Feels hard to swallow.
So there was no role difference? No supporting person? Why did either gender even need each other then? They could have just walked off to the ends of the earth and never met again. :/
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule
- Thread starter Pacman
- Start date
So there was no role difference? No supporting person? Why did either gender even need each other then? They could have just walked off to the ends of the earth and never met again. :/
Basically I think if the husband commands the wife to do something that is clearly against scripture she should not follow that particular command. (rob a bank, murder, sleep with another man...) other than that she should obey in the "gray areas" she does not have the authority to decide if he is being righteous or not. Only God does. And the only way she can know for sure is if it's something unmistakably clear in scripture...
Last edited:
We should also remember, and make room for the multiple layers of authority of the kingdom such as: family elders, church elders, secular governments, and ministers who should be safe guards and places where appeals can be made for husbands and wives, even for children to be protected from abuse.
To find the will of God we should seek the manifestation of the Fruit of the Spirit
AND conformation of the Inward Witness,
AND the proper understanding of Scripture
AND the counsel of Higher Gifts and Callings.
These additional safeguards (if properly recognized and submitted to) could do much to protect men, women, and children from abuse. In other words not "Lone Ranger" Christianity.
To find the will of God we should seek the manifestation of the Fruit of the Spirit
AND conformation of the Inward Witness,
AND the proper understanding of Scripture
AND the counsel of Higher Gifts and Callings.
These additional safeguards (if properly recognized and submitted to) could do much to protect men, women, and children from abuse. In other words not "Lone Ranger" Christianity.
I see you are continuing to avoid dealing directly with my arguments and the scriptures I cite in favor of misdirection and moving the goal posts.
The things you bring up are separate issues from my point. Nor am I necessarily claiming a husbands authority is unlimited (clearly it has some end somewhere, since the state also has authority).
I am dealing with your attempt to eliminate the authority of a husband. You're claim wasn't that the authority had a limit ('where does authority end') but rather that they 'have no claim on authority from Him.' at all.
Not only that but your standard for the limit, 'unGodly authority' is no standard at all. Any and every husband could be made to fit that. You would give women carte blanche to divorce. But no where is scripture was a wife given the authority to end the marriage; that lies entirely with the man.
If she absolutely cannot abide with him, then she must remain single or be reconciled as Paul taught. But we mustn't give approval to women to torch their houses; they do it frequently enough for light enough causes as it is.
I'm going to be honest, I hate the derogatory use of 'lone ranger Christian', precisely because of issues like this. We're all here, on this board, becuase we're talking about an issue that the Church has by and large ostracized us for. We are, many of us, 'lone rangers' in our communities, possibly states or even countries! I'm not saying we don't need wise counsel, but I don't see Abraham getting much direction from priests in the area, he did what God told him to do. Likewise Jesus didn't go seeking anyone's guiding authority but God the Father's, etc etc.
In terms of abuse, certainly those exist. But how many of us have watched friends or family or even spouses 'bring us before the church' because of our understanding that Polygyny is not sinful? I believe if there is any true protection to be sought/approved of in our day and age (for spouses, children, etc...) it should be by those that BOTH partners (or family members) trust. So, if my father-in-law comes after me with a shotgun because I've taken a second wife and 'hurt his baby girl' etc..., I'm not going to trust his word on that because I already know he views poly as an unrighteous abuse of my authority. Likewise my first wife seeking counsel (on whether she should follow me or not into poly) from her feminist friend hardly classifies as a 'safe guard'.
Frankly, I find things like this horribly out of touch. There are abundant safeguards and helps for women these days; to the point that false reports of abuse are almost standard in divorce proceedings and women regularly destroy their marriages and children's lives out of mere boredom. The only ones going unprotected are husbands of abusive wives, fathers/children of discontented wives, and families from money hungry CPS agencies. But church and government do everything they can to undermine those victims.
'Lone Ranger Christianity' is about the only way to have an intact marriage as the church regularly undermines the authority of men and encourages discontentment in women. Christian marriage classes anymore are mostly about getting men to be ok with covert wife rule.
Where does scripture give elders this authority over husbands and wives? That's not an idle question, for the government would claim it solely for themselves. Elders, Husbands, Governments; these were given authority from God. Are those authorities parallel? Hierarchical? What is their relation in scripture?
It's also problematic as most churches will rubber stamp a divorce by a woman for any cause; regardless their supposed theological stances. 'Abuse' is no standard. It is a word without meaning; used however the one divorcing needs it to be used. To listen to pastors it means anything that causes a woman feelbads. To listen to the state it means any exercise of power at all (including any and all headship, ruling, leadership; even reading to her Bible passages directed to women is considered abusive).
Again, no husband can stand against that save the one in abject submission to his dominant wife. Biblical headship is illegal according to the state and sinful according to the church. Unless of course you define it as serving her; matriarchy is just fine.
That is a wholly unbiblical stance. By that standard, women should divorce their non-Christian husbands. Or in marriage, it is to say that the non-Christian woman should rule the husband if he is not a Christian. Again, unBiblical; you would put the easily deceived party in charge of the marriage.
I'll probably stop short of considering that a comparison to husbands or Christ.
A genuine question then, does Paul referencing back to the Creation account when he addresses headship not imply that the order existed from the get go?
And I feel like the whole 'naming her' thing, as well as the "you listened to your wife" and "let Us create a helper suitable for him", etc... kinda seems like there was still headship...
@IshChayil is correct that Adam didn't show much evidence of leadership.
That's why the fall happened.
And Adam is held responsible because he WAS in leadership, but didn't do his job.
That's why the fall happened.
And Adam is held responsible because he WAS in leadership, but didn't do his job.
I didn't say any of those things at all.
Just checking in as we've been quite busy today.
@ZecAustin if there was some form or leadership from Adam as the older, wiser member of the pair who spent lots of time with G-d before Chavah showed up, and we call that headship, that's fine. Seems to me the natural order when even 2 men meet if one is older, wiser, more experienced, and the other is inclined to learn, well deference i.e. leadership is readily given to the wiser fella. The call to rule only seems to come later otherwise why would it be listed in Chava's list of punishments? A punishment isn't "hey nothing changed in this area but I'm gonna list it anyway".
@everyone Since none of us live in pre-fall Eyden, the nuance between ruling, or being a leader with G-d walking in the garden to settle disputes seems kind of mute since the situation NOW is that men are to rule their wives right?
Maybe I'm missing why this subtlety is so important.
@ZecAustin if there was some form or leadership from Adam as the older, wiser member of the pair who spent lots of time with G-d before Chavah showed up, and we call that headship, that's fine. Seems to me the natural order when even 2 men meet if one is older, wiser, more experienced, and the other is inclined to learn, well deference i.e. leadership is readily given to the wiser fella. The call to rule only seems to come later otherwise why would it be listed in Chava's list of punishments? A punishment isn't "hey nothing changed in this area but I'm gonna list it anyway".
@everyone Since none of us live in pre-fall Eyden, the nuance between ruling, or being a leader with G-d walking in the garden to settle disputes seems kind of mute since the situation NOW is that men are to rule their wives right?
Maybe I'm missing why this subtlety is so important.
I must have misunderstood your post then, I'm sorry.
What you said sounded to me like the idea of headship/leadership is a result of the curse, and that the man and woman were perfectly equal hierarchically before the Fall. To me that conflicts with the other things God says in the opening of Genesis. Sorry if I misread.
Doin some more study on this and thought this was significant
Justin Martyrs Second Apology
CHAPTER II -- URBICUS CONDEMNS THE CHRISTIANS TO DEATH.
A certain woman lived with an intemperate husband; she herself, too, having formerly been intemperate. But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ she became sober-minded, and endeavoured to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, citing the teaching of Christ, and assuring him that there shall be punishment in eternal fire inflicted upon those who do not live temperately and conformably to right reason. But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife from him by his actions. For she, considering it wicked to live any longer as a wife with a husband who sought in every way means of indulging in pleasure contrary to the law of nature, and in violation of what is right, wished to be divorced from him. And when she was overpersuaded by her friends, who advised her still to continue with him, in the idea that some time or other her husband might give hope of amendment, she did violence to her own feeling and remained with him. But when her husband had gone into Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself worse than ever, she--that she might not, by continuing in matrimonial connection with him, and by sharing his table and his bed, become a partaker also in his wickednesses and impieties--gave him what you call a bill of divorce, and was separated from him. But this noble husband of hers,--while he ought to have been rejoicing that those actions which formerly she unhesitatingly committed with the servants and hirelings, when she delighted in drunkenness and every vice, she had now given up, and desired that he too should give up the same,--when she had gone from him without his desire, brought an accusation against her, affirming that she was a Christian. And she presented a paper to thee, the Emperor, requesting that first she be permitted to arrange her affairs, and afterwards to make her defence against the accusation, when her affairs were set in order. And this you granted
There’s quite a bit to be gleaned from this apology from early christianity.
Justin never faults her for either her reasoning or actions resulting from said reasoning and associates her staying in the relationship as making her a co-sinner with him.
There’s quite a bit from this on the divorce topic as well, but I bolded the parts specifically dealing with the point that her husbands rule ended and why.
Justin Martyrs Second Apology
CHAPTER II -- URBICUS CONDEMNS THE CHRISTIANS TO DEATH.
A certain woman lived with an intemperate husband; she herself, too, having formerly been intemperate. But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ she became sober-minded, and endeavoured to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, citing the teaching of Christ, and assuring him that there shall be punishment in eternal fire inflicted upon those who do not live temperately and conformably to right reason. But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife from him by his actions. For she, considering it wicked to live any longer as a wife with a husband who sought in every way means of indulging in pleasure contrary to the law of nature, and in violation of what is right, wished to be divorced from him. And when she was overpersuaded by her friends, who advised her still to continue with him, in the idea that some time or other her husband might give hope of amendment, she did violence to her own feeling and remained with him. But when her husband had gone into Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself worse than ever, she--that she might not, by continuing in matrimonial connection with him, and by sharing his table and his bed, become a partaker also in his wickednesses and impieties--gave him what you call a bill of divorce, and was separated from him. But this noble husband of hers,--while he ought to have been rejoicing that those actions which formerly she unhesitatingly committed with the servants and hirelings, when she delighted in drunkenness and every vice, she had now given up, and desired that he too should give up the same,--when she had gone from him without his desire, brought an accusation against her, affirming that she was a Christian. And she presented a paper to thee, the Emperor, requesting that first she be permitted to arrange her affairs, and afterwards to make her defence against the accusation, when her affairs were set in order. And this you granted
There’s quite a bit to be gleaned from this apology from early christianity.
Justin never faults her for either her reasoning or actions resulting from said reasoning and associates her staying in the relationship as making her a co-sinner with him.
There’s quite a bit from this on the divorce topic as well, but I bolded the parts specifically dealing with the point that her husbands rule ended and why.
She violated a lot of scripture on her way to getting herself a divorce; she was teaching a man and she was submitting in silence that her actions might sway her husband. Things had gotten pretty firmly Romanized by the time of Justin so I'm skeptical of much of what he says.
I’m not sure which part of this is out of line re your comment about teaching her husband. Seems like this is what a believer in Christ is supposed to communicate to those who aren’t.
As far as the Romanized culture, Pretty much all of the territories governed by Rome were romanized before Christ. Justin Martyr writes about 150 AD but I can’t say I’ve noticed anything really that’s romanized about his Christian worldview. He came to Christ from a very Roman secular, philosophically based perspective, converted as an adult and like many do, he did a complete and pretty thorough 180 on his previous beliefs and thoroughly eviscerates his previous and others Romanized worldview.
IMO he’s one of the premier Christian apologists of his time and definitely worth spending some time with.
Yes. I don't see how the fall would ever have been accorded to Adam were it not the case he was in a position of authority over Eve.
And he directly contradicts the commands of Paul, not only that she should stay, but that she would be sanctified in doing so; which undercuts Justin's very justification for this divorce. And also of Peter that he may be 'won without a word' by her good conduct. So Justin was glaringly wrong in multiple dimensions that should have been obvious to someone of his import. Not very impressive.
This part is teaching...
and it doesn't get any stronger, or less silent, than that. Clearly, this women show'd no reverence; so it is no shock that she was unable to persuade him. For not only did she reject his way of life, she took up an empty form of godliness while denying it's power. Simply put, she was a hypocrite.
I notice also that this matter 'came before the Emperor'. In other words, she violated the law (also contrary to the express commands of Peter and Paul) in her effort to be free. This is't godliness, its feminism through and through. She violated the authority of the magistrate, the authority of her husband and the authority of the scripture in her effort to be rid of him. In short, she made herself her own authority using a pretense of godliness. In other words, she made herself god. And this feminist rebellion directly led to the persecution of Christians.
And the Christian authorities had her back. In 150 AD no less. The feminist corruption of Christianity runs deep. Quite a bit to be gleaned indeed.
Certainly puts the early persecutions in a different light. "not a terror to good works".
In the context of our present discussion, notice that this horrible bad husband didn't force her to partake. He allowed her to stand in her conviction. He even went elsewhere to do his objectionable deeds. Maybe so that she wouldn't be bothered by it? Uncertain but possible; bus if so, how kind and understanding of him. But she couldn't have that. She was spying on him. She wanted to control him. She wanted the spiritual headship for herself.
Rather he contradicts your interpretation of Paul’s writings that it’s a forever attempt to win her unbelieving husband and clarifies early Christianity’s stance on what’s acceptable as a believer and that at some point a husband can disenfranchise himself.