The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule

[FollowingHim]

@Keith Martin, I think that between us we've now clearly established that both of our suggestions regarding Eve's understanding of God's instruction are sufficiently speculative that we cannot prove the headship issue either way through that line of reasoning, and should look to other scriptures. I will resist the temptation to flog the dead horse further, and move on!

As stated before, I believe headship began at creation for a very simple reason - because Paul said so. Wherever possible I let scripture interpret scripture. When Paul discussed the headship of a husband, he did not refer to the fall curses to justify this. Rather, he referred back to the creation of Eve, and stated that man is the head of woman because she was created from (1 Cor 11:8), for (1 Cor 11:9), and after him (1 Tim 2:13). Paul clearly sees this as established at creation. He also points out that Eve was deceived, and uses this to reinforce the point, but not as his primary evidence (1 Tim 2:14).

Obviously both are also dependent upon each other, and can be seen as a partnership (1 Cor 11:11-12), yet within that is an order established at Creation.

Furthermore, we are told that death came into the world through Adam (Romans 5:12-21), and this is foundational to the Gospel itself. Yet we know it was actually Eve who sinned first. Why did death not enter the world through Eve, if both were an equal partnership, and she had 'just as much right to take the lead'? Yet Adam is deemed responsible. An equal partner is not deemed solely responsible for their peer's failings. But an authority can be held responsible for all that happens under their watch.

This is where I get my theology from. I then interpret Genesis in this light.

 

[Pacman]

@Keith Martin, I think that between us we've now clearly established that both of our suggestions regarding Eve's understanding of God's instruction are sufficiently speculative that we cannot prove the headship issue either way through that line of reasoning, and should look to other scriptures. I will resist the temptation to flog the dead horse further, and move on!

As stated before, I believe headship began at creation for a very simple reason - because Paul said so. Wherever possible I let scripture interpret scripture. When Paul discussed the headship of a husband, he did not refer to the fall curses to justify this. Rather, he referred back to the creation of Eve, and stated that man is the head of woman because she was created from (1 Cor 11:8), for (1 Cor 11:9), and after him (1 Tim 2:13). Paul clearly sees this as established at creation. He also points out that Eve was deceived, and uses this to reinforce the point, but not as his primary evidence (1 Tim 2:14).

Obviously both are also dependent upon each other, and can be seen as a partnership (1 Cor 11:11-12), yet within that is an order established at Creation.

Furthermore, we are told that death came into the world through Adam (Romans 5:12-21), and this is foundational to the Gospel itself. Yet we know it was actually Eve who sinned first. Why did death not enter the world through Eve, if both were an equal partnership, and she had 'just as much right to take the lead'? Yet Adam is deemed responsible. An equal partner is not deemed solely responsible for their peer's failings. But an authority can be held responsible for all that happens under their watch.

This is where I get my theology from. I then interpret Genesis in this light.

Me too

 

[The Revolting Man]

Are you saying that we should be in subjection to a government or laws that are anti God?

Are you saying that we should remain at a workplace that is attempting to force us to do whatever against God’s will?

No one should be in subjection to any illegitimate authority. I followed your line of reasoning to a legitimate authority. And that question still stands, we're to submit if we want to?

 

[rockfox]

First, no mention of wives there
Secondly, the purpose of all of it is stated in the following verse 6. ”doing the will of God from the heart;”

At what point is God’s will for one of His children to do something evil? Chapter and verse please.

I used that verse to make a general point about authority and God's expectations for how to behave when under the authority of non-Christians. Just the same as you bringing up subjection to government.

Wives do not get carte blanche to disobey their husbands nor leave them just because their husband isn't 'Godly enough' in their eyes.

Are you saying that we should be in subjection to laws or government that are anti God?

The disciples did not reject the authority of government in their lives because that one time they were told to do something contrary to the will of God. They are still generally under the governments authority; they were just expected to disobey it when a government official directly contradicted the command of God.

When Peter and Paul told the believers to obey the governing authorities ALL the government officials were Godless pagans, many of whom were actively persecuting Christians.

 

[rockfox]

both of them will be one flesh. Tell me this doesn't sound like they're partners

It doesn't. The man-wife relationship is a mirror of the Christ-church relationship and the later is not at all an equal partnership. Rather it is a hierarchal one where we submit our will to Christ; which will also result in 'being one'. Relational equality isn't the only answer to oneness; submission gets you there too.

The most common relationships between a helper and one helped is a hierarchal one. And we can see that this is the case before the fall when Adam named her; that is a big red flag that she was under his authority. We've kind of lost touch on the importance of names, but to people of the past that would have been glaringly obvious.

There is more that I could say, but FH nailed it in his last post.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

No one should be in subjection to any illegitimate authority. I followed your line of reasoning to a legitimate authority. And that question still stands, we're to submit if we want to?

So what makes a legitimate authority illegitimate?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Wives do not get carte blanche to disobey their husbands nor leave them just because their husband isn't 'Godly enough' in their eyes.

Granted, but no one is saying that wives get carte blanch to disobey their husbands. I don’t recall anyone saying that but you, so why is it an issue? You’re specifically using an extreme to attempt to prove a point that no one else is talking about.

As far as a husband being Godly enough, no man is Godly enough. A woman that utilizes this litmus has set an impossible bar that will be forever moving. A man who succumbs to this unrealistic ideal deserves the wife that would utilize it. As for me, a woman that attempts to compare my human imperfection to His perfection will definitely be extremely disappointed and is welcome to leave if that is the measure of her intelligence or lack thereof. I’d rather not have my offspring cursed with her stupidity.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So what makes a legitimate authority illegitimate?

This is the $64,000 question sir. I would say that nothing can illegitimize a legitimate authority. That's why it's so important to be a good one. Sarah obeyed Abraham even when he sent her to another man. That was counted as righteousness to her, even in the New Testament. That's a very powerful statement.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Granted, but no one is saying that wives get carte blanch to disobey their husbands. I don’t recall anyone saying that but you, so why is it an issue? You’re specifically using an extreme to attempt to prove a point that no one else is talking about.

As far as a husband being Godly enough, no man is Godly enough. A woman that utilizes this litmus has set an impossible bar that will be forever moving.

But this is the (possibly unintended) result of what you say. It will happen. It happens a lot. It's happened in my life and in the lives of many other men I know. What you teach will aid and abet adulteresses and women who want an excuse to destroy their homes.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I get that women running amuck is never a good thing. I get that there’s a reason why God placed men as the heads of the family and instructed their women to obey them. I get that some women will push the envelope as far as is allowed, often to the destruction of their own house, and usually to the emasculation of their husband.

But . . . .. . As I see it and understand the purpose and point of this thread, it is about exactly what role a husband has in the marriage and how much authority is divinely ordained, and at what point if any does that divinely ordained authority become abused and illegitimate as the steward in Luke 12;45

Is is an overstatement to characterize our instruction as rule? If so, is there a more accurate term in the English language or a model that would be a better example?

Myself, I kind of like the idea of ‘ruling’ over my peeps. Some would even accuse me of doing so. However, my understanding of rule would indicate an action from someone who has absolute authority, which I do not. I am under authority to one who is also under authority. I have power to lead, guide and direct my family in any direction that I choose, provided that the direction originates from my authority or is within His parameters. My ‘power’ comes from His authority.

Could I claim power outside of His authority as an unbeliever does? Certainly! But what would form the basis or foundation of that “power”? Some might say that it comes from cultural precedent: that its a cultural directive, some would say that its a financial source where the breadwinner controls the purse strings. I submit that the origin of his “power” to “rule” comes from the degree that she’s willing to submit. His power to rule literally ends at the point that she’s no longer willing to submit to his rule.

IMO. The question should not be how can we convince or coerce them to remain under our “rule”, but what is our role supposed to provide that they can get nowhere else? Understanding why our role model does things the way He does wouldn’t hurt either.

 

[IshChayil]

Well, I was actually asking some questions about all three of the first chapters, but as for Gen 3 goes, my question had to do with the future tense there. I already believed that 'rule means rule' where it appears in Gen 3:16; my interest is in the "shall" part.

My concern is that, as I see it, something changed with Gen 3:16. "He shall rule over you", not "he will continue to rule over you". The argument is made that "patriarchy existed before the fall", the truth of which depends on what you mean by "patriarchy" in that context. Clearly the man had some kind of priority and authority over the woman before the fall, but that "shall rule over you" bit appears in 3:16, not before, so "ruling like a king" appears to be a change of state. (In addition to which, the pre-fall state (Gen 1 & 2) includes expressions that point to an essential unity or partnership of the man and woman, rather than evidence of a strict ruler/subject relationship. But that's the other part I was asking about.)

What can you say about that future tense verb from the Hebrew grammar? I see a Greek OT text that has a clear future tense, but I don't have the tools or experience to speak to the Hebrew. Is that a clear "this will happen from now on" future tense, or is it some kind of "this will keep happening the way it has been" construction that I'm not familiar with?

Traveling as I write this in tab so I’ll keep it short. Yes, you are correct. Someone could argue that the verb “you will rule” is in the imperfect which can also express present continuous in Bib.l Heb. or future But the syntax here clearly indicates future IMHO.malso context establishes changes and punishments being dished out to deal with the new reality of the fall. Everyone “gets some” here, serpent, woman, man. It’s an interesting point @andrew I had never considered that the patriarchy was a result of The fall and how the fall happened. In my tool box this is going.

By the way, there is a clear syntax in Hebrew to express “he will continue to xyz-verb” usually it’s a form of the verb “halakh” to go/walk combined with the verb (for those studying Hebrew out there it looks quite weird when you first see it but it’s very useful to express exactly what Andrew is pointing out that this verse does not express).

Also, it’s not a future one time event expressed here as that would be expressed by putting the the verb in the perfect (a completed action) then prefixing “vav conversive” in front that swaps time. Then we would have a single point in the future where this would happen and then be done. Instead the text uses the imperfect expressing here a future continuous action (in context) meaning it starts now and will continue.
Regarding the previous chapters, I’m looking at them with new eyes and you are right. In fact, the language used regarding Chava’s purpose before k’negdo means something like “as facing opposite him”, absolute equality is implied. This phrase always bothered me when I read it. I think the change in roles you are proposing harmonizes these sections.
One does not rule over what is k’negdo.

 

[IshChayil]

Yes.

Along that line, when people try to argue from Sarah and Hegar that polygamy is a bad idea, you can point out that Abraham's main sin problem was that he listened to Sarah instead of waiting on God. That usually confuses them....

It’s also nice to piggyback on that how after Sarah’s death he had another wife AND concubines. Nice someone as old and wise as Abraham at that point would not have continued to take women plural if the lesson from Hagar was “polygamy is bad m’kay”

 

[Pacman]

Traveling as I write this in tab so I’ll keep it short. Yes, you are correct. Someone could argue that the verb “you will rule” is in the imperfect which can also express present continuous in Bibl Heb. But the syntax here clearly indicates future IMHO.malso context establishes changes and punishments being dished out to deal with the new reality of the fall. Everyone “gets some” here, servant, man, woman. It’s an interesting point @andrew I had never considered that the patriarchy was a result of The fall and how the fall happened. In my tool box this is going.

By the way, there is a clear syntax in Hebrew to express “he will continue to xyz-verb” usually it’s a form of the verb “halakh” to go/walk combined with the verb (for those studying Hebrew out there it looks quite weird when you first see it but it’s very useful to express exactly what Andrew is pointing out that this verse does not express).

Also, it’s not a future one time event expressed here as that would be expressed by putting the the verb in the perfect (a completed action) then prefixing “vav conversive” in front that swaps time. Then we would have a single point in the future where this would happen and then be done. Instead the text uses the imperfect expressing here a present continuous action (in context) meaning it starts now and will continue.
Regarding the previous chapters, I’m looking at them with new eyes and you are right. In fact, the language used regarding Chava’s purpose before k’negdo means something like “as facing opposite him”, absolute equality is implied. This phrase always bothered me when I read it. I think the change in roles you are proposing harmonizes these sections.
One does not rule over what is k’negdo.

So based on what you are reading do you believe that Adam had zero leadership over his wife? Or simply that it did not rise to the level of rulership?

 

[rockfox]

Granted, but no one is saying that wives get carte blanch to disobey their husbands. I don’t recall anyone saying that but you, so why is it an issue? You’re specifically using an extreme to attempt to prove a point that no one else is talking about.

No, I'm directly responding to your claims (emphasis added)....

That a women does not need to submit to a husband she views as 'unGodly'...

Can a woman choose to remain with and be submissive to an unGodly authority? Sure, just as we may with an unGodly government. Does that mean that we are obligated to? Not hardly.

And that a husband who is not Christian (or not submissive enough to Christ), has no right to rule his wife...

Whether it is semantically correct or not to use the word “rule” in regards to how one leads his wife(s) and children, the lingering taste of bile in my mouth comes from men who claim the “right to rule” and only give lip service to being in submission themselves to Christ.

Christ claimed authority based upon him performing the will of the Father. In his life this was obvious even to the point of death. For many “husbands” however, their authority is assumed by position or fiat, without ever truly being submitted to their own authority. Those who attempt this approach are often oblivious to both the cause and effect yet wonder why they have no real influence within their homes and are dismissed or ridiculed outside their home.

In an earlier post, I asked how does Christ example His rule over those that are His. IMO its very simple. He said my sheep hear my voice and they follow me. Those that do not follow do not have the benefit of His covering or His blessing in their lives. He rules those that are submitted to him, and those that aren’t submitted aren’t His and have no claim on authority from Him.

My posts were a direct response to show that those claims are contradicted by scripture. That God expects us to submit to even unGodly authorities. That the wife is to submit to the husband regardless of how good or not he is. That it is a matter of the order of creation that ALL men, Christian or not, have this rule over their women. The woman does not stand in judgment over her husband, his spirituality or his authority.

This is not an extreme situation. It is common advice to Christian husbands that if she's not submissive to him, it is because he's not Godly enough or loving her properly. That, and your, advice, gives women permission to disobey or divorce men whom they themselves judge to be not Godly enough, not loving enough.

And for the easily deceived sex that could be applied to just about any man. Any way he doesn't obey or cater to her proves he doesn't 'love her'. Any perceived imperfection or sin, whether based on scripture or not, becomes justification that he's not Godly enough.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@rockfox. Ive still not seen the answer to my questions above about government and employer. At what point does their authority end?

You can claim that the husbands authority is unlimited and no doubt cherry pick passages to prove your point. We all know those passages. The problem with this is that the same passages (like 1 Peter 3) that deal with the wives submitting to an imperfect husband instruct them to do so as their husbands must submit to imperfect governments and masters (which in our culture would be employers) in the previous chapter

Your argument falls apart if you do not consider yourself and every other husband to be obligated to be as submitted to your government and employer regardless of their actions as you are insisting all wives be to their husbands.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

The Hebrew mid-wives did not submit, and God established their house . . . Moses' parents did not submit . . . Moses did not submit . . . All of the delivering judges rebelled against their captors (captors who were allowed, even sent by God to afflict them) . . . he men of Israel did not obey Saul when Johnathan unknowing broke the fast . . . David ran from Saul rather than to submit . . . The three Hebrew children did not submit . . . Daniel did not submit . . . Joseph fled to Egypt and did not submit. . . John the Baptist did not submit . . . the Apostles did not submit to the religious or secular authorities and preached the gospel at the cost of their life. It may be judgment or punishment to have ungodly authority in power, but it is not God's will for the obedient to suffer such. It may be Satan or evil men abusing their position; however, the righteous should not blindly submit to such for ourselves, or others, (example: Moses intervening on behalf of the abused Hebrew slave) (exception: for self... to be a martyr) To restate an old quote, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
If we teach ultimate submission, we will not sufficiently resist evil enough to save ourselves, our families, or others.

To require a woman to submit to an ABUSIVE man is ungodly! Only if he is content with her being a Christian, and he is not abusive, should she stay.
To say that evil men have a right to authority over women is wrong! I say it is Holy Matrimony, and only the righteous have a "right" to it. Hence, one reason for the "need" for PM.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@rockfox. Ive still not seen the answer to my questions above about government and employer. At what point does their authority end?

You can claim that the husbands authority is unlimited and no doubt cherry pick passages to prove your point. We all know those passages. The problem with this is that the same passages (like 1 Peter 3) that deal with the wives submitting to an imperfect husband instruct them to do so as their husbands must submit to imperfect governments and masters (which in our culture would be employers) in the previous chapter

Your argument falls apart if you do not consider yourself and every other husband to be obligated to be as submitted to your government and employer regardless of their actions as you are insisting all wives be to their husbands.

Where are employers given authority? I know why you think governments have authority (you're wrong but at least I can see the reasoning) but employers? How do they get Christ-like authority?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Where are employers given authority? I know why you think governments have authority (you're wrong but at least I can see the reasoning) but employers? How do they get Christ-like authority?

1 Peter 2. Though there it’s talking about Masters and servants which as best I can tell is the closest thing their culture had that compares with our employee/employer relationships, at least with how its used there. The ‘servants’ are to render their services to their “master” with good will and as if it were to the Lord even if they are not the greatest “master”.

I know that governments have limited authority. Their authority ends when they cease to be agents for good or exceed their limited authority. EDIT. Or break the bounds and limits of the covenants that began the relationship.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

1 Peter 2. Though there it’s talking about Masters and servants which as best I can tell is the closest thing their culture had that compares with our employee/employer relationships, at least with how its used there. The ‘servants’ are to render their services to their “master” with good will and as if it were to the Lord even if they are not the greatest “master”.

I know that governments have limited authority. Their authority ends when they cease to be agents for good or exceed their limited authority.

So perhaps we would all be on the same page that husbands likewise have limited authority. After all I doubt any of us would suggest we can execute a wife for breaking some rule, right?
Hence the question becomes what the husband's authority entails and whether the wife has the legitimacy to judge her husband's authority based off solely her own ideals.
My concern, that I don't feel like anyone has really done a good job of addressing in discussing the 'wife is not required to follow an unrighteous leading' angle, is, as has been said: how does anyone make such a line? Or list/criteria, if you will.
Im going to echo what others have said: speaking to believers (I grant that Paul's word about a believing wife who has been divorced being free to remarry seems like the same rule does not apply to nonbelievers), Paul says for wives to submit to their husband as unto the Lord. I don't know how much more clear that could be...

 

[IshChayil]

So based on what you are reading do you believe that Adam had zero leadership over his wife? Or simply that it did not rise to the level of rulership?

Right, I don't see much evidence of leadership on Adam's part...I see following right into the fall.