Women’s Opinions On Submission and Discipline

A Request For Women’s Opinions On Submission And Discipline

As regular readers here know, I’ve had several posts on hypergamy from a Biblical point of view.  I have taken the unpopular position that hypergamy isn’t an evolutionary development in women, but is rather part of God’s judgment on women contained in Genesis 3:16.   I’ve posted multiple times on this, The Reason Feminists Don’t Talk About Eve and more recently, Hypergamy and Genesis 3:16 A Man Must Be Fit To Rule.

Essentially, I make the argument that women respond to men and a woman will only have desire (true sexual desire) for a man who she determines is fit to rule over her.  I loosely define “fit to rule” as being a confident, masculine and dominant man who embodies good character traits such as honesty, loyalty, courage, faithfulness and wisdom.  I say loosely because different women are attracted to different things, but in general all women are attracted to masculine, confidently dominant men.

Based on my understanding of what Genesis 3:16 says, I believe it’s incumbent upon a man to develop himself and become fit to rule because God said that a woman’s desire will be for a man who is fit to rule over her.  As a result I’ve written a half-dozen posts or more on that subject encouraging men to maximize their potential.

Then comes the tricky question of a woman’s submission.  I’ve frequently made the point that submission isn’t obedience.  Obedience is following the rules, submission is accepting accountability for one’s actions and the consequences for violating the rules.  And, as I’ve pointed out before, the only examples of how Christ loves His church involve spanking.  Revelation 3:19 is the clearest and most succinct.

“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline.  Be zealous therefore and repent!”

Specific to physical discipline, in You Need To Be Spanked I made the point that

Women are attracted to dominance and men are attracted to submission.  Attraction is the coin of the realm and as a rule, a woman chooses to submit to a man based on her attraction to him.  The willing submission to physical discipline is the ultimate expression of both dominance and submission.   All other things being equal, if he has what it takes, she will choose to submit herself to that.  If he does not, she will not willingly do so.

I also made the point in 50 Shades of Biblical Marriage that the rules on marriage (taken from the Bible) actually read like a BDSM-style D/s relationship contract.  In other words, a Biblical marriage pretty much requires a dominant man because the woman is commanded to be a submissive over and over again.

 

Not Everyone Agrees

Commenter Cybersith1 claims women are demon-infested and won’t willingly submit to a man’s authority.

women have an inbuilt Jezebelic demonic rebellious attitude towards male authority and will NEVER willingly submit.

In addition, his position is that men don’t have any responsibility in whether a woman desires to submit to her man.

“I believe that women should be in submission regardless of whether a man is worthy enough or not…  Man doesn’t have to be “fit to rule” over women, he IS fit to rule over women PERIOD”

(I read that to some wives I know and their response was peals of laughter.)

Even though his argument is incoherent (is he advocating beating them into submission?), it’s a common theme amongst a certain flavor of churchians.  They can’t understand why women find them unattractive, they claim women should be attracted to them because they’re “godly men” and then they get upset when it doesn’t happen.  And the ones who managed to get married get really upset when their wife won’t submit to them, which usually means “have sex with him”.  As a rule she doesn’t want to because she finds his “servant leadership” and “mutual submission” repulsive.  Castrated males are simply repulsive.

In my response to his argument I related an example of my experience with women and submission (if they’re attracted to me they don’t have any problem with submission), but I thought it would be good for the women to chime in on this.  Especially those of you who blog about this sort of thing.

So, if any of you women readers would care to offer your thoughts on submission and discipline, why you might or might not want to submit to your man and what that might involve, go to the argument room with Cybersith1 and do so in the comments there.  He seems to be the sort of man who listens to women.

Comments About Submission and Discipline Here

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Women’s Opinions On Submission and Discipline

  1. SnapperTrx says:

    “I believe that women should be in submission regardless of whether a man is worthy enough or not…  Man doesn’t have to be “fit to rule” over women, he IS fit to rule over women PERIOD”

    I can halfway agree with this. A woman who is a believer SHOULD submit to her husband, regardless of whether or not she finds him “fit to rule” or not because God commands her to. At the same time, as a husband, being a fit, dominant alpha type man makes it all the easier for her. We are in this world, but not of this world. Being in this world means we still adhere to things like biology, gravity, etc. Biology says that a strong, healthy, confidant man will drive a woman wild with desire, while a slouchy, mousy push-over of a man will not.

    I think that many Christian men feel that this physical aspect is something they can ignore because its “of the flesh”, when really the term doesn’t necessarily reference the physical flesh. I mean, just because we are Christians doesn’t mean we can stop eating, or going to the bathroom – these things must still take place because its how we are physically built. Just as a man will become aroused at a lithe, sweet, well endowed redhead (oddly specific for a reason), so a woman will become aroused at a tall, square-jawed and muscled man. Thus, she will submit, all the easier.

    How hard is this to understand?

    • I should have expanded on that.

      “A woman who is a believer SHOULD submit to her husband, regardless of whether or not she finds him “fit to rule” or not because God commands her to. At the same time, as a husband, being a fit, dominant alpha type man makes it all the easier for her.”

      A judgment is a decision that has impact by deciding a matter. God’s judgment in that short passage was that women would henceforth be under the rule, not just authority, of their husband or father. The responsibility of this is laid out in Numbers 30 and we see several instances of “the Lord will forgive her because her (husband/father) has forbidden her.” We also see “he shall bear her guilt.”

      In today’s legal and cultural environment women are faced with temptations they should not be forced to deal with. A father/husband will bear the woman’s guilt when he steps in and fixes the mess she got herself in by forbidding her agreement/vow, so how much more guilt will he bear for standing by and allowing her to be tempted and not doing the things he could do and should do? The things that are in his best interests to do?

      And one might reasonably point to the Duluth model of abuse and say “There’s nothing we can do because every reasonable step we could take is considered abuse or domestic violence and it’s illegal.” Well, how about arranging the situation such that the woman *wants* to obey and be submissive?

      No, being fit to rule is not a command for men, but in keeping with the nature of the judgment, God was saying ‘this is the way it is from now on, deal with it.’ Fitness tests by women are a reality and they grow up doing it naturally. I’ve seen daughters fitness testing their fathers and mostly observed their fathers fail miserably. By the time they’re adults they’ve been doing it for over a decade. Every man with eyes to see and ears to hear has observed women fitness testing men they’re romantically involved with and probably had it done to them. Some are shit tests (dominance) and others are loyalty tests (security) and women do it subconsciously depending on who knows what. The man has to recognize them for what they are and deal with them appropriately.

      On the man’s side of it, he should improve himself because “to those to whom much has been given, much will be expected” and at the end of the day it makes life better. On the woman’s side of it, being that confident, masculine and dominant man she’s highly attracted to will mean she’s subject to far less temptation. That’s a good thing.

      Women want a ruler and have a desire to be ruled by a man who is fit to rule, which is why the claim that women refuse to submit to a man’s authority is an obscene lie. This has nothing to do with Christianity, it’s the nature of women. The success of 50 Shades demonstrates points to it. The fascination that *women* have with D/s and DD/lg relationships proves it.

      So yes, Scripturally women are commanded to submit. Men are commanded to love their wives. The question is whether it’s a loving thing to make that submission easier on her by giving her what she needs in order for her God-given nature to be triggered. In the alternate, which is going to get more and better sex for the guy? Cybersith1’s view, or mine?

  2. ddjennifer says:

    I don’t agree with your overall assertions, but I do find your point of view interesting and like how you express it. I enjoy reading thoughts that are alternatives to my way of thinking. I do 100% agree with your point “Obedience is following the rules, submission is accepting accountability for one’s actions and the consequences for violating the rules.” I always find there is some common ground somewhere.

    • “I don’t agree with your overall assertions, but I do find your point of view interesting and I like how you express it.”

      Around here, that’s code for “You’re a lunatic, but an entertaining one. Better than a soap opera, but this stuff is insane. Eres tremendo.”

      I made the mistake of asking once. “Really? You liked that?”

      That got a really sweet smile. “Well, let’s just say you’re something of an acquired taste. Kind of like arsenic.”

      • ddjennifer says:

        Ha! I was being authentic when I said that, no intention to infer lunacy. I think people can disagree without either one being a lunatic. But I admit, I didn’t read more than a few of your posts, so perhaps I would think otherwise if I read more?

        • The lunacy comment was a reflection of our history in real life. Like the time I told that one I’d pick her up at work and we’d have lunch. She agreed. At lunchtime I went inside and made my way to her cubicle, picked her up, threw her over my shoulder and walked out with her. As I left she was hanging upside down with one hand trying to keep her boobs from falling out of her blouse, laughing hysterically as she waved goodby to her coworkers with her other hand.

          Her boss told me that afterward she was held in very high esteem by the other women there. I’m not sure why but she won’t talk about it.

          The stuff I write is serious and I back it up with the research I’ve done, but it sounds crazy to people who haven’t been exposed to it before.

          • ddjennifer says:

            Love that story! But I don’t think what you write is about research, it’s about opinion. Research is not about making observations that support your beliefs, it is about a systematic study of observation and experiment.

          • SnapperTrx says:

            No offense, but are you serious? The experiment of the entirety of human history is more than adequate to support what Toad has written, and the word of God is not opinion, unless your not a believer, in which case it doesn’t matter because you don’t believe the bible holds any weight for humankind.

            The things written here, and on many sites like this, are merely rehashing information that had been confirmed and known by both men and women for thousands of years past. Its no secret that attractive men attract women, nor that attractive women attract men. It is only recently that this information has been ignored and replaced with the lie that we should only be attracted to people for their “inner beauty”.

            I think your comment is rather offensive, considering the wealth of research and commentary Toad has done.

          • ddjennifer says:

            Again, “lots of research” carries no weight when it is simply picking and choosing things that support your bias. The word of god is not opinion? Then why are their countless versions of each religion claiming to be the “true” religion? Christian’s, Jew’s and Muslim’s worship the “same” god. One true word indeed. It isn’t what is written the Bible that people want to follow, it is what man interprets and picks and chooses from that they want to follow. I find that offensive.

          • Renee Harris says:

            You still with her😊

        • SnapperTrx says:

          “unless your not a believer, in which case it doesn’t matter because you don’t believe the bible holds any weight for humankind.”

          You either missed this or ignored it.

        • SnapperTrx says:

          And I will at least give you this:

          “One true word indeed. It isn’t what is written the Bible that people want to follow, it is what man interprets and picks and chooses from that they want to follow. I find that offensive.”

          Amen! Your astute observation has pinpointed one of the many problems Toad and others have pointed out about modern day American Christians. If we could fix that, it would be fixing much.

          • ddjennifer says:

            Then do this. Every day randomly flip thru the Bible and put your finger in the page. Follow what is says explicitly. You’ll be in jail by the end of the week. And I will let you even use the New Testament as even your god needed a do over. Bible roulette anyone?

          • SnapperTrx says:

            Blah, blah, blah. New day, same old argument and accusation by another person. Your the person who doesn’t seek answers but only seeks argument for the sake of argument. Your not questioning anything beyond “how can I piss off a Christian today”. Go find someone else to goad, I have seen your type too many times to get sucked into it. Have fun. Goodbye.

          • ddjennifer says:

            Strength is not about muscle. You are weak. Weak minded, submissive to mythology.

        • Jenny… thank you. You have performed magnificently, far beyond expectations. Inform your husband that I am pleased with your performance and I recommend he give you a suitably memorable reward.

          Snapper… go back and look at your exchange with Jenny and observe the dynamic. Believe it or not, she is proving my point about Genesis 3:16.

          A shit test, by definition, is a test for dominance to determine who has the strongest frame. If the woman’s frame is stronger she establishes for herself that the man’s frame isn’t strong enough to withstand the force of her will. If the man’s frame is stronger than hers then she enters his frame, which establishes him as the dominant one in the relationship.

          When it comes to recognizing a shit test, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it’s best to think of it as a duck. When a woman starts arguing, it’s far better to simply view it as a shit test by default and see where that takes you.

          If you think of her comments as a demonstration of a woman shit-testing a man, would that change how you respond? If so, how? Look at the sub-text and consider the real message. In real life, quite frequently the most effective response to a woman’s attempt to start an argument is to give her a smirk and a pat on the head or ass. It’s known as “amused mastery.”

          You can also go with “agree and amplify.” Jenny, speaking to me, said “I don’t think” before throwing some bait on the floor to see if I’d take it. You took the bait because you didn’t look at this as a shit test. So, even with that nice, slow lob over the plate in the form of “I don’t think”, you stepped into her frame and argued with her.

          As I said, women unconsciously shit test men as naturally (and often as frequently) as they breathe and blink. It is part of their nature because God made them this way. Deal with it.

          • ddjennifer says:

            Toad- once again I don’t agree with your conclusions but I find your thought process very interesting and engaging. People can disagree without it being a “test.” But i believe men like you two react this way because of deep seeded insecurities which cause you to interpret everything as a challenge to your “manhood.” How’s that for a shit test? Oh, and despite your “true word,” no one gives a shit if you eat a lobster, get a tattoo, or get laid before marriage, which is why I suspect you have at least done 2 of the 3, if not all 3. By not following all your “word” and just cheery picking, you reveal yourself as the weak, feeble and insecure people that you so clearly all. The strong (muscle) do not rule. The strong in mind rule them. Most leaders and lawmakers throughout time were not the physically strongest. They were smart enough (mentally strong) to rule over those who were physically stronger and get them to do their bidding. Throughout time the physically strong have been submissive to the mentally strong. Which is why u hate educated women. By default it means collectively you weak minded people are submitting to them!

  3. cybersith1 says:

    You truly are a nasty person Artisanal Toad, truly worthy of your name “Toad”……Not once in our ongoing discussions on these topics have I made the debate PERSONAL, instead I have kept our disagreements on a theological level, I never attacked YOU personally
    Yet you continue to use ad hominem slurs against my character and to blatantly LIE about my position re your article here and in Toad’s argument Hall, where your continual use of personal pronouns referring to me personally is evident….In fact it’s downright slander and unbecoming from a purported follower of Christ

    I urge the readers to go and read all my comments in context and then compare them with what Toad actually says about me (do it now before he deletes my comments in order to cover his tracks, or edits his own)

    I let my ego get the better of me, in thinking that I could possibly win on a theological level using just the scriptures, but I was wrong…..You have rigged the deck, this is your blog, and you resort to blatantly misrepresent my position time and time again
    Your foundation has never been the plain meaning of scripture, instead as I have claimed before, your foundation is “game” “50 shades of grey” and the philosophy of the world

    I will attempt to answer a few times where you lied about my position, then I’m done as I will be unsubscribing from your blog, as you have demonstrated repeatedly that you are “NOT FIT” to follow….funny that, funny how your words are now used against you, but I digress

    1: “Commenter Cybersith1 claims women are demon-infested “…….You are a LIAR, I never said that women are demon infested, I said that women have an inbuilt demonic ATTITUDE of rebellion towards male authority…..being demon infested and having a demonic mind set is NOT the same thing, you deliberately twisted my words to add weight to your argument

    2: You LIED about me changing my position on Genesis 3:16 where you attempt to show that my summary of Genesis 3:16 changed from a “statement” to a “curse”, but that was never my position to begin with….the difference was between a COMMAND or a STATEMENT not between a statement and a curse because they can be both at the same time

    You consistently fail to see the problem of man’s inbuilt sin nature since the fall which has forever changed the dynamic between the sexes, and was never part of God’s original design…..The very fact that you resort to “game” is proof that a woman’s natural fallen state is to be in rebellion against male authority….you take away a man’s status, his wealth and power, and you will see how fast a woman will dump a man like a ton of bricks and rebel against being dominated and being in submission

    Your constant allusion to 50 shades of grey, and training a woman and how women love being dominated is sheer proof that you live in a foolish male fantasy world that is completely detached from reality…….You don’t follow Christ, you are a slave to your lusts and perverted desire to have multiple wives

    3: “Cybersith1 believes all men must to do is exist and women should submit to them, “……stop your filthy lies, I don’t believe that you LIAR, you twisted my words again….God’s judgement on womankind is that instead of mutual wise leadership, man will now RULE over women who because of their sin nature will constantly try to usurp that position and try to dominate man, that’s God’s curse and prophetic statement, it has absolutely nothing to do with what a man want’s or wishes, let alone what I want or desire

    4: for the 50th time you have failed to rebut my assertion that you added the words “fit to” in Genesis 3:16 and waffled on about poor bible translations etc……Get over yourself, neither the Hebrew or Greek or English or any modern bible translation have those magical words in it “fit to rule”….you inserted them in order to support your position on “game”….basically you are trying to MAKE the bible say something it didn’t

    5: you continually attack me personally, and mock me by saying women read my comments and laugh about my comments on submission….They laugh because 1: you have misrepresented my position and 2: you set up a straw man caricature of my position…..I believe women should be spanked/beaten into submission, really??, I mean really?

    Hey Toad go and see if those same women who mocked and laughed at me will submit to their husbands if they lost their jobs, status, wealth, power, good looks etc…go on I dare ya

    6: The reason I have labored so long in proving you added the words “fit to” in Genesis 3:16 is because your entire foundation and philosophy is NOT bible based, but based on your idea of “GAME” and how to attract women……any honest woman reading your blogs should be able to see right through your garbage and see what you’re really all about….go tell your female readers in here that you believe that a husband should be allowed to spank his wife with his hands, or an object if they step out of line, and see if they are not revolted at your beliefs

    The thing is, and this is what is so funny about your blogs, here is the kicker, because women are naturally rebellious towards male authority and are not attracted to “normal” men, you have to invent “game”!…the whole idea of game is to attract a species that is not inherently attracted to men unless he has status, wealth and power ROTFLOL!!!……This proves that women are in rebellion towards male authority and submission to men, otherwise you would never have to learn “game” in the first place….Your whole foundation is then shown to be a joke, a farce!…you don’t need to train those who are willingly submissive, you only have to train those who are in rebellion

    Anyway I digress…..My goal here is not to refute the errors of “game” and the whole retarded philosophy behind it, BUT to pull you up on your continual misrepresentation of my position, and to call you to task for lying about me, so i will summarize my entire position for all your readers to see, and then they can judge whether you are correct or me

    1: Genesis 3:16 is BOTH a statement and a declarative judgement from God based on Adam and Eve’s sin, it is NOT a command….mankind’s inherited sin nature has resulted in a situation where the sexes will always be in a perpetual war for power

    2: The words “fit to rule” has been added to the original Hebrew by Artisanal Toad for no justification whatsoever, he used EISIGESIS, instead of sound biblical hermeneutics

    3: Women are naturally rebellious towards male authority whether they have “game” or not, this rebellion resulted from Eve’s sin and has been passed down to all future generations…see 1st Timothy 2:12…this command would be utterly redundant if women by nature were submissive

    4: A man’s “ruling over his wife” must be based on kindness, love and Christ centered, it is not based on using a rod of iron, or fear

    5: Notice the bible says that a woman’s desire is TO her husband, not FOR her husband….this tiny but crucial word changes the entire meaning of the phrase

    6: a wife’s submission to her husband is NOT conditional on the man fitting any requirements on his behalf, or him passing any “shit” tests she sets for him, or him being “fit to rule”…..this is a lie based on Toad’s philosophy of game, on the contrary, a wife is to submit to her man because Christ told her to PERIOD, that is HER responsibility
    This does not absolve the man from taking responsibility to be a loving, caring husband that deserves respect etc, but her obedience is not conditional….Toad wants it to be conditional so he can uphold his “game” philosophy

    7: Devoting an entire blog over at the Argument Room to attacking me personally, instead of refuting me on a biblical basis was uncalled for, and is the very reason you are despised over at biblicalgenderroles blogs…now I know why you’re not welcome there

  4. SFC Ton says:

    Women have opinions? Sense when?

  5. Linny says:

    Do you think there could be two different types of women in the world? One the children of Adam’s second wife Eve and one the children of his first wife accounting for the difference.

  6. Renee Harris says:

    Toad
    Can I send you my OkCupid profile and my phone number will you help me find a good husband ?

  7. Pingback: Frame, Fitness Tests and Feminism | Toad's Hall

  8. pamelaparizo says:

    Any man who forces a woman to submit to him is less than a man. God never intended that women should be forced. Forcing a woman to submit to you is ABUSE. Madison Avenue and Hollywood may glorify it, but real women want a man who will PROTECT THEM not FORCE THEM. God gave man rulership over woman to PROTECT HER. I’ve researched traditional gender roles, and marriage worked when men nourished and cherished their wives, not SPANKED THEM. By the way, wife-spanking has long been against the law, AND it had never been a truly acceptable or normal part of marriage. Anything akin to BDSM is abnormal and pervered.

    • For someone who claims to be an author, your reading comprehension is sadly lacking.

      “Any man who forces a woman to submit to him is less than a man.”

      Your opinion is not in agreement with Scripture. Husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loves His church. The only examples we find in Scripture of *how* a husband is to love is wife are exemplified by Revelation 3:19, “those whom I love I rebuke and chasten. Be zealous therefore and repent!”

      “God gave man rulership over woman to PROTECT HER.”

      Interesting that you admit that women are under the rule of men, even though you don’t seem to understand what that means. Since when does the authority to command not include the authority to punish disobedience? I agree that men are to protect women but the thing women need protection from the most is usually themselves and their hypergamous impulses.

      “I’ve researched traditional gender roles, and marriage worked when men nourished and cherished their wives, notAND SPANKED THEM WHEN THEY NEEDED IT.”

      There. Fixed that for you.

      “Anything akin to BDSM is abnormal and perverted.”

      You really need to read the post “50 Shades of Biblical Marriage” that’s linked above. In that post I take the reader step by step through what the Bible’s rules concerning marriage actually are, with the relevant textual citations so you can look up the passages for yourself. I’m not at all sure that you know what BDSM means or what it encompasses.

      I suppose it depends on one’s perspective, but it is probably far more correct to say that required monogamy is abnormal and perverted because God’s commitment standards for marriage allowed a man to have more than one wife.

      However, since you’re such an expert, please inform us what a husband is to do with a completely rebellious wife who refuses to obey him, much less submit to him. Please cite the relevant passages from Scripture that demonstrate why corporal punishment is not a permitted response. When you’ve finished that, please explain why the husband is not to be Christ-like, rebuking and chastening his wife when she refuses to repent.

      • pamelaparizo says:

        Do you have Bible knowledge? Jesus did say those I love I chasten. Be aware that chasten has many meanings, not necessarily corporal punishment. The word chasten that Jesus uses comes from the Greek word paideuo, from the root pais meaning child, son, servant or slave. Jesus chastens us as CHILDREN, not as as his BRIDE. There are many scriptures that speak of the chastening of children, but absolutely none that speak of the chastening you describe of wives. Why?
        Because she is an adult, not a child still in development. She is an heir with Jesus Christ as a child of God and an heir together with man of grace. What is a man supposed to do with a rebellious and contentious wife? Jesus asks for our obedience and submission. He said “Follow me.” Does a man have a right to his wife’s submission? Yes. Can he force it? Not legally, and if it has to be forced, it’s not worth it. Go ahead, beat your wife into submission. You miss the mark of a glorious marriage in Jesus (Ephesians 5:27) Jesus pours out the Spirit of the Holy Ghost on HIs Bride. What Spirit are you instilling in your wife when you beat her? Jesus died for His wife to make her whole. To heal her. To redeem her. If your wife is totally out of control, then yes, rebuke her, and then if she still refuses to obey, separation seems the best avenue to pursue.

        • Pamela, you have not read the linked posts, nor have you read the other related posts on this blog.

          As I have explained and demonstrated from Scripture, women were essentially declared to be incompetent and men were appointed as their guardians. You seem to be objecting to the idea that women are incompetent and need a guardian who will review their every decision (Numbers 30).

          Yet, it is Gods design that women are to grow up in their father’s house under his authority, then be passed over to live under the authority of their husband. Again, review Numbers 30 to understand what that means. It is only when their husband dies or following their divorce for adultery that a woman is finally no longer under the authority of a man. It is at that point, hopefully, she is trained well enough to function. However, it is beneficial for a widow or divorced woman to remarry, especially if she is young. Given that men are not restricted to one wife, even older women could find another husband.

          You make much of modern-day law, which is irrelevant. The modern law says a woman can murder her unborn baby. Will God give her a pass because the law allows it?

          You completely miss the point of the post and it shows. I can tell you that in my experience and in the experience of a great many others, the vast majority of women do not want to be spanked. However, they do appreciate the fact that their man will not tolerate certain behavior and if they step too far over the line they’ll get a trip over his knee.

          You talk about forcing submission and missing the mark of a “glorious marriage in Jesus”. You ask “what Spirit are you instilling in your wife when you *beat* her?” All corporal punishment is now wife-beating? All spanking of children is now child-abuse? The answer to your question is it’s the same spirit that Jesus instills when He rebukes and chastens those whom He loves.

          The wife was *commanded* to submit to her husband and submission is not obedience, it’s accepting the consequences of disobedience from the one in authority.

          The husband was *commanded* to hold his wife accountable because the two examples of Christ-like love are both examples of accountability.

          Finally, your “advice” is totally contrary to Scriptures *direct* command to the Christian. Please review 1st Corinthians 7:10-15 and notice that separation is not authorized, it is expressly forbidden, no exceptions.

          As to your exposition of the Greek, there are two (and only two) passages that describe *how* Christ loves His church. Hebrews 12:6 and Revelation 3:19. There are three Greek words that bear study in this case, you mention only one.

          From Hebrews 12:6, see paideuó (Strong’s 3811) and mastigoó (Strong’s 3146).

          From Revelation 3:19, see elegchó (Strong’s 1651) and paideuó (Strong’s 3811). Note the construction of Revelation 3:19, He says he reproves (exposes, shows to be guilty) AND He disciplines ((a) I discipline, educate, train, (b) more severely: I chastise.)

          It very much appears that your position is women are not to be held accountable by their fathers or husbands, regardless of what they do. If this is correct, you are very much in opposition to God’s Word. you can make all the emotional arguments you want, but at the end of the day, you are wrong.

          So, with that in mind, consider the application of both Revelation 3:19 and Hebrews 12:6 on the situation described by Proverbs 30:20

          “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, “I have done no wrong.”

          First, she is rebuked (exposed, shown to be guilty) and then she is disciplined (trained, educated, chastised with a rod- spanked). Possibly, she is scourged (fogged, severely spanked, beaten) if the offense is serious enough or she has repeated the behavior after previous reproofs.

          According to what you have said it’s far better to be disobedient and defy God’s specific instruction by separating the foolish, rebellious woman from the restraining influence of the man, sending her out into the world to her destruction. That appears to be what you are claiming is the “loving” way to handle that.

          • pamelaparizo says:

            Go ahead, beat your wife. You cannot find one scripture that says chasten your wife in this manner. The word for chasten comes from the Greek word pertaining to children and servants, not to wives who are co-heirs of salvation. You rob yourself of a glorious wife and a loving beautiful relationship. Don’t think God doesn’t see her tears. You have adequately names yourself a toad. Good day.

          • In my experience, the women (like you) who scream the loudest about how women are not to be held accountable for their actions are the ones who need it the most. And if the right man presents himself, they’ll willingly submit to it. What usually happens is all that screaming about being “beaten” is a reflection of the fact they settled when it came to who they married and they have no respect for their husband. Which is another violation of Scripture. Not that you’re keeping track of your problems, you’re too busy trying to point out problems in others.

            What you obviously cannot comprehend is that women were commanded to submit to their husbands. Why would they need to be commanded to do that? Because they don’t generally want to. By the same token, men were commanded to love their wives as Christ loves the church. How does Christ love His church? By holding them accountable. Why were men commanded to love their wives? Because women don’t want to be held accountable and they act just like you, kicking and screaming at the very idea that they’d be held accountable when they act like a bratty child.

            You claim such discipline is only for children? Then obviously Christ considers you a child because He clearly said that those whom He loves he rebukes and disciplines (as if they were a child). And what did He command you to do? To submit to your husband “as unto the Lord”.

            So, the same way you obviously refuse to submit to Christ, you are commanded to submit to your husband. And if Christ loves you by treating you like a child when you are disobedient, then so to is your husband to treat you like a child when you are disobedient.

            Except you don’t have a husband to hold you accountable, do you?

            Toad is simply a nom de guerre. What I am is a complete asshole. You should read the post on that subject if you want to understand, but you won’t. Because you’re too busy demonstrating why God decided women are incompetent and put men in charge of them.

          • pamelaparizo says:

            I’m glad God considers me His child. And far from rebuking me my God is blessing me in ways you could never comprehend. Yes, it is a commandment for women to be under obedience. But you still have not shown where the Bible, let alone the NT says to strike your wife in any way. You misread I chasten whom I love. A woman can be reasoned with since she is not a child in development. NOWHERE does it say treat your wife like a child. I can’t find any fruits of the Spirit in your writings. Boy, you even use profanity—is that Christian? As to the headship of father/husband, there were many single women in the NT, and as a matter of fact, I have found myself in that condition. So who is my head? JESUS CHRIST. Perhaps if you would try a little tenderness you might not find yourself with a rebellious wife. What woman wouldn’t want to submit to a good man who lavished her with loving kindness, or do you even know what that is? Your wife probably submits to your ill use because you have convinced her that is love, and she really craves love and not abuse. Very, very sad. Learn to read the Bible and not your own theology.

          • It is amusing to see you continue to spout the same nonsense after having the errors of your argument pointed out. You completely ignored Hebrews 6:12, for example, because it negates your point. I even provided you with all the necessary information to study the issue. Evidently you have no desire to study something that does not support your preconceived feminist point of view.

            You claim:

            “far from rebuking me my God is blessing me in ways you could never comprehend.”

            You are wrong and evidently not familiar with the Broken Window Fallacy. The lesson of that parable is you cannot measure that which is unseen. Another way of putting it is to say that you cannot ever know what might have been had you done things differently. Therefore, you have no way of knowing how much you have been blessed because you have no idea what kind of blessings have been withheld from you because of your sinful obstinacy and rebelliousness. You have no way of knowing what would have happened if your husband had done his job and taken you in hand when it was necessary.

            You claim that “nowhere” are is a man “commanded” to strike his wife. Which is true, but completely misses the point because nowhere is anyone commanded to strike their child… even though Scripture clearly says that a father who will not discipline his son does not love him.

            The central question you evidently refuse to answer, as a Christian, is “what is the relationship between husband and wife?”

            Ephesians 5 uses the syllogism that as the church is to submit to Christ, the wife is to submit to her husband. That as Christ is the head of the church, the husband is the head of his wife. Just as Christians are to submit to Christ in *everything* the wife is to submit to her husband in *everything* with no exceptions. The word “everything” is not bounded. We know this because 1st Peter 3:1-6 clearly commands wives to submit to their husbands even if he is disobedient to the Word (in sin), in silence, so that he may be won over without a word by her quiet and chaste conduct. Wives are told that they are to be like the holy women of old, like Sarah, who called her husband “master”. Sarah obeyed her husband and that’s how she wound up in the king’s harem while married to Abraham. Or have you not studied the story of Abraham and Sarah?

            The central point you do not want to admit is the Bible very clearly states that Christians are the slaves of Christ, purchased with His blood. Slaves. The relationship between Christ and His church is that of Master and slave. Thus, it follows that the relationship between husband and wife is a master-slave relationship.

            This is reinforced by a careful reading of 1st Peter 3:1, which begins with “In the same way” or “Therefore”. That is a linguistic device that points to the previous passage as the determinant for understanding the following instruction. The immediately preceding instruction was to masters and slaves.

            God does not change and from the beginning He said to the woman, of the man, “he shall rule over you.”

            Christ stated in positive terms that those whom He loves, He rebukes and disciplines. Those He receives as sons are disciplined and scourged. Husbands are commanded to love their wives the same way, but every woman is different. I’ve known a few who definitely liked the fact that they had clear boundaries and the transgression of those boundaries would result in something unpleasant happening.

            I don’t expect you to agree with what I’m writing, I don’t even expect you to understand, because you have been lied to all your life.

            You claim that your head is Jesus Christ and I believe you.

            Of all the various blogs around the internet He must have caused you to come to mine. Why? Because I’m pointing to the passages of Scripture that you don’t want to see and giving you the correct exegesis of those passages in complete harmony with the rest of Scripture. Isn’t He amazing?

            If you want to learn, I suggest you go to the blog header and click on “Theology For Men of the West”. It will take a bit of time and I have absolutely no doubt you will be confronted with a view of what Scripture says that you’ve never encountered before. Likewise, I have no doubt that you will violently disagree with much of what you’d read there, simply because it’s contrary to the doctrines you have been taught all your life. Yet, no amount of disagreement will cause Scripture to change and support the lies you’ve grown up with.

          • pamelaparizo says:

            I have no desire to read materials by a mysogynistic woman-hater. I happen to respect Godly men greatly. I have zero respect for someone who uses his natural strength to abuse women. I happened to have rejected Women’s Liberation many years ago. I grew up with a traditional model of marriage, and I will happily submit to and obey a Godly man. But that doesn’t include abuse since that is not condoned by the Bible. The Word of God does say God chastens SONS. It does not say he disciplines wives. You are the one who refuses to accept that you have no Bible for corporal punishment for wives, and I see no examples of it anywhere within the word of God. While Paul alludes to being a bondservant to Jesus, nowhere does it say a woman is the slave of her husband. You are mixing analogies. If every relationship carried over into another then we would have a very strange relationship going on with the Lord indeed. You have a very twisted definition of what love is, and I see no joy or peace at all in your path. Jesus frees us; the Spirit of the Lord is LIBERTY. By the way, I grew up with no doctrine, because I was a sinner most of my life, but like the woman caught in adultery, Jesus picked me up, washed me off and gave me purpose and life. There is no abundance in your life, there is only darkness, sadness, pain, bondage and the hating of women. I abhor Women’s LIb; I love the protection that Jesus brings to women because He loves them, and NOURISHES and CHERISHES them. Go learn those terms if you can.

          • Derek Ramsey says:

            You claim that “nowhere” are is a man “commanded” to strike his wife. Which is true, but completely misses the point because nowhere is anyone commanded to strike their child… even though Scripture clearly says that a father who will not discipline his son does not love him.

            Striking and punishing are not synonyms, so your argument falls to the equivocation fallacy. Moreover (as already pointed out), you’ve falsely equivocated a husband/wife relationship with a father/son relationship.

            Just as Christians are to submit to Christ in *everything* the wife is to submit to her husband in *everything* with no exceptions.

            This is false. Do we submit to Jesus when we decide to eat pizza or spaghetti for dinner? How about whether to vote Democrat or Republican? Should a woman worship her husband because the church worships God?

            The word ‘everything’ is contextually limited and does not include everything theoretically possible. We obey those things that Christ, in keeping with the will of the Father, has commanded us to do. In the same way, the husband’s commandments must be according to the will of Christ. The woman is under no obligation to follow commands that are not according to the will of Christ. That’s so obvious, it shouldn’t require mention. A man, for example, cannot command his wife to commit murder.

            Ephesians 5, which you cited, says in v21 that we submit to each other. It’s impossible for this to describe a hierarchical leader/follower relationship. v22 is one example of mutual submission (it’s the same sentence in Greek) and it is qualified to include only those things that are “as to the Lord”. It is not absolute but proper submission. Considering that women are instructed to rule the household (1 Timothy 5:14) it is the husband’s responsibility to submit to her household authority (Notice how 1 Peter 3:7 says “in the same way”). Ephesians 5 is saying that each person has a different sphere of authority.

          • “Striking and punishing are not synonyms, so your argument falls to the equivocation fallacy.”

            Derek, in order for the rod of reproof to work, one is struck with it. There is no false equivalency in comparing corporal punishment of wives with corporal punishment of children, which was the context. The issue of corporal punishment flows from authority, not cultural conditioning.

            I did not make a father-son and husband wife relationship equivalency argument, I clearly stated that the husband-wife relationship is a master-servant relationship. Or, a master-slave relationship, however you like. If by chance you are choosing to refer to Pamela’s misunderstanding of Hebrews 12:6, the word son either clearly encompasses all believers or it restricts Christianity to men only. She’s a silly woman, I expect better from you.

            “This is false. Do we submit to Jesus when we decide to eat pizza or spaghetti for dinner? How about whether to vote Democrat or Republican? Should a woman worship her husband because the church worships God?”

            If Jesus tells you to eat pizza or spaghetti for dinner then you are most certainly submitting to Him when you do so. If Jesus tells you to vote Democrat or Republican, you are submitting to Jesus when you do as He tells you. To relate this to the subject being discussed, a wife is in obedience to her husband when she obeys him. She knows what to do because he tells her plainly what to do.

            She is in submission to her husband when she subjects herself to his accountability for her performance, whether she is in obedience or not. Obedience is following the rules, submission is accepting accountability, especially for disobedience, dishonor, disrespect and dangerous behavior.

            You ask if a wife is to worship her husband because the church worships God. Your fallacy is you are conflating submission with worship. Does Scripture command wives to submit to their husband, or to worship him? You know the answer to that.

            “The word ‘everything’ is contextually limited and does not include everything theoretically possible….

            The woman is under no obligation to follow commands that are not according to the will of Christ. That’s so obvious, it shouldn’t require mention. A man, for example, cannot command his wife to commit murder. “

            You begin with reductio ad absurdum and proceed to make a straw man argument. The flaw is your reasoning places women in the position of determining what Christ’s will is prior to deciding whether to obey their husband. The woman has no such authority to do so. In fact, it is her husband who will determine God’s will for her life because God placed the husband in complete authority over his wife.

            The truth is that you are attempting to usurp the authority of other men, claiming that someone other than that particular husband has the authority to determine how he rules his own house.

            Does the husband have the authority to determine when the wife gets up in the mornings? What time she goes to bed at night? How often she bathes? When and how often they have sex? In what position? What she wears (or doesn’t wear)? What food will be served in the home? The standards to which the home is cleaned and kept in good order? How the children are instructed and disciplined? Does the husband have the authority to determine how money is spent? What is purchased and not purchased? Whether his wife should be on birth control or not? Whether they should have more children or not? Does the husband have the authority to determine when the wife has disobeyed, dishonored or disrespected him? Does have the authority to determine when she has engaged in dangerous behavior? And does he have the authority to not only determine whether she needs to be punished but to carry out such punishment if he believes it warranted?

            The Bible’s answer to all those questions is most definitely yes. God gave all that authority to the husband, and more.

            Your final comments betray your ignorance of Scripture. God does not change and it was His judgment that men were to rule over women. You mention verse 21 of Ephesians 5, which is the final instruction Paul had as part of his general instruction to the congregation before he began his instruction to families. To claim it is the “context” for the comments to family (a completely different relationship than the brother-sister in Christ relationship present in the congregation) creates an antinomy with multiple different passages specifically concerning the husband’s sole authority over his wife.

            It is ludicrous to claim that 1 Timothy 5:14 grants a woman autonomy from her husband within the household and places him in submission to her. You claim the word “oikodespoteó” means “rule over” and that places the husband in submission to his wife? When a company makes a man the plant manager with responsibility over a facility, does that mean his boss has no authority within that facility? No. Does the phrase “chain of command” mean anything to you, especially that wives are in authority over their children as well as any servants in the household? To claim the husband must submit to his wife within the household because she is the manager is ludicrous and has absolutely no support in Scripture.

            Yes, I did notice that the instruction to the wives in 1st Peter 3:1 began “in the same way…” which was a direct reference incorporating the previous instruction to servants as the context for the instruction to the wives. The previous instruction concerned submission to authority and spoke specifically to slaves. There was no instruction to masters, only to the slaves. That was followed by the example of Christ, which then segued into the instruction to wives in Chapter 3.

            The incoherence of your position is astounding. Scripture clearly states from the beginning (he shall rule over you), through the Law (Numbers 30) and well into the New Testament (Ephesians 5, 1st Peter 3, 1st Corinthians 7) that the husband is in complete authority over his wife. To claim that Paul somehow offered a “loophole” that would allow a wife to defy her husband because Timothy was instructed to teach wives to be managers of their homes is first-rate feminism and creates numerous antinomies with the passages already mentioned. You are wrong.

          • Derek Ramsey says:

            I’m going to keep this short and go back to my original point, since you really didn’t address it.

            “You ask if a wife is to worship her husband because the church worships God. Your fallacy is you are conflating submission with worship. Does Scripture command wives to submit to their husband, or to worship him? You know the answer to that.”

            There is no conflation. Submission is not worship, but worship is an act of submission. If a woman is to submit to the husband exactly as the church submits to the Christ, then that should include the submissive act of worship. But obviously it cannot. You said: “Just as Christians are to submit to Christ in *everything* the wife is to submit to her husband in *everything* with no exceptions.”. No exceptions… except the submissive act of worship.

          • I disagree, to the extent that submission is an act of worship, not the other way around.

            However, now you are begging the question of what the word worship means. Scripture clearly instructs us to worship God and God alone. However, this can be construed as a command to worship God *as* God, an interpretation made clear by the Bible’s examples of “false worship.”

            That leaves room for the wife to “worship” the husband as her master. Not as God, but as her master. This does not fall afoul the injunctions against idolatry and false worship because the wife (of all people) is well aware her husband is no god.

            The Greek word most often translated “worship” (proskuneo) is “to fall down before” or “bow down before.” Worship is an act that gives praise and honor to the one in authority, praise and honor that is deserved by the position they hold. This is why the subject bows before their sovereign, or kneels before the sovereign.

            Worship typically involves discomfort or pain (sacrifice). Repeatedly we see where God is pleased by the sincere worship of His people, but displeased by their hypocrisy and unfaithfulness. Worship is a one-way street, going from the person worshiping up to the one being worshiped.

            It is difficult to describe a wife on her knees before her husband with his penis in her mouth as an act that is anything other than worship. It is uncomfortable for her, the gratification is solely his, she places herself in a subservient position and gratifies him without reciprocation.

            So, once we can agree that only God is to be worshiped as God and other forms of worship are demonstrations of praise and honor that involve sacrifice on the part of the one worshiping and pleasure on the part of the one being worshiped, I can agree that wives should worship their husbands. I already mentioned how.

  9. Men, this last exchange has been a graphic example of what women are really like. Pamela is obviously a self-deluded harridan, convinced of her own self-righteousness and completely unable to comprehend when it’s demonstrated that she’s wrong. In fact, even after being given chance after chance to respond in a reasonable way, she completely destroyed her own argument. Pamela claims:

    ” A woman can be reasoned with since she is not a child in development. “

    Apparently not.

    No amount of reasoning with a woman like Pamela will have any effect once they’ve made up their minds. Data, facts, evidence, testimony, logic, reason… none of it is of any value because they are like children who cannot be reasoned with. Notice that Pamela stuck with her original (incorrect) assertion and completely ignored what Scripture says.

    Pamela is a harridan long past the age at which she could be considered attractive by a man, but she exemplifies the attitude of a rebellious “Christian” woman. She is a feminist churchian personified and this attitude is the reason why it is critical for a man to focus on attraction when developing a relationship with a woman.

    Once again, this is further proof that as uncomfortable as it might be, the subject of spanking is an extremely useful one in determining a woman’s attitude. It’s so doctrinally irrelevant as to be unworthy of any sort of discussion, but as an indicator of what a woman’s true attitude toward submission really is, it’s invaluable.

    If a man is interested in any particular woman, always bring up the issue of spanking in a very direct way, such as with the comment “You need to be spanked.” Trust me, no man wants to be stuck married to a woman with a rebellious, holier-than-thou, contentious attitude like Pamela’s. Learn to nip this stuff in the bud and if the woman in question shows signs of being like Pamela, it’s time to say “Next!” Walk away and don’t look back or you’ll be sorry.

  10. pamelaparizo says:

    You’re a very sick and demented individual, and anyone who thinks you exhibit Christ-like behavior has a twisted image of Jesus Christ. I’m sure you have your regular readers who are like-minded. No need to pray that you will be blinded; you are already so. I pray for your poor wives and daughters who are nothing more than abused chattel. I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ and wipe the dust from my hands.

    • Woman, just as you have demonstrated that women cannot be reasoned with, you have just given a very graphic example of why the Apostle Paul commanded that women be silent in church.

      Woman, be silent.

      Don’t go away mad, just go away.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s