Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

[joko104]

Oh, I know they do, but if viewed in the proper way, considering one another's feelings, it works well...

Very well. Not to make this a sex topic, my male sexual ego is 100% entirely based upon the woman/wife. How good it was is singularly on how good it was for her. The higher she sings the higher my ego soars. You know what I mean.

You really can best serve yourself by serving someone else.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Paul also has authority, according to his inspiration from God, to write more books in the Christian Greek Scriptures, than any other writer...he is an example of worthy imitation...

" Become imitators of me, just as I am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1

Yes, when he was called by Peter, he was given the Priesthood authority and called to the office of an Apostle. One of the challenges at that time period is that most people did not read. So, they had to be taught by the "word" of God by Apostles like Paul. Today, we still can learn from latter-day apostles and prophets. But, we have the word to read who Christ was and follow his teachings and behaviors.

 

[Overitall]

I believe Mathias replaced Judas as stated in Acts 1:21 - 26. Not sure who Paul replaced but I think it probably was James. James died somewhere around 44 A.D. 11 years after Christ. Peter was still alive at that point has he was crucified around 67 A.D. And, we know Paul did rebuke Peter.

Yea, they chose Matthias the old fashioned way - they cast votes for him.

26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

It's assumed that because "the lot fell upon Matthias" that he was ordained by God. This is similar to how the Pope is chosen. In the case of Paul he was chosen by Jesus Christ (unless he's mistaken).

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;

The only thing Peter and the other apostles agreed on was that Paul should be the one to reach out to the Gentiles. The "Nations" per Jesus' command.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Yea, they chose Matthias the old fashioned way - they cast votes for him.

26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

It's assumed that because "the lot fell upon Matthias" that he was ordained by God. This is similar to how the Pope is chosen. In the case of Paul he was chosen by Jesus Christ (unless he's mistaken).

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;

The only thing Peter and the other apostles agreed on was that Paul should be the one to reach out to the Gentiles. The "Nations" per Jesus' command.

I'm pretty sure that God chooses all Prophets and Apostles either directly or through the Prophet. Paul received revelation about his calling. But, Peter most likely extended the call to become an Apostle to replace James. But, the body of the Apostles then cast lots, but not as a vote. They cast lots as to sustain the person called. When sustaining the Apostle, that means to follow the inspired teachings.

 

[Overitall]

I'm pretty sure that God chooses all Prophets and Apostles either directly or through the Prophet.

You might think so, but Jeremiah 14:14 would cast doubt on that.

Jeremiah 14:14
Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

There are various other verses speaking on this. The point is that not every prophet is of God. Jesus did not pick Matthias, but the eleven apostles felt Judaw needed to be replaced because there were originally twelve. That makes sense, but was it really necessary?

Paul received revelation about his calling. But, Peter most likely extended the call to become an Apostle to replace James. But, the body of the Apostles then cast lots, but not as a vote. They cast lots as to sustain the person called. When sustaining the Apostle, that means to follow the inspired teachings.

It's been said that they needed to be twelve because it was representative of the twelve tribes of Israel. That fails to take into account what 1 Corinthians says in 12:28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." I don't know why it's thought there should only be twelve when there's no dispute that Paul was at least the thirteenth. That being so I contend that there actually were more and for that matter apostles may be still around today. Afterall, no one disputes there are still teachers (and perhaps prophets) around today. Why wouldn't there also not be apostles? Most people don't even know what the function of an apostle is in The Church, so they wouldn't recognize one if they stood in front of them.

Paul's calling came at the right time. God's time. Matthias might have served a purpose towards the church, but not much is known about him. Obviously God's choice greatly impacted the Church of the first century. It could be argued that if not for his ministry the Church might have flickered out.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Jeremiah's statement in 14:14 is about false Prophet's lies, and does not exists in the Lord's name.
Actually, Jesus did pick Mattias, through the Holy Ghost to Peter and the Apostles. The rock of revelation went through Peter as Jesus said he was the rock of revelation after his death. While the Lord came to Paul in revelation as well, He most certainly came to Peter to tell Peter he has chosen Paul. The Lord did not establish His Church on the foundation of anarchy. He is a God of order.

Moses chose one from each tribe to lead. He also chose 70 others. Jesus did the same thing. One Apostle from every tribe. Then, he said unto Peter, through you will I build my church. You are the rock of revelation. That verse meant he was the Prophet and leader of the Lord's Church. The Church of Jesus Christ. Yes, in those days, Jesus called Apostles first. This makes sense because why call a prophet when he was here on earth. However, I believe that the Lord called Prophet's in OT days from the leaders of each tribe of Israel and they were Apostles in OT days. They weren't called that using that term. But, nevertheless, there were 12 leaders as Moses and Joshua called to lead them into the promise land.

I can agree with you on the number of Apostles. It's not known how many there were. But, within the Apostles, was a quorum of the 12 Apostles. They hold the keys of the Kingdom. But, there is another quorum. The Presidency of the Church. They consist of Apostles with one being the Prophet and President with two or more councilors. So, at least 15 Apostles are possible making up both quorums. And, you are correct. Most people don't know that function even though it's clear in the NT that they are witnesses to the divinity of Jesus Christ and that He lives. They were commissioned to spread the Gospel to the four corners of the earth. They were given help to teach and preach the Gospel with the 70 special witnesses or evangelists. The people already understood teachers and what they were.

Could there be Apostles and Prophets today? Yes! But, there would have had to be an apostasy of the word and authority or priesthood first as Paul wrote. There was. Not just a little one but a very long one. The people in the meridian of time thought that the Lord would return very soon after his resurrection. But, that was just hope talking. Everything had to be polluted including the meaning and understanding of the priesthood. Paul explained the priesthood and clarified it as well to be a higher and lesser priesthood. They were clearly named after two righteous persons in the OT, Melchizedek and Aaron (brother of Moses, a Levite). Melchizedek was the higher priesthood after the order of the Son of God. That priesthood was in charge of the inner ordinances of eternal life like giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost while the order of Aaron was the outer ordinances such as baptism, like John the Baptist. These two priesthoods of authority to do the work of God (The priesthood is the power and authority of God to do His work on the earth) were eventually lost. Now, they basically don't exist in most Churches who say they are followers of Jesus Christ. But, they were lost and so was any authority of the Churches around the world. So, a restoration of all things, through a Prophet of God, called by God was necessary. These are the days of the restitution of all things of Christ as spoken in the NT. The apostacy has been overcome. You might figure out I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[Overitall]

Jeremiah's statement in 14:14 is about false Prophet's lies, and does not exists in the Lord's name.
Actually, Jesus did pick Mattias, through the Holy Ghost to Peter and the Apostles. The rock of revelation went through Peter as Jesus said he was the rock of revelation after his death. While the Lord came to Paul in revelation as well, He most certainly came to Peter to tell Peter he has chosen Paul. The Lord did not establish His Church on the foundation of anarchy. He is a God of order.

Moses chose one from each tribe to lead. He also chose 70 others. Jesus did the same thing. One Apostle from every tribe. Then, he said unto Peter, through you will I build my church. You are the rock of revelation. That verse meant he was the Prophet and leader of the Lord's Church. The Church of Jesus Christ. Yes, in those days, Jesus called Apostles first. This makes sense because why call a prophet when he was here on earth. However, I believe that the Lord called Prophet's in OT days from the leaders of each tribe of Israel and they were Apostles in OT days. They weren't called that using that term. But, nevertheless, there were 12 leaders as Moses and Joshua called to lead them into the promise land.

I can agree with you on the number of Apostles. It's not known how many there were. But, within the Apostles, was a quorum of the 12 Apostles. They hold the keys of the Kingdom. But, there is another quorum. The Presidency of the Church. They consist of Apostles with one being the Prophet and President with two or more councilors. So, at least 15 Apostles are possible making up both quorums. And, you are correct. Most people don't know that function even though it's clear in the NT that they are witnesses to the divinity of Jesus Christ and that He lives. They were commissioned to spread the Gospel to the four corners of the earth. They were given help to teach and preach the Gospel with the 70 special witnesses or evangelists. The people already understood teachers and what they were.

Could there be Apostles and Prophets today? Yes! But, there would have had to be an apostasy of the word and authority or priesthood first as Paul wrote. There was. Not just a little one but a very long one. The people in the meridian of time thought that the Lord would return very soon after his resurrection. But, that was just hope talking. Everything had to be polluted including the meaning and understanding of the priesthood. Paul explained the priesthood and clarified it as well to be a higher and lesser priesthood. They were clearly named after two righteous persons in the OT, Melchizedek and Aaron (brother of Moses, a Levite). Melchizedek was the higher priesthood after the order of the Son of God. That priesthood was in charge of the inner ordinances of eternal life like giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost while the order of Aaron was the outer ordinances such as baptism, like John the Baptist. These two priesthoods of authority to do the work of God (The priesthood is the power and authority of God to do His work on the earth) were eventually lost. Now, they basically don't exist in most Churches who say they are followers of Jesus Christ. But, they were lost and so was any authority of the Churches around the world. So, a restoration of all things, through a Prophet of God, called by God was necessary. These are the days of the restitution of all things of Christ as spoken in the NT. The apostacy has been overcome. You might figure out I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I see elements of it. We share some commonality like the availability of speaking in tongues and other "gifts of the holy spirit" (I refer to them as "manifestation of the gift of holy spirit") numbering in nine. You reject the typical doctrine of the trinity which I likewise reject. For the most part I can find common ground, but I do have a problem with The Book of Mormon. I just don't see the need for an addition to the Scriptures found in the canonical Bible.

We may be straying here so I'll leave it here.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

I see elements of it. We share some commonality like the availability of speaking in tongues and other "gifts of the holy spirit" (I refer to them as "manifestation of the gift of holy spirit") numbering in nine. You reject the typical doctrine of the trinity which I likewise reject. For the most part I can find common ground, but I do have a problem with The Book of Mormon. I just don't see the need for an addition to the Scriptures found in the canonical Bible.

We may be straying here so I'll leave it here.

2Corinthians 13:1, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." The Bible is the "Word" of God. Spoken first, then written. The Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ or "Word" of God. Established or "Fulfilled" by The Book of Mormon. We often will say The Book of Mormon has the fulness of the Gospel in it. Fulness or clarity of doctrine. The Prophet Ezekiel also saw the usefulness of a second testimony in the last days. Ezekiel 37:16-28. 16-17, "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand." Verse 20, "And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes."
I've looked at the Bible as a blue print of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon as the doctrine and fulness of Jesus Christ. Together, I'm not confused about the True Doctrine and Gospel of Jesus Christ and which Church has it in these the latter days.

Some say this was for the people in the days of David since a David is referenced ad who shall be the king when both books are joined as one in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But, the OT King David died somewhere about 960B.C. Ezekiel became Prophet about 596B.C. So, the answer is no. This is a latter day prophecy.

 

[Overitall]

2Corinthians 13:1, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." The Bible is the "Word" of God. Spoken first, then written. The Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ or "Word" of God. Established or "Fulfilled" by The Book of Mormon. We often will say The Book of Mormon has the fulness of the Gospel in it. Fulness or clarity of doctrine. The Prophet Ezekiel also saw the usefulness of a second testimony in the last days. Ezekiel 37:16-28. 16-17, "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand." Verse 20, "And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes."
I've looked at the Bible as a blue print of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon as the doctrine and fulness of Jesus Christ. Together, I'm not confused about the True Doctrine and Gospel of Jesus Christ and which Church has it in these the latter days.

Some say this was for the people in the days of David since a David is referenced ad who shall be the king when both books are joined as one in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But, the OT King David died somewhere about 960B.C. Ezekiel became Prophet about 596B.C. So, the answer is no. This is a latter day prophecy.

Just out of curiosity what do you believe about the "stars"; was God's Word written in them according to the beliefs of Mormons. Tbh, it's been awhile since I looked at the theology of Mormons.

 

[vesper]

In my many years of studying the Scriptures, I never saw a man was superior over a woman. It was man that brought that about. I have always seen it while G-d called the man the head of the house did not mean the female was someone lesser but rather a needed partner who both loved G-d and both were needed for perfect balance. The difference between men and women has always been on the way they approach things. The male uses his mind lacking compassion. The female more than not leans toward emotions. In other words, they complement each other. But unfortunately, the Hebrews abused this Scripture to justify divorce. By the time of Yeshua/Jesus, he called them out multiple times of their abuse of G-d's word toward the woman. The Sadducees and Pharisees despised Yeshua/Jesus for it.

My point is this and that is the male is designed to make decisions void of any emotions. A woman too often makes decision on emotions. The bottom line, both are equal because it takes both to make a sound decision in all things. Head and Heart in equal parts.

 

[joko104]

In my many years of studying the Scriptures, I never saw a man was superior over a woman. It was man that brought that about. I have always seen it while G-d called the man the head of the house did not mean the female was someone lesser but rather a needed partner who both loved G-d and both were needed for perfect balance. The difference between men and women has always been on the way they approach things. The male uses his mind lacking compassion. The female more than not leans toward emotions. In other words, they complement each other. But unfortunately, the Hebrews abused this Scripture to justify divorce. By the time of Yeshua/Jesus, he called them out multiple times of their abuse of G-d's word toward the woman. The Sadducees and Pharisees despised Yeshua/Jesus for it.

My point is this and that is the male is designed to make decisions void of any emotions. A woman too often makes decision on emotions. The bottom line, both are equal because it takes both to make a sound decision in all things. Head and Heart in equal parts.

Interesting perspective.

 

[Overitall]

In my many years of studying the Scriptures, I never saw a man was superior over a woman. It was man that brought that about. I have always seen it while G-d called the man the head of the house did not mean the female was someone lesser but rather a needed partner who both loved G-d and both were needed for perfect balance. The difference between men and women has always been on the way they approach things. The male uses his mind lacking compassion. The female more than not leans toward emotions. In other words, they complement each other. But unfortunately, the Hebrews abused this Scripture to justify divorce. By the time of Yeshua/Jesus, he called them out multiple times of their abuse of G-d's word toward the woman. The Sadducees and Pharisees despised Yeshua/Jesus for it.

My point is this and that is the male is designed to make decisions void of any emotions. A woman too often makes decision on emotions. The bottom line, both are equal because it takes both to make a sound decision in all things. Head and Heart in equal parts.

Very well said vesper! I think a couple should compliment each other. Your point about the head and heart in the relationship is spot on. My wife has taught me so much about approaching things from the heart. I'm still learning.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Just out of curiosity what do you believe about the "stars"; was God's Word written in them according to the beliefs of Mormons. Tbh, it's been awhile since I looked at the theology of Mormons.

Not a clue with what you are referring to. God's words was written down by Prophets and/or his scribes as the Prophets spoke their words from God.
The only thing about the "stars" that I'd refer to is in 1Corinthians chapter 15 when Paul convey that there are three levels of glory in Heaven, Celestial, Terrestrial and the Stars in which the Prophet named as Telestial. In our Doctrine and Covenants Book of Scriptures Section 76, all three are named and explained in more detail. Who will habitat those glories of Heaven. Also, clarification on those who deny the Holy Ghost and those spirits lost in the War in Heaven before the foundations of the earth were laid.

 

[Overitall]

Not a clue with what you are referring to.

One reference to it off the top of my head is regarding the Magic that followed "His Star".

Matthew 2:1-2
1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

For more information see here. It's one of the most detailed explanation on the subject, imo.

God's words was written down by Prophets and/or his scribes as the Prophets spoke their words from God.
The only thing about the "stars" that I'd refer to is in 1Corinthians chapter 15 when Paul convey that there are three levels of glory in Heaven, Celestial, Terrestrial and the Stars in which the Prophet named as Telestial. In our Doctrine and Covenants Book of Scriptures Section 76, all three are named and explained in more detail. Who will habitat those glories of Heaven. Also, clarification on those who deny the Holy Ghost and those spirits lost in the War in Heaven before the foundations of the earth were laid.

 

[tosca1]

Ephesians 5:22-33​

King James Version​

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (Other versions use the word "obey")
23 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.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

How do you interpret that? How much, if at all, does/did that apply to your marriage?

In important matters, we discuss but the final decision rests with my husband.
A household can't have two heads much the same way a kingdom can't have two kings.

Rowers of a boat cannot row to opposite directions.....otherwise, you'll get nowhere.
Husbands and wives are one flesh. They have to agree with each other.

There is also a stipulation to husbands.


Ephesians 5
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word,
27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—
30 for we are members of his body.
31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c]
32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.



It is a "formula" to a successful and happy marriage.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

One reference to it off the top of my head is regarding the Magic that followed "His Star".

Matthew 2:1-2
1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

For more information see here. It's one of the most detailed explanation on the subject, imo.

Not sure why you use the word "Magic." I would note that there were only a few that understood what the star represented and came to see the baby Jesus. It is Jesus that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do all things in Jesus Christ's name, including the naming of His Church. The proper way to state who we worship is that we worship the Father (Elohim), in the Name of the Son (Jesus Christ) through the Gift of the Holy Ghost. All three being separate and distinct being. The Father and Son being glorified men and the Holy Ghost, spirit body. The Star was simply a representation or symbol of the Lord's birth and for those who understood, where he was in Bethlehem.

 

[Overitall]

Not sure why you use the word "Magic."

It was obviously a typo which the verse I cited should have made clear to you.

I would note that there were only a few that understood what the star represented and came to see the baby Jesus. It is Jesus that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do all things in Jesus Christ's name, including the naming of His Church. The proper way to state who we worship is that we worship the Father (Elohim), in the Name of the Son (Jesus Christ) through the Gift of the Holy Ghost. All three being separate and distinct being. The Father and Son being glorified men and the Holy Ghost, spirit body. The Star was simply a representation or symbol of the Lord's birth and for those who understood, where he was in Bethlehem.

Didn't bother looking at the book I mentioned. Thanks for your time.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

It was obviously a typo which the verse I cited should have made clear to you.

Didn't bother looking at the book I mentioned. Thanks for your time.

That's a long book you expect me to quickly read? I did look at it. Perhaps you would like to read the Book of Abraham in our Pearl of Great Price book of scriptures. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng

From what I quickly read, it is an interesting book. The connections are worth looking into. However, Astrology is not revelation. But, as Abraham was shown the starts, planets and moon, the Lord used them to teach as much as Abraham could understand about creation and God. Thank for your time.

 

[Overitall]

That's a long book you expect me to quickly read? I did look at it. Perhaps you would like to read the Book of Abraham in our Pearl of Great Price book of scriptures. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng

From what I quickly read, it is an interesting book. The connections are worth looking into. However, Astrology is not revelation.

No, astrology isn't, but the book is about astronomy.

But, as Abraham was shown the starts, planets and moon, the Lord used them to teach as much as Abraham could understand about creation and God. Thank for your time.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

No, astrology isn't, but the book is about astronomy.

When one ties stories to astronomy, it becomes astrology. Not that the connections in the book aren't valuable knowledge, it simply isn't necessary for a testimony of Jesus Christ, His Gospel, His Church and His Plan of Salvation. The Book of Mormon becomes one in our hands with the Bible for better understanding of doctrinal truths. The Bible in Ezekiel says to use them both to stay on the path to the Tree of Life. Isaiah chapter 29 is the prophecy of The Book of Mormon being unearthed and translated by Joseph Smith by the spirit of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Overitall]

When one ties stories to astronomy, it becomes astrology. Not that the connections in the book aren't valuable knowledge, it simply isn't necessary for a testimony of Jesus Christ, His Gospel, His Church and His Plan of Salvation. The Book of Mormon becomes one in our hands with the Bible for better understanding of doctrinal truths. The Bible in Ezekiel says to use them both to stay on the path to the Tree of Life. Isaiah chapter 29 is the prophecy of The Book of Mormon being unearthed and translated by Joseph Smith by the spirit of the Holy Ghost.

Psalms 19:1
(To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Psalms 19:1
(To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Yes, the glory and handywork. Doesn't mean it tells of future events. That's astrology. However, I said the book is interesting. But, it's not from a prophet of God. The Book of Mormon is. When one ties stories to astronomy, it becomes astrology. Not that the connections in the book aren't valuable knowledge, it simply isn't necessary for a testimony of Jesus Christ, His Gospel, His Church and His Plan of Salvation. The Book of Mormon becomes one in our hands with the Bible for better understanding of doctrinal truths. The Bible in Ezekiel says to use them both to stay on the path to the Tree of Life. Isaiah chapter 29 is the prophecy of The Book of Mormon being unearthed and translated by Joseph Smith by the spirit of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Daisy]

Husbands and wives are one flesh. They have to agree with each other.

Kinda like Jehovah God and Jesus Christ are one...in agreement...

 

[Daisy]

I would note that there were only a few that understood what the star represented and came to see the baby Jesus.

You're right, only the Magi/astrologers...and by that time, Jesus was not in a manger but lived in a house and he was about 2 years old...

 

[Arlette]

Ephesians 5:22-33​

King James Version​

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (Other versions use the word "obey")
23 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.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

How do you interpret that? How much, if at all, does/did that apply to your marriage?

Not much room for interpretation. It reads pretty easy to me