Why Compromise in Marriage is Sacred in Humanism and Sinful in the Bible

/ biblicalgenderroles

If you study the Bible and look at Biblical principles of marriage there is one word that is noticeably absent regarding how to have unity in marriage.   And that word is compromise.

In humanism, compromise is a sacred tenet of any relationship, especially in marriage.   The reason it is sacred is because of humanism’s beliefs in individualism and equality.  For individualism and equality to flourish, compromises must constantly be made.  A marriage where one person calls all the shots on moral issues and big decisions of the family is considered “toxic” in the humanist view. This is because they believe marriage is an equal partnership.

But the Bible presents a very different view of marriage.

“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”

1 Peter 3:1 (KJV)

The Bible shows in the passage above from 1 Peter 3:1 that God did not design marriage as a partnership, but rather as a patriarchy.  And in the passage below from Ephesians 5:23 we can see that not only is marriage a patriarchy, but it was intended by God to be a direct reflection of the relationship between Christ and his church.

“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.“

Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)

So the question is does Christ compromise with his church on his will, his plans and his moral decisions? The answer is absolutely not.  And neither should husband’s compromise with their wives in these areas.

The first recorded sin of a male human being, Adam, was when he compromised his moral beliefs and listen to wife.

“ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life”

Genesis 3:17 (KJV)

Adam’s compromise of his morality to please his wife brought sin into the world.  Job shows us what Adam should have done when his wife asked him to compromise his morality:

“Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.  But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.”

Job 2:9-10 (KJV)

When a man compromises his moral beliefs to please his wife he breaks the picture of Christ and his church and he exposes his family to possible consequences of that decision.

Now don’t get me wrong – when it comes to things that have nothing to do with morality compromise in marriage is a good thing.  Like when we choose where we go to dinner that is not necessarily a moral decision.  How much is spent on dinner is a moral decision, but whether we have a hamburger or pizza is not.

But I think in most cases what we call compromise on these non moral things is just us being selfless and putting the other person first and that is a good thing.

But when it comes to moral decisions, including financial decisions, career decisions, what church is attended, religious beliefs, discipline and teaching of the children, decisions about sex and other things like this there can be no compromise. A husband is always called by God to do what is he believes is right before God.

9 thoughts on “Why Compromise in Marriage is Sacred in Humanism and Sinful in the Bible”

  2. God was not saying in Genesis 21:12 that Abraham should always listen to his wife. It was his listening to his wife that got him into trouble in the first place with thinking he could have his heir through Hagar when God said the heir would come through Sarah. In this case where God told him to listen to her, God was simply allowing Sarah to clean up the mess that she had made.

    I do not believe it is always wrong for a man to listen to his wife. I am sure Abigail tried to warn her evil husband Nabal in 1 Samuel 25 of the disastrous consequences that were coming to her family because of his actions regarding David. Nabal should have listened to her. But a man must be convinced by God that what his wife is telling him is the moral and right thing to do. It is one thing to listen to your wife simply to appease her and make her happy. That is wrong. It is another if God tells us to listen to our wife in a particular situation. That is exactly what Abraham did. The only reason he listened to Sarah the second time, after he wrongly followed her the first, is because God told him to listen to her.

  3. Compromise on moral issues is a death spiral in marriage or anywhere else.

    “The compromises of yesterday become the starting position for bargaining today, and today’s new compromise will become the starting point for bargaining tomorrow.” – Dalrock

  4. A few years ago, I submitted to my husband in the decision about what church to attend. Before that, I had been driving those decisions, and it caused some unrest and confusion in our relationship. I finally realized that this decision is not mine to make, and that I needed to submit to him willingly. I know the new place is better for our family situation, but I miss our old church (which was the one I had decided on years ago). I trust my husband though, and I rest in my submission to his decisions. I definitely believe that church is one of those things that unity is very important. Can you imagine if I had “compromised” and decided to just go somewhere else from my husband…? The thought did cross my mind! And I usually consider myself pretty compliant. I had to work at submitting in this particular decision and I’m glad I did. We plan to join the new church whenever this corona virus stuff is over and we can go to church again! 😀

  5. I appreciate my husband listening to me. Many times my words and warnings were wise and true, BUT I do not expect him to do everything I say. I do expect him to weigh my words with wisdom and to use them as tools to help, not as Gospel to be obeyed.

    I am also careful not to spout off opinions and quick fixes/responses. Not everything needs my peanut gallery.

  7. I am reminded of the famous essay by R.L. Dabney on woman’s suffrage. His brutal beat-down of the comprising northern Presbyterians is apropos because it is the same spirit of comprise to feminist empowerment as advocated by 90% of Christianity. Enjoy….

    It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

  8. Trey, thank you for that excellent saying. I failed to think of it that way. I wish I knew that saying 10-15 years ago.

  9. This pathology is summarised by the statement:
    “Happy Wife, Happy Life”.

    Its like Man becomes God’s Lord and God submits himself to Man.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.