospel that the relationship between Himself and His Church — the believer— should not mirror the relationships that exist between them and others - Matthew 23 vs 8 - 10 & Matthew 6 vs 24 &.... (His followers are not allowed to serve any other masters or have any others as head over them.) This implies that the relationship His followers have that are of this world should not mirror the relationship that exists between them and Jesus Christ. So, the attempt in Ephesians 5 vs 22 - 33 to assert a correlation between Jesus Christ and His Church as an idea similar to that which is of this world is a direct violation of God's Law, Jesus Christ. Why do you refuse to see this?

4. Whatever reason you assume it is meant for, the fact is it is against Jesus Christ who emphatically proclaimed Himself the one and only Head over all those who believe in Him. So clearly,

◍ A woman having a husband as head, in addition to Jesus Christ, is a woman who does not belong to Jesus Christ.
◍ Consequently, a man who asserts himself as head over a woman, in addition to Jesus Christ, is a man who asserts himself as an additional master on par with Jesus Christ and that is against Jesus Christ.

Again, Jesus Christ and His teachings are what establish the Kingdom of God for those who are born-again. His teachings are not meant to be applied to any other country/nation but that. So, when you quote Him, the context automatically becomes the Kingdom of God and those who are supposed to be born-again — those who obey and those who reject included.

Please stop typing the long epistles because I pick the first few to respond to and if they are off then I take it there is no point to continue with the rest.

Kobojunkie:
1. Misinterpretation of what Paul said? Please be very specific because I see a lot of accusations but nearly no substance to specify them exactly here.

2. No reference to the Kingdom of God? What do you mean by that? Was the letter to the Epistles not there addressing even those who supposedly belonged to the Kingdom of God — the born-agains — as opposed to those who have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God at all — the non-believers?

3. Jesus Christ said in His Gospel that the relationship between Himself and His Church — the believer— should not mirror the relationships that exist between them and others - Matthew 23 vs 8 - 10 & Matthew 6 vs 24 &.... (His followers are not allowed to serve any other masters or have any others as head over them.) This implies that the relationship His followers have that are of this world should not mirror the relationship that exists between them and Jesus Christ. So, the attempt in Ephesians 5 vs 22 - 33 to assert a correlation between Jesus Christ and His Church as an idea similar to that which is of this world is a direct violation of God's Law, Jesus Christ. Why do you refuse to see this?

4. Whatever reason you assume it is meant for, the fact is it is against Jesus Christ who emphatically proclaimed Himself the one and only Head over all those who believe in Him. So clearly,

◍ A woman having a husband as head, in addition to Jesus Christ, is a woman who does not belong to Jesus Christ.
◍ Consequently, a man who asserts himself as head over a woman, in addition to Jesus Christ, is a man who asserts himself as an additional master on par with Jesus Christ and that is against Jesus Christ.

Again, Jesus Christ and His teachings are what establish the Kingdom of God for those who are born-again. His teachings are not meant to be applied to any other country/nation but that. So, when you quote Him, the context automatically becomes the Kingdom of God and those who are supposed to be born-again — those who obey and those who reject included.

Please stop typing the long epistles because I pick the first few to respond to and if they are off then I take it there is no point to continue with the rest.

Dude, you're all over the place and talking out of point. Making correlations that are incoherent, putting up quotations that do nothing to explain your argument and drawing wild conclusions to the words of Christ. And you in no cognizant way show that you read my reply: feels like I'm pouring water over an egg.

How, and at what point, did any verse in Ephesians 5:22-32 talk about "The kingdom of God?"

Since you respond without reading, I have no further business with you in this conversation.

Have a blessed day!

Leonel55:
■ Dude, you're all over the place and talking out of point. Making correlations that are incoherent, putting up quotations that do nothing to explain your argument and drawing wild conclusions to the words of Christ. And you in no cognizant way show that you read my reply: feels like I'm pouring water over an egg. How, and at what point, did any verse in Ephesians 5:22-32 talk about "The kingdom of God?" Since you respond without reading, I have no further business with you in this conversation. Have a blessed day!

So, it never occurred to you before now that when you say "In the name of Jesus Christ", the context automatically switches from being of the earth and becomes of that which applies in the Kingdom of God. Sort of like the way, back in historical movies about old Britain, at least, the proclamation "In the name of the King" automagically meant the context was English nation.

The Church of Jesus Christ exists ONLY in the Kingdom of God— only those who are born-again are citizens of the Kingdom and hence members of His Church. Therefore everything that applies as far as the Church ought to align with the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, and the Law in the Kingdom of God.

kkins25:


Interesting. Submission is voluntary, while obedience is mandatory.

I just asked Claude.ai and it does agree with your view. In fact, it says, "Submission allows respectful dialogue around expectations, obedience restricts questioning directives received." But, i was not convinced with this answer since, submission still involves relinquishing one's authority to another. So, I asked further

Given the context, it's not far-fetched for me to incite that obedience can quickly become an element of submission. So, I queried further

Obedience can be an expression of fear, submission is an expression of confidence.

Obedience is succumbing to superiority, submission is affirming competence.

The obedient have no choice but to be obidient, submission can should not to submit.

Obedience is punishable, submission is rewarded.

Obidience is enforced, submission has consented.

Obedience can't bargain, submission can.

Obedience negotiate from a position of weakness, submission negotitate from a position of strength.

If authority is a vehicle, then obidience is the chicken tied in the boot, while submission is the passenger beside the driver. The chicken (obedience) have no agency or say in the destination, route taken, speed limit, lunch breaks, etc.

But the passenger (submission) has a say in the general agreement of the trip, and the driver dare not do things unilaterally that deviates from the original agreement. If you paid to go to Abuja, driver must take you there even though he controls the steering.

A submitter can probably do what the authority is doing (eg a passenger can drive), but submitting is allowing you do it, since its convenient in this team work. Submission is not slavery, its not surbodination, and its not a position of helplessness.

Is it clear now?

intelligent!

pansophist:


Obedience can be an expression of fear, submission is an expression of confidence.

Obedience is succumbing to superiority, submission is affirming competence.

The obedient have no choice but to be obidient, submission can should not to submit.

Obedience is punishable, submission is rewarded.

Obidience is enforced, submission has consented.

Obedience can't bargain, submission can.

Obedience negotiate from a position of weakness, submission negotitate from a position of strength.

If authority is a vehicle, then obidience is the chicken tied in the boot, while submission is the passenger beside the driver. The chicken (obedience) have no agency or say in the destination, route taken, speed limit, lunch breaks, etc.

But the passenger (submission) has a say in the general agreement of the trip, and the driver dare not do things unilaterally that deviates from the original agreement. If you paid to go to Abuja, driver must take you there even though he controls the steering.

A submitter can probably do what the authority is doing (eg a passenger can drive), but submitting is allowing you do it, since its convenient in this team work. Submission is not slavery, its not surbodination, and its not a position of helplessness.

Is it clear now?

DestinedForGrea:

Great analogy, accurately explained.

But.. "obidient"?

What has 2023 election done to us?

I didn't even catch that..... it means, it has done a lot.. hahahah

nice take on submission and love

u need to understamd something though: jesus did.not die for anybodys sins. he came to teach aboit his fathers love and he was murdered. just like the parable of the vineyard tenants.
jesus was killed. everybodys deed (good or bad) is on their head.
karma is real and so is reincarnation.

blessings!

AlphaHakimi:
No man can perfectly explain submission more than a woman and no woman can perfectly explain love more than a man.

For instance, if you had asked the jews what love meant, they would have given you several definitions. But the one the one time Jesus christ was asked what love is, he demonstrated it on the cross of calvary. There are actually no words to describe what Christ did on Calvary.

In essence, submission to your husband is a gift which God has designed for only women to understand and express while love is a gift which God has designed for only men to understand and express.

For the sake of your question, submission simply means " AT ALL TIMES, MAY THE WILL/WISH OF MY HUSBAND BE DONE TO ME".

There are no exceptions to submission. You cannot submit today and not submit tomorrow or you cannot submit in this matter and not submit in the next matter. Submission is absolute and this is why Men must choose CAREFULLY whom to love and women must choose CAREFULLY whom to submit to.

Jesus christ did not say, I will only die for the Jews or for Israel, he died for everyone.

SHALOM

AlphaHakimi:
For the sake of your question, submission simply means " AT ALL TIMES, MAY THE WILL/WISH OF MY HUSBAND BE DONE TO ME".

Ignoring the many false claims made of God in your response, I would like to focus in on your definition of the term. If all the times, the will of the husband is to be done to the woman, doesn't this mean that absolutely none of God's Will can be?

Kobojunkie:
Ordained by which God?

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [1] and hers; he will crush [2] your head, and you will strike his heel."
16
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Is the God here different from the God you serve?
https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/GEN+3.html

kkins25:
Is the God here different from the God you serve?

In what would does one confuse a judgment, for sin committed with an ordination?

Kobojunkie:
In what would does one confuse a judgment, for sin committed, be mistaken for an ordination?

Doesn't matter.. Just proves that, husbands in relation to the wife, has more authority. Even if in the kingdom of God.

kkins25:
Doesn't matter.. Just proves that, husbands in relation to the wife, has more authority. Even if in the kingdom of God.

It matters!

A condemnation cannot be and should not be confused for an ordination.

kkins25:
I've been thinking about this alot, and can't seem to understand what "submission" means.

What does it mean for a wife to submit to me? Also, can women provide what "to submit" means to them?

Is submitting to a man similar to submitting to God in the sense that man has the last and final say? Does this mean, the man's will should supersede that of the woman? Does submitting mean, taking care of? Please, explain it to me like I'm a dumb 5 year old.

If you are referring to submission as stipulated in Christian circles then you have to refer to the Bible. The scriptures say: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord". Ephesians 5: 22 The greek for "submit yourselves" is pronounced "hupotasso" and it means to obey, be subject to or the put under. In the same verse, a standard is provided. You are to submit to your husband and you would to the Lord Himself.

This standard is beyond any wife but it is the standard that Jesus wants all wives to work towards. The same can be said of the standards for the husbands.

Listening to him.

kkins25:
I've been thinking about this alot, and can't seem to understand what "submission" means.

What does it mean for a wife to submit to me? Also, can women provide what "to submit" means to them?

Is submitting to a man similar to submitting to God in the sense that man has the last and final say? Does this mean, the man's will should supersede that of the woman? Does submitting mean, taking care of? Please, explain it to me like I'm a dumb 5 year old.

To submit to your spouse means to hand over full autonomy of yourself to your partner as though you would God. This boils down to decision making for the family and also yourself. Whilst you can advise, it boils down to your partner to adopt or jettison your suggestion.

Submission means Letting your partner take precedence over your affairs, allowing him to lead and respecting his leadership.


Now, there is a twist to this concept. In the past submission was not subject to debate because men assumed their roles fully and adequately, offer respect and peace of mind to their wives. Note that whilst offering all of these, they were still alpha males with zero tolerance to bullshit, yet their wives were wived well. That is somewhat, a great contrast to what is tenable today. What I am driving at is that our society has evolved, values have been thrown to the wind. A man who does the barest minimum(when he has the capacity to do more), is irresponsible to his wife and kids...may not enjoy total submission from his wife.

A woman naturally submits when her safety, wellbeing and future is not threatened.

Juliearth:





To submit to your spouse means to hand over full autonomy of yourself to your partner as though you would God. This boils down to decision making for the family and also yourself. Whilst you can advise, it boils down to your partner to adopt or jettison your suggestion.

Submission means Letting your partner take precedence over your affairs, allowing him to lead and respecting his leadership.


Now, there is a twist to this concept. In the past submission was not subject to debate because men assumed their roles fully and adequately, offer respect and peace of mind to their wives. Note that whilst offering all of these, they were still alpha males with zero tolerance to bullshit, yet their wives were wived well. That is somewhat, a great contrast to what is tenable today. What I am driving at is that our society has evolved, values have been thrown to the wind. A man who does the barest minimum(when he has the capacity to do more), is irresponsible to his wife and kids...may not enjoy total submission from his wife.

A woman naturally submits when her safety, wellbeing and future is not threatened.

God bless u dear beauty with brain

ebubeson:
As a woman, you are not a fool. But submission here means to respect him as the head and obey him. It is not everything he says that you may take, but you can disagree respectfully. You are not to disagree or drag with him on simple matters that needs no debate.

It means to cook for him always and make sure cooked food is available. And the husband must be tolerant in his demand for kinds of food... You can't just keep saying to your wife " I want fresh food, I cannot eat food in the freezer, I cannot eat food cooked yesterday".. You need to be tolerant.

It means not submitting your destiny and life to a foolish husband. You cannot submit your life to a lazy gambler or an irresponsible man, all in the name of submission. You can respect, but do not submit foolishly.

You cannot submit to a violent man that wants to take your life all in the name of submission. You can submit to such persons from afar without coming closer.

That's right. And that's all.

It means working in unity with the man.