The Civil Servant Husband Part 1

This blog first wrote about the Obedient Wife before we talk here about the Civil Servant Husband because that’s the due order. The wife obeys first, then her husband treats her well as her civil servant right after her obedience to him. That relay pattern is how it always should be, not the other way around like most modern preachers teach.

The Bible teaches this relay pattern. When you study the Bible, you read first about the Obedient Wife, then right after that you read about the Civil Servant Husband.

The Obedient Wife:

I Peter 3:1-6 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Than Right After That, the Civil Servant Husband:

I Peter 3:7 “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

AGAIN!

The Obedient Wife:

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Than Right After That, the Civil Servant Husband:

Ephesians 5:25-28 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.”

Remember the Relay!

Obedient Wife > Civil Servant Husband > Obedient Wife > Civil Servant Husband > and so on.

If there is a break up or break down in the relationship, then the relationship needs to start back at the beginning of the relay for the relationship to continue forward. Or go “Back at One” like the old Brian McKnight Song says.

Cause of this relay, a “no-fault” divorce is the wife’s fault for the divorce, because more than likely she didn’t start back at one (Obedient Wife), to get the husband to start back at two (Civil Servant Husband). She expected him To Be the One to start things back in the relationship as the “Obedient Husband.” That’s out of order and not the order of things.

Now, let’s talk deeply about Serving and the Civil Servant Husband.

Differentiating Civil and Servile Service

You know we have feminist thinking “Christian” women out here who know a little (very little) scripture, and they like to quote what Paul said below about service:

Ephesians 5:20-21 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”                             

These feminist “Christian” women just happen to ignore the very next two verses that Paul wrote which say:

Ephesians 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Obviously when Paul said in Ephesians 5:21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God,” he meant that wives ought to submit themselves unto their own husbands as unto the Lord (Eph 5:22) TO SHOW THAT THEY FEAR GOD as he wrote in the next two verses following Ephesians 5:21.

All this leads us to I Peter the 3rd chapter which states that women who trusted (feared) in God submitted themselves unto their own husbands.

I Peter 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the [holy women] also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands.”

By submitting themselves unto their own husbands these [holy women] showed that they feared the Lord. So Paul was on the same page with what Peter wrote above when Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:21 “submitting yourselves (wives) one to another (husbands) IN THE FEAR OF GOD”! Paul just didn’t make it plain in Ephesians 5:21 as he did in Ephesians 5:22-23, that he was specifically teaching wives to submit to their own husbands.

But you know “Christian” feminist try to use Ephesians 5:21 to say that husbands ought to submit unto their wives like wives ought to submit to their husbands. In other words, “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” If it’s the case that husbands ought to submit to their wives than there should be another witness to this. This “Christian” feminist supposition is just one witness, where is the other one. The scripture says there must be two or three witnesses to establish a fact, Paul is just one witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”                                                                                                             

Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”                                                         

Plus, why wouldn’t the Bible just plainly say “husband submit yourselves unto your own wife,” like the Bible plainly says “wives submit yourselves to your own husbands (cf. Eph 5:22, I Peter 3:1,)” if both parties (husband and wife) supposed to submit themselves one to another.

If it was true that “husbands submit yourselves unto your own wife” it will be plainly written somewhere in the Bible to augment the ambiguous parable of “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph 5:21). Jesus who taught in Parables;

Matthew 13:33-36 “Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.”

Also said in another place he will [make it plain] what he had taught in parables.

John 16:25, 29-31 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs (or parables): but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. Jesus answered them, [Do ye now believe].”               

If the parable of “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” is true according to the context that “Christian” feminist used it, then “IT” (“husbands submit yourselves unto your own wife”) would’ve been plainly written somewhere else is in scripture. Yet to no avail for “Christian” Feminist, “it” is nowhere plainly written in the Bible. Therefore no one should believe “IT,” because it doesn’t exist since “IT” is nowhere plainly written in the Bible. Far as husbands serving (submitting to) their wives as servile servants.

Submit to means “to serve,” it doesn’t necessarily mean “to agree with.” Two equal people can agree on something but that doesn’t mean either one is submitting to the other. A superior can agree with a subordinate that doesn’t mean the superior is submitting to the subordinate. God agreed with Moses on not destroying Israel entirely, which he was about to do, but Moses had changed his mind.

Numbers 14:11-20 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have showed among them? I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they. And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;) And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now. And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word.”                               

Since God agreed with Moses, and Moses changed God’s mind, did that mean God submitted to Moses? NO! If God had submitted to Moses he would have allowed Moses to enter into the promise land as Moses had asked God. But of-course we know that God didn’t allow Moses to enter into the promise land because of Moses’ rebellion. God exercised his authority as a superior over Moses at that time although he agreed with him in a lot of other things prior.

You can submit to someone and don’t agree with them like Abigail did to David and her husband Nabal. First, Abigail didn’t agree with her husband’s shunning and his turning away of the hungry men sent by David, who had asked Nabal for some food after David and his militia were in the wilderness protecting Nabal’s subsistence from robbers. Secondly, Abigail didn’t agree with David coming to avenge himself of Nabal by his own hands, for Nabal’s shunning and ingratitude. So to preserve the life of Nabal’s household (including Nabal and herself), Abigail prepared David and his men some food as they were coming to kill and pillage Nabal’s house for Nabal’s disrespect to them and his lack of gratitude for what they were doing for him.

I Samuel 25:14-26, 35 But one of the young men told Abigail, Nabal’s wife, saying, Behold, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to salute our master; and he railed on them. But the men were very good unto us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we anything, as long as we were conversant with them, when we were in the fields: They were a wall unto us both by night and day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep. Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him. Then Abigail made haste, and took two hundred loaves, and two bottles of wine, and five sheep ready dressed, and five measures of parched corn, and an hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs, and laid them on asses. And she said unto her servants, Go on before me; behold, I come after you. But she told not her husband Nabal. And it was so, as she rode on the ass, that she came down by the covert on the hill, and, behold, David and his men came down against her; and she met them. Now David had said, Surely in vain have I kept all that this fellow hath in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained unto him: and he hath requited me evil for good. So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid. Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send. Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, seeing the LORD hath withholden thee from coming to shed blood, and from avenging thyself with thine own hand, now let thine enemies, and they that seek evil to my lord, be as Nabal. So David received of her hand that which she had brought him, and said unto her, Go up in peace to thine house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice and have accepted thy person.”

Like God agreed with Moses whose words prevented God from killing all of Israel, so did David agree with Abigail whose words prevented him from killing her, her husband, and all of his household. Yet David’s agreement with Abigail didn’t necessarily mean he was submitting to Abigail. Abigail—who was the subordinate in this case—was actually submitting to David by disagreeing with him, because she was looking after David’s best interest. Abigail was looking after David’s best interest when she advised him not to avenge himself with his own hands. And David had understood that, and appreciated her for that.

I Samuel 25:25-26, 32-34 Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send. Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, seeing the LORD hath withholden thee from coming to shed blood, and from avenging thyself with thine own hand, now let thine enemies, and they that seek evil to my lord, be as Nabal. And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: [And blessed be thy advice], and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand. For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.”                                                                                                            

Moses was looking after God’s best interest when he “advised” God not to utterly destroy Israel for his name and glory’s sake among the other nations, and God agreed with Moses. As did David with Abigail for David’s name and glory’s sake, that David would not avenge himself and utterly destroy everything pertaining to Nabal.

Understand when a superior agrees with a subordinate that that doesn’t necessarily mean the superior is submitting to the subordinate. And when the subordinate disagrees with their superior, it doesn’t necessarily mean the subordinate is usurping authority—as long as it’s all in the respect of the subordinate looking after the best interest of the Superior. When a subordinate is at all times looking after the best interest of their Superior, then they are truly serving them and submitting to them even if they disagree with them. So again, submitting doesn’t mean “to agree with,” it means “to serve.”

Serving as we just found out means to ALWAYS look after the best interest of the person you are serving or submitting to. Notwithstanding, I am not saying serving (submitting) for the subordinate is letting the superior walk all over you. Serving is all about being diplomatic, fulfilling your duties according to the due order, and looking after the best interest of the superior FIRST! As Abigail did for David, and for her foolish husband Nabal whose life she was trying to preserve. Abigail didn’t keep anything back from her husband Nabal, she gave food to David, in order to give of herself to nabal, to save Nabal’s life, which of-course was in Nabal’s best interest. But Nabal being a fool didn’t even appreciate what his wife Abigail had done for him, in saving his life. He was actually mad that she gave food to David and his men [on his behalf]. So, the Lord killed Nabal for his foolishness and his lack of appreciation for both Abigail guarding his life, and for David and his men guarding his subsistence, being that Nabal didn’t want to return the favor by giving David and his men food to eat. After Nabal was killed by the Lord, David acquire of Abigail to be his wife. Abigail agreed to be his wife. So David, the man who appreciated Abigail for what she had done for him won over Nabal and “got the girl” while Nabal who lost his life and of-course “the girl” because of his lack of appreciation for what “the girl” did for him (save his life).

I Samuel 25:36-39 And Abigail came to Nabal; and, behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken: wherefore she told him nothing, less or more, until the morning light. But it came to pass in the morning, when the wine was gone out of Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died within him, and he became as a stone (means he was mad & stubborn). And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died. And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the LORD, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal (the Lord also pleaded the cause of the reproach of Abigail for the lack of appreciation the her husband Nabal showed her), and hath kept his servant from evil: for the LORD hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head. And David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife. And when the servants of David were come to Abigail to Carmel, they spake unto her, saying, David sent us unto thee, to take thee to him to wife. And she arose, and bowed herself on her face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord. And Abigail hasted, and arose and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife.”

Abigail was an extraordinary woman, the Bible describe her as being [wise and beautiful].

II Samuel 25:2-3 And there was a man in Maon, whose possessions were in Carmel; and the man was very great, and he had three thousand sheep, and a thousand goats: and he was shearing his sheep in Carmel. Now the name of the man was Nabal; and the name of his wife Abigail: and she was a woman of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance: but the man was churlish and evil in his doings; and he was of the house of Caleb.”                                    

What Abigail did was a great example of submitting (serving) in both capacities of subordinate and superior. She looked after the best interest of both David & Nabal (being the subordinate) and Nabal’s servants (being the superior). She preserved the lives and the name/reputation of all. She didn’t shun David and his men like her husband, especially after her servant told her that David pronounce evil and war against all who were part of Nabal’s household. Thus, Abigail also acted out of concern and for the interest of the life of her servants who will also be killed if she didn’t act fast and provide dole for David and his men. Abigail was being a true superior, acting in the best interest of her subordinates.

Nabal didn’t look after the best interest of his wife Abigail or his servile servants because along with him being a fool, he was also despot and not a good leader.

I Samuel 25:14-19 But one of the young men told Abigail, Nabal’s wife, saying, Behold, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to salute [our master]; and he railed on them. But the men were very good unto us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we any thing, as long as we were conversant with them, when we were in the fields: They were a wall unto us both by night and day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep. Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against [our master], and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him. Then Abigail made haste, and took two hundred loaves, and two bottles of wine, and five sheep ready dressed, and five measures of parched corn, and an hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs, and laid them on asses. And she said unto [her servants], Go on before me; behold, I come after you. But she told not her husband Nabal.”

Looking at Abigail’s example, we see that the superior actually serves (submits to) the subordinate in the same aspect (not in the same capacity—more on this coming up) that the subordinate does unto the superior. By looking after the subordinate’s best interest. Even in some cases where the subordinate may disagree with what the superior is doing, the superior is still to serve or “submit to” the subordinate just as the subordinate is to serve or “submit to” the superior. Serving isn’t unilateral, only pertaining to the subordinate. Serving is universal, pertaining to both the subordinate and the superior. Both the superior and the subordinate are to look after the best interest of the other, but starting with the subordinate looking after the best interest of the superior FIRST! That is the due order. Cause everything has must be decent and in order, so that there can be peace and not confusion:

I Corinthians 14:33, 40 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let all things be done decently and in order.”                                                               

The subordinate isn’t losing out on anything by looking after the best interest of their superior FIRST because most of the time the superior’s best interest is in their best interest as well. You think Abigail trying to preserve the life of Nabal wasn’t also in her best interest in preserving her own life from a marauding band of men. You think Moses didn’t benefit himself along with the Lord when he convinced the Lord not to destroy the entire nation of Israel for the Lord’s name sake. So subordinates don’t get too mad because you have to look after your superior’s best interest FIRST and not your own. Even if the superior is a despot like Nabal, most likely you will still benefit somehow like Abigail.

A superior who doesn’t serve in their allotted capacity isn’t worthy to be served by any type of subordinate. As we saw Nabal wasn’t worthy of Abigail, so God killed him and gave her unto David (who was worthy). A subordinate who doesn’t serve in their allotted capacity isn’t worthy to be served by any type of superior. As you can read many times in the Bible with the disobedient nation of Israel toward God.

What are the allotted capacities for both the subordinate to serve (submit to) the superior and for the superior to serve (submit to) the subordinate? We just learned the aspect that they both should serve one another in, and that is to look after the best interest of the other. But again, what are their allotted capacities of their servitude? Both the superior and the subordinate can’t be “the superior.” Although they both serve each other in the same aspect their still must be some difference between the two parties which separates them one from the other, which identifies them one from the other, and which causes both parties to know their role juxtapose to the other. The Biblical answer to this is that the superior (husband) is a Civil Servant unto the subordinate while the subordinate (wife) is a Servile Servant unto the superior.

A Civil Servant is defined as one who is elected by their subordinate(s) to serve them, by looking after their best interest and always acting on their behalf in the capacity of being their leader and administrator.

A Servile Servant is defined as one who is hired by the superior to serve them, by looking after his best interest and always acting on the behalf of the superior in the capacity of being a follower and assistant (help meet) to the superior.

The dynamic of the Civil Servant and the Servile Servant applies to husband & wife, boyfriend & girlfriend, men in general & women in general, as it applies to delegate and constituents. In interpersonal or romantic relationships with some exceptions in relationships that are secular and work related, men are civil servants to women, while women are servile servants unto men. If this is in reverse where men are servile servants (“gentlemen”) to women and women are civil servants (domineering women) to men, it is vanity and will bring about evil because it isn’t natural.

A big problem that goes on in western society is that a lot of women want to be their man’s civil servant (leader, head) and wish for their man to be their servile servant (follower) as a gentleman. Not only is that unnatural but how can that be in the first place. The prerequisite of being a civil servant (leader) to someone is first learning how to be a servile servant (follower) under someone. Thereby in your servile servitude you will learn the virtue of serving. If you never learned how to serve a man or you refuse to serve a man (whether your father or husband) as a servile servant, you are kidding yourself and everyone else in thinking you can abruptly be a man’s civil servant (leader, head).

Most great male leaders who serve their women (or women in general) in the capacity of a civil servant learned the virtue of serving by first serving their mother as servile servants when they were children and adolescents. The men who first served their mothers as servile servants than their woman in the capacity of civil servant (leader, head) are the true and balance “gentlemen.” The men who serve their women in the capacity of a servile servant (follower, assistant) are imposters. They are false “gentlemen.” They are not desirable to high-brow women who have high standards and are mentally stable. They are desirable to low-brow women who are crazy, manic depressive, have a repressed fear of male authority and are of the domineering type of women.

When we contrast the maternal upbringing of male civil servants with the paternal upbringing of “female civil servants” (domineering women) we would see a great difference in the virtues that were taught. The female civil servant’s fathers was either passive, chased away by her wicked-insubordinate mother (most cases), her mother taught her to be deceptive toward men and to get what she can out of them (“don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”), or maybe her father was just negligent and wicked. In either case, these domineering women never learned the virtue of serving the opposite sex like most male civil servants. From not ever serving their father as a servile servant when they were children and adolescents. They only learned the “virtues” of how to get over on (dominate), and be deceptive (violent) to the opposite sex. How can learning the virtues of dominance and violence make someone a good civil servant to the opposite sex? Those virtues are prerequisites for being a despot or tyrant to the opposite sex. Despots and tyrants are what these domineering women are to their biological male children and their honorary male children who are “gentlemen” to them, and who serve them in the capacity of a servile servant.

What domineering women need to understand (since they have a lake of fire judgment waiting if they don’t keep God’s commandments and obey their husbands) is that it’s psychologically proving that every person however submissive he/she may be in one interpersonal relationship, may still interact with other people where he/she is the dominant one. The greater the number of the latter, the less impact any one submissive stance make on his or her personality. So ladies if you know you are one of these domineering women I am talking about, you still can feel powerful in plenty of other areas in your life outside of your relationship with your husband in whom you are commanded by God to submit to as a servile servant. You can exercise dominion over your children, in your career, with your girlfriends, in hobbies you take up, etc. But do it as a civil servant by serving those people you have the rule over, don’t do it as a grievous despot or a tyrant, that would be counter-productive.

Another thing to note is that a woman must elect a man to be her civil servant (her leader), so that he can be “Her Man.” This means that she must choose him (start the romantic wooing process), and have confidence in him that he can lead her. First the man must have confidence in himself that he is able to lead others, and when that is the case, women will have confidence in him because he has it in himself.

When a woman accepts a man as her servile servant instead of electing him to be her civil servant, know that he will not be “her man” but instead he will be “her pet.” He will be used for a “pet” for her own sexual gratification and to manifest her “girl power,” which is dominion over male authority. All that is vanity and vexation of spirit!

 

This was the Doctrine of the Gathering of Israel

 

Jehoiada Israel