Headship is not authority in marriage Part 3

And so we continue with this discussion headship and authority.

One reason I’ve continued these posts, and made the original response, is that it is truly a formative issue. As I discussed before, if a woman is to submit, she needs something worthy to submit to. In other words, she needs a man that carries himself with authority and holds authority well. When a man doesn’t, you end up witha supplicating beta. Instead of holding authority in his life, he begs to others and holds back in the name of being nice. Instead of holding authority, he begs and bargains with his wife to not rebel against Him.

This has to do with the discussion as unbelieving husbands — “beta” or otherwise — don’t negate the commands put forth in Scripture to wives. Wives are commanded by Scripture to be their husband’s helpmeets as well as respect and submit to them.

This is only furthered by such things as Deep Strength has been writing:

“They are incompatible. You have to examine them as two separate fraweworks. Most of this post will be on distinguishing between the two framworks, with reasoning on why headship is not exactly authority as stated from the Scriptures.”

To cut to the chase, the issue with his posts is the creation of a separate model out of whole cloth (authority-submission), which is not consistent either with the meanings or usages of the word. In the process of complicating matters and giving women free license to rebellion, he confuses the issue of status with action. He would do well to see how words are used in the Scriptures, instead of staying in the Greek concordances. This is further illustrated here:

“Paideuo is only used in the context of a parent-child relationship which is an authority-obedience relationship and not of the husband-wife which is a headship-submission relationship.”

Note that I plainly stated that the word is used in application to the Scriptures as well. This decouples the use of the word from any relationship that is specified.

The problem here is incorrect conference of the that which is God’s with that which is the husband’s.

It is specifically Scripture that is used for teaching, rebuking, correction, and training (Paideuo). It is the Scripture that is God-breathed, and it is God the Father who disciplines His children as parents can disciple their children.

The husband, as the head, has the role and responsibility to point out where the wife is in violation of the Scripture, thus fulfilling the Jesus’ headship role of the Church as a husband to the wife. But he doesn’t have a paideuo relationship with his wife.

Now I will explain the error in play. Headship reflects one kind of status. “Boss” represents another. Generically, we can call that a “leader”. As I posted here, the word “head” is best understood as master, ruler, chief. Barnes goes on (1 Corinthians 11:3) to say that Christ is the ruler, director, or Lord of the Christian man. The verse then extends things to the man and the woman, which makes it legitimate to also say that the husband is the ruler, director, or Lord of the Christian wife.

This is consistent with the dictionary as well:

noun 1. the position of head or chief; chief authority; leadership; supremacy.

So headship is a noun (a person). Authority is quite different though in nature:

1 the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?

So a head, ruler, or leader possesses authority – a person is never simply “an authority” in the hierarchy of things. Simply seeing how the word is used brings this to light. Scripture is clear that Christ, as head, has authority over His Church. He then delegates that authority to husbands in Christian marriage. The “head” is a status, “authority” is something to be exercised as part of the privilege of being “head”.

Authority is best thought of as an authorization from a leader or head to do something.

Christ is head over all things to the church. If Jesus and the Church is husbands and wives, then husbands are head over all things to their wives. This comes with a commensurate authority

I agree that authority can be delegated as I have quite a few posts on this, but the Greek gives no indication that kephale is exousia. If Paul meant that husbands would have authority over their wives in the exousia sense then he would have used that word. This is a stretch.

More specifically, if Jesus refuses to submit to the Father’s plan for Him to die on the cross in the garden would the Father have compelled Jesus to obedience? No, because otherwise Jesus would not have been a willing sacrifice to endure the cross for the joy (us) set before Him.

Likewise, does Jesus as the bridegroom compel the Church to obey Him? As I have already pointed out in the first post headship is not authority in marriage, Jesus allows those who did not want to be his disciples anymore to walk away. He’s not going to compel or punish anyone who doesn’t want to be with Him to continue to follow Him.

These examples show that headship/kephale is different than authority/exousia when you compare them to the husband-wife relationship.

Finally, the Scripture that applies directly to the issue:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Most of the other Bible versions translate this section very similarly. A woman shall not usurp authority, exercise authority, or exercise dominion over the man. If authority is not a factor in Christian marriage, then this Scripture becomes nonsensical. If a woman can usurp authority, then that must mean that the man/husband possesses it as a component of the DS’s correct headship-submission model.

I would agree if this was used in terms of husbands and wives. However, this is used in congregational setting where apparently women were attempting to teach and taken authority over men. That is specifically what Paul is writing about.

Also, authenteo is only used once in Scriptures, and it is not exousia either:

G831 — αὐθεντέω — authenteō — ow-then-teh’-o

From a compound of G846 and ἕντης hentēs (obsolete; a worker); to act of oneself, that is, (figuratively) dominate: – usurp authority over.

Simply put, as the Centurion illustrates, and described here, submission can not exist in and of itself and must be performed to those in authority. DS’s separate model encourages authority to not be exercised and therefore eroded. This only results in an inversion of the marriage roles. If a husband does not hold authority over his wife, his wife will hold authority over him. Genesis 3:16 guarantees this.

This is a mischaracterization of my position.

I’ve encouraged that headship be exercised which includes rebuking and correcting wives (in love, kindness, and humility as necessary). Additionally, for instance if a wife is out of control with spending the husband should be a good steward of that which is in his household and money and shut it down.

There is one other major error that has existed throughout all of Deep Strength’s post: Everyone has free will. We are never forced into obedience in any capacity, ever. Not in the Old Covenant, not in the New Covenant. We can refuse to obey God, the government, His word. Wives can refuse to obey husbands. Husbands can refuse to obey Christ. Everyone has free will. However, those in authority (God, bosses, husbands) can (and ultimately must to keep their authority) respond to disobedience with certain measures. The presence of this authority explains my observation of how wives submit to their bosses more faithfully than their own husbands, as well as the erosion of the fitness of marriage for the average man today.

Why are there so many supplicating betas in the churches? This is why. Men are taught from a very young age that they are not “loving” if they exercise any authority, are never supported as heads of their families, and then actively cut down in that capacity. Since authority has been decoupled from Christian marriage, as well as the Church, all a husband is reduced to is begging and pleading and hoping that his wife will lead the family in the way that is right before God, submitting to her all the while.

This is also a mischaracterization of my position.

Everyone has free will and may choose to disobey (at their own peril), but as it states in the Scriptures they should be submitting to proper headship and authorities.

I’ve stated all along that headship has all of the weight of authority in regard to the husband-wife relationship except the ability to directly compel to obey especially through direct punish. That’s the only difference between headship and authority. It’s this way because Jesus works out of love and not fear.

The love of Jesus works through environment/experience when we love other people. When we change the environment/experience of someone, we show others the love of God (John 17) and it leads to different thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.

The problem with a fear-based model is that it strikes at the heart of behavior instead of experience. Only those with sufficient humility and/or strong core Christian values will be able to see their behavior and correct it when rebuked. Most so-called Christian would rather never admit they’re wrong and disobey God.

This is why judgment of behavior (albeit often in an unkind manner) only serves to force others to double down on their folly.  This is why 1 Peter 3 is extremely wise in advice to wives with unbeliving husbands essentially saying to win your husbands without a word. This love through their behavior changes the environment. It is the environment which is affected in their husband’s life which starts to change his perception/beliefs and emotions/motivations and may bring them to the saving knowledge of Jesus.

Ending

This will be my last post on this. If ballista has any else I probably won’t reply as I want to get to other posts, especially talking about identity and behavior cycles like the above.

I figure that most men reading the manosphere blogs may need a hard line approach to marriage which means that Ballista’s point about nice guys is correct. I wouldn’t say there’s anything wrong with taking a more authoritative husband role to marriage. Going through this post again, I can see that the Scriptures are quite vague on exousia versus kephale. Thus, I can see how both interpretations may be true to the measure of faith that you have (see Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 on food sacrificed to idols).

In any case, we can keep quibbling on the details, but at the end of the day Donal’s summation of Chrysostom’s interpretation is what I agree with as an end result:

This approach squares with my understanding of Sacred Tradition. I’ve linked to Chrysostom’s interpretation of the relationship between husband and wife before on your blog, and it basically states the same thing. If either party in a marriage fails to uphold their end of the bargain, that is on them. The virtuous spouse must maintain their own duties as best as they are able until the recalcitrant spouse mends his or her ways.

As I stated in the sexual marketplace and the marriage marketplace, there are elements of reciprocity in terms of personalities. If you’re looking for an authoritative headship-submission relationship you will most likely find what you are looking for.

Personally, I’m pursuing marriage in the vein of headship-submission like in the Chrysostom’s interpretation. As I’ve grown in my relationship with Jesus I don’t see the hardline authority in headship anymore.

Take it or leave it. Feel free to mention why in the comments.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Headship is not authority in marriage Part 3

  1. rezzrovv says:

    I am so tired of the equivocating on this point. The word at the end of Ephesians 5 for respect is phobéō, the same word used in Luke 1:50, Acts 10:20 and Revelations 19:5. One command is not necessitated by the other and it annoys me to no end when people attempt to make that the case. As shown in 1st Peter 3, a wife’s submission is her duty to God and not a response to an authoritative or even loving husband. We give such a huge pass to the women in the church on this issue but rarely miss an opportunity to speak to men about what it means to “love” your wife.

  2. @ rezzrovv

    Yep. People forget the reason why the Scriptures are followed in the first place — because we desire to obey God and live according to His will.

    It’s not just about how hard it is to do the right thing in a difficult situation.

  3. John Nesteutes says:

    Of course a wife can choose not to submit, just as I can choose not to submit to Jesus, to civil authorities, or to my master / boss.

    I just can’t be an actual Christian and do those things.

  4. @ John Nesteutes

    “I just can’t be an actual Christian and do those things.”

    Yep, and that’s what I’m going to delve into some through my next few posts. Obviously, if someone is not going to listen to what the Scriptures say then they’re not acting like a Christian… but how do you get to them to change their behavior. That’s the hard question.

  5. Looking Glass says:

    @rezzrovv :

    It’s actually worse. I’d make the argument that they screw up “love” in the context as well.

  6. sonofdeathswriter says:

    Question: Does a women suppose to lead the house? Or is this on the husband?

  7. Mrs. C says:

    @sonofdeathswriter -Question: Does a women suppose to lead the house? Or is this on the husband?

    Hi, I hope you don’t mind me jumping in here. I’ve been married 16 years and as wife and mom, I manage all our household affairs so my husband is free of this burden so he can provide. My husband leads the family but he has delegated the management of the house (cleaning, keeping track of and coordinating everyone’s schedules, financial and other paperwork, making needed purchases, organizing our social life etc). He does this because he trusts me and I’ve proven myself trustworthy. When I work on finances, I always have the bills paid on time, the checkbook always balances and I don’t overspend. About once a week or so, I let him in on where things stand. For example, yesterday I just got the yearly health insurance plans for my husbands place of employment. There are several to choose from. I do all the reading of the materials and booklets they send. He hates reading that boring stuff. I give him the summary, tell him what I think based on our overall financial picture and he makes the final decision. I then carry out the paperwork and see that it gets done. Other than helping out with the housework at times and doing basic maintenance, he doesn’t have to worry about all the other stuff. This is how I function as his help meet.

    Each husband will have to decide for himself how much of the household affairs he will give to his wife to manage. It depends on her trustworthiness, intelligence and abilities. For example, you wouldn’t give a wife with a spending problem the finances to handle. You’d make up the budget and give her a certain amount for grocery shopping and household supplies and perhaps a small discretionary fund so she has a little extra for unexpected needs or to take the kids out for ice cream or something. No credit cards!

    The short answer-The husband leads and delegates management as appropriate to his particular wife and her abilities.

    I’d be ashamed if my husband had to carry the burden of the household management because I was irresponsible and untrustworthy. A husband should be able to rest easy in the confidence he has in having a wife he trusts.

  8. donalgraeme says:

    Mrs. C is correct that leadership and management are not the same thing. While not exact, the Captain/First Officer analogy provides some value here. It is often said that a Captain leads the ship, while the First Officer manages the ship. Likewise, a prudent husband who married a prudent wife will lead the household, but the wife will manage the household.

    You can see this in the example of the Proverbs 31 woman. She manages her household while her husband, a city elder, handles the affairs of the city at the city gates.

    Scripture is quite emphatic about the importance of a wife being sensible or possessing sound judgment, and for good reason.

  9. Pingback: Random Musings and Links- #6 | Donal Graeme

  10. @ sonofdeathswriter

    What Mrs C said is what I would agree with.

    The ultimate responsibility of the household is in the husband’s care. However, the husband can delegate as much of it to his wife if not all of it as he needs. Remember, the wife is the helpmeet to the husband.

    That’s something that needs to be discussed prior to marriage as well.

  11. sonofdeathswriter says:

    If I recall correctly the wife buildeth the house according to the bible. No offense but being a helpmet is more than throwing everything on the husband. If the husband stayed at home than I could see this but don’t.

  12. @ sonofadeathswrister:

    The Hebrew word used for “house” in Proverbs 14:1 is:

    H1004
    בּית
    bayith
    bah’-yith
    Probably from H1129 abbreviated; a house (in the greatest variation of applications, especially family, etc.): – court, daughter, door, + dungeon, family, + forth of, X great as would contain, hangings. home[born], [winter]house (-hold), inside(-ward), palace, place, + prison, + steward, + tablet, temple, web, + within (-out).

    Although it denotes house as in a physical house, the application is much more broad than that and includes family.

    Likewise, when Jesus refers to the two foundations upon which houses are built on He is referring to that of the world and that of Him. But what are the houses but not just the physical household but also the identity of that which is in the house and that which is the family as well.

  13. sonofdeathswriter says:

    That sounds dumb house doesn’t equal family. The two are separate and always will be.

  14. Mrs. C says:

    @sonofdeathswriter “If I recall correctly the wife buildeth the house according to the bible. No offense but being a helpmet is more than throwing everything on the husband. If the husband stayed at home than I could see this but don’t.”

    Although my husband is the leader of our home, I can honestly say he is burdened very little by the daily affairs in it.. Most of time, by virtue of knowing him, I make decisions without bothering to talk to him about it first. I already know what the answer will be. If I bothered him about every little thing, it would rightly drive him insane. He has given me free reign because in doing this, his leadership is more effective. This isn’t to say he isn’t involved in the household but rather, because the daily details of the management of the house has been lifted from his shoulders, he has more freedom to concern himself with his relationships with not only myself but our children as well. He is able to more fully focus on his duties of loving direction and guidance, and honestly, just enjoying the family he leads.

    It is only by marrying foolishly a wife who is lazy, negligent in her duties and in managing the finances, worried more about her social life etc, that a man’s leadership of the home becomes a joyless burden. Because he is ultimately responsible, if his wife is negligent he will not only have to provide but also have to worry about the care of the home as well. He won’t be able to lead as effectively because his focus will be on the management of the affairs of the house rather than leading and guiding through his relationship with the family. There will be chaos and strife.

    I think if a man makes sure he marries well, he secures for himself a leadership that will be a joyful burden rather than a heavy load. Therefore, at first glance a husband leading the home can seem like a “throwing everything on the husband” as you stated, but with a “wise woman” at his side building the house (meaning the domestic society of their little family), she will order well the household matters and their family to the benefit of everyone. Her husband can find in his home a place of rest rather than a place of toil. In that, the wife fulfills her role as helpmeet.

  15. infowarrior1 says:

    ”That’s the only difference between headship and authority. It’s this way because Jesus works out of love and not fear.”

    If the only relationship between Jesus as head of the church is in the gospels then I would agree

    In revelation Jesus rebukes and call to repentance a number of the 7 churches in Asia. And if they did not repent he does enact consequences as head of the church:
    Revelation 2:1-5
    “‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.3I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent”

    Moreover although I agree with the fact that the husband does not possess Exousia that is to bear the sword. But without solid consequences all rebuke, and verbal chastisement for some will amount to only a droning to the wind to the rebellious wife.

    Hence why wives apparently respect their bosses more than their husbands.

    ”Jesus allows those who did not want to be his disciples anymore to walk away. He’s not going to compel or punish anyone who doesn’t want to be with Him to continue to follow Him.”

    I don’t think wives have the option of walking away from the marriage. So I don’t think the analogy is apt.

  16. @ Info

    1. Remember that the Scriptures, including Revelation, is to the pre-marriage church. In other words, the engaged bride of Christ.

    This means that prior to marriage, Jesus is going to purify/sanctify the Church to be wed to Him. This means among other things excising those who are unwilling to repent and submit to Him (in marriage).

    Such excision prior to marriage isn’t comparable to what it means to be a head in marriage. We know that prior to the marriage of the bride there is the judgments in which the Father is the one who sifts the sheep and the goats.

    2. However, I do agree there are indirect consequences of admonishment/rebuke namely that the husband is to steward the rest of the household. In the example of the credit card wife, the husband controls the money and should shut down those avenues of fiscal irresponsibility. That may seem like a direct punishment to the wife (and in some sense it is), but it’s not because it’s the husband taking on correct stewardship.

    Ultimately, the removal of direct punishment removes the authority to motivate through fear. The primary attribute of God the Father is love. He wants us to motivate others out of love and not fear (1 John 4 explains this).

    3. Wives who call themselves “Christians” but don’t obey the Word are as unbelievers. Unbelievers can walk away — via 1 Corinthians 7.

  17. infowarrior1 says:

    I think the issue ultimately is whether the behavior of the wife gets incentivized or not. People don’t usually change their behavior unless their foolish behaviour results in painful consequences. And this lack of consequence therefore enables to wife to call the headship of the husband bluff. Causing the position to tumble like a house of cards.

  18. Mrs. C says:

    @DS – This means that prior to marriage, Jesus is going to purify/sanctify the Church to be wed to Him. This means among other things excising those who are unwilling to repent and submit to Him (in marriage).
    Such excision prior to marriage isn’t comparable to what it means to be a head in marriage. We know that prior to the marriage of the bride there is the judgments in which the Father is the one who sifts the sheep and the goats.”

    You saw a point that I never thought of before and an excellent one at that.

    @info “I think the issue ultimately is whether the behavior of the wife gets incentivized or not. People don’t usually change their behavior unless their foolish behaviour results in painful consequences.”

    Men who don’t weed out the chaff but marry it are the ones in the most danger of the situations you are describing. Many men in the manosphere who got burned usually married like everyone else in the culture. They never thought deeply about what they or their possible spouse wanted or believed. They reacted to what they saw on the surface without looking deeper. They also were probably having sex before marriage which further blinded them to the faults of the other. This is why it’s a grave responsibility to choose wisely and observe closely when courting. You are looking for actions to line up with what they say they believe. I also think that is why it’s wise to wait 12-18 months before engagement. Some may disagree with that, but everyone is on their best behavior early on in the relationship and you need time and seeing them in different circumstances for their true colors to show. It’s not that they need to be perfect without faults, you just want to see if their faults are something you can live with such as normal human weakness that we’re all prone to or if it’s something more serious.

    Even when you do marry someone who is genuine, there will be rocky times where someone will be annoyed or angry at what the other one is doing and it may show in their less than stellar attitude and behavior. If you are always approaching these situations as the authoritarian who must rebuke and chastise, you can do more damage and cause the situation to worsen. Headship will call for more investigation on the part of the husband if it’s the wife who is not her usual self. He will need to steward the relationship to get at the heart of the matter so he can make an informed decision about what to do. If a woman wanted to be married to someone who will “keep her in line” and is constantly rebuking and chastising, she would have just stayed home and lived with her father. A grown woman is not a child and shouldn’t be treated as such, although there are times where even grown adults can exhibit childlike behavior (men and women alike). Another thing to consider, is that the husband may have headship but his wife also has a responsibility to steward the relationship, not as the head but as the heart of the home. Husbands can have hurting hearts and be discouraged or whatever at times, not always because of the marriage but because of work pressures or extended family matters. This can make them absentminded towards the wife and family or a little grouchy and gruff towards them. In caring for the heart of her husband, a wife has to be careful to not just react defensively and make matters worse for him but also needs to investigate to see what may really be wrong.

    For the rare spouse who seems to do a complete 180 from what you married, you may need to look into the development of a mental disorder before chalking it up to a decision to throw away her Christianity and go wild.

  19. @ info

    I would agree.

    Incentivization should come from the husband (e.g. admonishment/rebuke) and his management of the household (money, possessions, etc.) responsibly.

    Not out of threatening or compulsion due to fear.

  20. donalgraeme says:

    One thing that I think is worth mentioning is that while a husband may be limited in what he can do (not simply because of the headship/authority dichotomy but also because the relationship is covenantal), the Church does have some ability/authority to step in. Of course, that should be a last resort, but its there.

  21. @ Donal

    Good points.

  22. Since Ballista is prohibiting more comments in this thread:

    http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/traditionalism-male-mother-need-yes-means-yes-and-doublethink/#comment-5532

    I’ll respond here.

    Me: “The one difference I’ve always harped on this entire time between authority (exousia) and headship (kephale) is the ability to specifically punish a wife for disobedience thereby compelling her to obey,”

    In other words, a direct repudiation of Ephesians 5:33. I summarized your position adequately above. Another way to say it is that you believe that wives are not to respect (phobeo – in other words of the honest Greek lexicons – fear, awe, reverence) their husbands because that would be “motivating out of fear and not love”. In other words, the husband has no authority over his wife because he can’t do anything to cause her to fear, awe or respect him because it’s “motivating out of fear and not love.”

    I can not support such a patently unscriptural position, especially one that has been acted out in society to cause such destruction in marriage.

    [Moderator Note: I’ve already deleted one ad-hominem attack relating to this issue. As I said before, it’s a dead horse. Any more attempts to address this will be deleted.].

    1. This analysis is incorrect. *Wives* are commanded by the Scriptures to phobeo/fear/reverence/respect and submit to their husbands.

    Wives don’t phobeo/respect/reverence their husbands because of the authority/headship the husband has; it is because they are command to by Scripture.

    These commands are independent of each other and not dependent on each other.

    Ballista is taking the unscriptural position here by stating that the commands are dependent on each other when they are not. If they were dependent then the Scriptures would say: “respect and submit to your husband… but only if he acts like he deserves it.” That’s what a dependent statement.

    2. I have never made any ad hominem attacks in the manosphere nor were any parts of my post deleted. So I’m not sure what that is all about other than my responses aren’t welcome anymore.

  23. Mrs. C says:

    I don’t know if this will help the discussion but here is part of a transcript from a talk that Scott Hahn, a professor of theology gave about the difference in the relationship between God and his people from the OT and the NT. Mr. Hahn is a Catholic convert after having been an evangelical pastor. From this talk, I would suspect a good reading of Galations would help too.

    “One interesting fact that you might not be aware of — what is the Hebrew word for husband? There are different words, but one very common word for husband is Baal. Interesting, isn’t it? You see, there were two different kinds of marriages in the Old Testament. You can see this reflected in Galatians 4, where Paul says, “You desire to be under the law. Don’t you hear the law, for it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.” You see he had two sons because he had what? Two marriages. One by a slave woman, Hagar, and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh. The son of the free woman through promise. Then he goes on to show how Hagar, the slave wife, the concubine, bore Ishmael and how Sarah, the free wife, the first wife, the only wife Abraham was supposed to have, bore Isaac, the child of promise.

    You see, back in the ancient times, if you were a husband, if you were a man, you were a patriarchal figure and you wanted to extend your own power and influence, you wanted to acquire more power, you used sex. You would multiply concubines because in multiplying wives or concubine slave women, you would be multiplying slaves, because all of the children they would have would be, in effect, your slaves later on. So Hagar bore children for slavery, whereas Sarah bore Abraham children for freedom. Sarah would address Abraham as “‘adon,” the word for husband in Hebrew that a free woman would utter; whereas Hagar would describe Abraham as “Ba’ali,” my “Baal,” my master, my Lord husband, because a concubine understood that she was owned by her husband. Two forms of marriage — one for freedom and the other one for slavery.

    And in Hosea 2:16 we read the prophecy to Israel, how the relationship will be changed from master to husband. “And in that day says the Lord, you will call me ‘my husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘my Baal’ for I will remove the names of the Baals from your mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more. And I will make for you a covenant on that day, and I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice and in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. You shall know the Lord.”

    I also add this prophecy from Isiah as well.

    The prophesy of Christ the Redeemer in the New Covenant in Isaiah 54:10 also reflects this.

    “”Fear not, for you will not be ashamed; be not confounded, for you will not be put to shame; for you will forget the shame of your youth, and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more. For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name, and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; the God of the whole earth he is called. For the Lord has called you like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth when she is cast off, says your God. For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love, I will have compassion on you, says the Lord, your Redeemer. For this is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you and will not rebuke you. For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the Lord, who has compassion on you” (Is 54:4-10).”

    There is clearly a difference in the relationship between God and his people from the OT to the NT. It’s not one of fear of the slave to master but one that is an exchange of love. Christ loved us enough to die for us on the cross. Each partner, motivated out of love for Christ, should be faithful to the roles set out for them in order to return love to Christ and give love to each other.

  24. @ Mrs C.

    Interesting. That agrees from what I’ve studied:

    pre-fall: headship-submission
    post-fall: authority-submission
    post-Jesus: headship-submission

    The roles that were there in the beginning were restored.

    I’ll have to examine those passages closer. Good find.

  25. Looking Glass says:

    I think the problem, wrapped all into one location, is the utter disregard to the importance of what “agape” means in *practice* and what God says *about* it. This is why Ephesians can be used to cause so much damage. Modern Christians have an built up view of Jesus & Love that really are at direct odds with what God asks or expects of us.

    He makes this point pretty clear in Revelation 3.

    Revelation 3:19-22 (ESV):

    19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

    Ephesians 5 makes a lot more sense, in context, when you realize to “walk in love” looks a WHOLE lot different in the Gospels than as we sell it. If I said that means: 1) Only ever answer honest questions directly (roughly 2-3% of any ever asked), 2) Go around constantly teaching people the correct path to God and 3) use every opportunity to unmoor people from their current view of the world. *That* is a very different God than you’ll find in most Churches, but it’s also Love. That is a message the Church does not want to hear.

    They also don’t want to deal with 1 more issue: obedience to God should stem from the well-spring of the Spirit within you. You don’t follow the rules to follow the rules; you follow God’s Commands as a willful act of “love” to God. This is the entire dichotomy John deals with in 1 John. Doesn’t make it easy, especially sometimes & some days. But the point of discipleship is that it not only becomes easier, but becomes a natural part of your existence. This is growing the Spirit within you. (It doesn’t help we’ve practically exiled the Spirit of God that dwells with us to the footnotes of Christianity)

    The Husband & Wife dynamic is complex, but working through that complexity is only an issue because of the hundreds of years of built up sin within the Church. The Husband is the “head” and, in modern English, it is best understood is he is to “correct” his Wife in her walk with the Lord. (God first, anyone?) The Husband is in authority over the Wife, but not complete Authority, as would be understood from the Old Testament. The Wife is utterly responsible, to God & her Husband, for her conduct. But our Sin hates that easy explanation.

    For as much as the Churchian heresy has created a perceived Catch-22 for the way a Man is to act, the Truth is still right there in the pages and in the Voice of God. We just want to hold, desperately, to the comfortable way we think God is supposed to fit in a box.

    As for Ballista, I believe he removed an ad hominem from the thread, not your post. I also think he has mixed up your position with others.

  26. Pingback: Identity Part 2 | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  27. I just saw the bizarre comment on a different post and have already left my two cents there (definitely, definitely takes all kinds of nuts to make up the fruitcake), but again am reminded by my Dad’s observation about how difficult it was to fill the second violin section of the orchestra.

    I’m another wife who also takes care of most of the day-to-day finances and I also run a home business (or try to, anyway). My husband has many out-of-office work obligations and after we had a couple of late bills and I am the more detail-oriented of us when it comes to keeping the desk clear of junk — piled up junk makes me feel physically ill — it was obvious that my paying the bills was the best thing to do, at least for the time being. Bills tended to get lost in the piles. Early on I left it entirely to him because I read in a book that is frequently circulated among traditional Catholic wives (Helen Andelin’s “Fascinating Womanhood” to be exact) that that was the right thing to do. I have since learned that the family finances are a matter of opinion (but the book is great, every lady should read it).

    It’s a matter of learning to play that second violin part in the best way you know how so that both of you can truly make that beautiful music together everybody talks about.

  28. Mrs. C says:

    I came to be doing the finances for my family the same way, the late bills and piles of mail.

  29. Looking Glass says:

    Proper delegation of duties is a hard skill to learn. Even worse is that it’s rarely taught.

  30. Pingback: Headship is authority in marriage Part 4 | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  31. Pingback: United flesh and knowingly actions – Immanuel Verbondskind – עמנואל קאָווענאַנט קינד

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s