Does a husbands authority wax and wane?

[steve]

So we are deciding that there is a difference between anointing and authority. One can have authority but no anointing. But, can one have anointing with no authority?

Yes
One can be a very anointed singer, without any authority.
One can have an anointed healing ministry, but have zero authority in anything else.
An anointing is a gift from YHWH that SEEMS to confer authority. This is where people get into deception thinking that anyone with any level of anointing is an authority on everything that they desire to expound upon.

It’s kinda like accepting teaching about climate change from a Hollywood actress. They actually have no authority in science.

 

[steve]

Man did not have an authority in a marriage before the fall.

You make these pronouncements as if they are facts.
This is merely an assumption on your part.
Eve was derived from Adam and then presented to him as his helpmeet
And their sin of disobedience was labeled as his sin, as in @Mage’s example with the major and lt.

 

[steve]

If a husband turns away from God, or otherwise follows a path away from Him, the anointing is removed and chaos comes to a family.

I would say that’s a reasonable assumption.
I’m just not sure how much of a mans success in leading his family is due to anointing or following Kingdom principles. I have seen heathens operate Biblically and do a better job than Christian with sweet hearts and good intentions.

 

[steve]

Jewish culture has a pretty good system for that. A wife’s dowry was hers to administrate, but in exchange for his promise of provision, it was considered reasonable service that any monies or benefit from her handiwork (if any), by right became the property of the husband.

The usufruct from the dowry was also considered to belong to the husband, but only the usufruct. The principle could never be considered his.

From what I could tell, legally, the usufruct and proceeds from handiwork belonged to the husband. Realistically, it was his to steward for the benefit of the whole family. Often the usufruct from a wife’s dowry, though belonging to the husband, would still be managed by the wife for his benefit as the Proverbs 31 wife did.

Excellent.
I do maintain, though, that Solomon wrote Prov 31 about his mother. If you look closely, everything was about ministering to the community and her household. The biggest tell is planting a vineyard on land that she bought. With all land reverting to the sellers family at every jubilee, land wasn’t a very good long term investment and substantial improvements that would take years to receive a positive roi would be silly. But the fact that a destitute family would receive a prosperous vineyard back is absolutely incredible.
So my belief is that it was never about income, but always about community. As befits a true queen.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I’m just not sure how much of a mans success in leading his family is due to anointing or following Kingdom principles. I have seen heathens operate Biblically and do a better job than Christian with sweet hearts and good intentions.

Yup. It appears that it's a reaping what you sow, or maybe Deut 28 blessings and curses in action.
We too have observed people professing no faith often treat others better then the professing Christians. Christians too often tend to practice the works of the devil (false accuser, transducer, slanderer) instead of speaking the truth in love and having the mind of Christ.
We are all learning ...and growing. Good thing!

 

[Phillip]

Yup. It appears that it's a reaping what you sow, or maybe Deut 28 blessings and curses in action.
We too have observed people professing no faith threat others better then the professing Christians. Christians too often tend to practice the works of the devil (false accuser, transducer, slanderer) instead of speaking the truth in love and having the mind of Christ.
We are all learning ...and growing. Good thing!

Even a non believer, whether intentional or non-intentional, if he/she live by biblical principals will reap the benefits.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

I view that as the husband delegating part of that particular duty to the wife. Not something that I am particularly fond of because it can lead to other problems but I don’t consider it to be unscriptural...

Or perhaps it's because we take the definition of 'providing' too literally and assume it to only mean the things listed in the passage of 'reducing her food, shelter, or clothing'. Remember that in those days essentially everything belongs to the husband (except some dowry as others have mentioned). If a wife divorced her husband or left him, she was cut off, right? I believe that meant she 'went out' with, essentially, nothing but the clothes on her back. The rest remained with the household (the husband's). Which to me indicates that provision is not only about more than physical goods (what if the wife's dowry is ridiculously huge, like some princess from a king, and the husband is a carpenter? She has no 'need' of his money to live by herself. Does that mean he doesn't provide for her?), but that even the wife's own ability to provide her own physical goods can still be considered part of a husband's provision.

Look at it from the kingly perspective. David was a peasant who eventually rose in the ranks to become king. But he came from nothing. He married Saul's daughter Milchal, the daughter of a king, a princess, who surely 'started' with far more wealth than David did. Does that mean David wasn't providing for her? As king, of course, David took over the king's coffers, so to speak. But until he was out fighting and getting loot from wars or taxation (I don't remember the Hebrew system for that or if they had one so I may be misspeaking here), his 'income' was almost nothing in comparison to what his initial wives brought to the relationship.

Likewise I do think Proverbs 31 is relevant. What does it matter if it was Solomon's mother or not? He refers to her as a wife, and the virtues she is assigned are related to how she acts in a wifely role. The image we have is of her doing, essentially, most of the monetary/provision-making work for the family, while the husband takes part in matters of community leadership or organizational command (giving her slaves and meeting with men at the town gate). And she's upheld as the example. She's out sewing, sowing, clothing her household, selling goods, etc. The husband is talking. Perhaps being the 'voice' of conducting her business transactions? Too little information is given but the picture to me is that she was the primary 'breadwinner' in the sense of bringing in money through her production and doing menial labor. Clearly, the Bible doesn't seem to think her husband was failing to provide for her.

And then we have the seven women passage. They'll provide their own food, clothing, and money. Sounds to me like they don't need his physical provision either. But he IS providing for them in 'covering' them with his name. By having the role of their leader, their head, that IS his provision to them.

Seems to me the 'problems' it leads to have to do with cultural expectations (poison) and dominance/control challenges to male headship (poison), and are not the fault of a man who is not the primary 'breadwinner'. Although obviously 'not by choice/logic' versus 'not because is lazy/incapable' are different.

 

[Cap]

You make these pronouncements as if they are facts.
This is merely an assumption on your part.
Eve was derived from Adam and then presented to him as his helpmeet
And their sin of disobedience was labeled as his sin, as in @Mage’s example with the major and lt.

Everything I say here is based on my assumption, just like everyone else. And that assumption is Genesis chapter 1 which God creates mankind, male and female in His image. I don't find authority there except His. And if Genesis chapter 2 is a detailed account of how mankind was created then it's basically stating the origin of the marriage unit into one which it came from. But that's just my view, you may see it another way.

 

[steve]

And then we have the seven women passage. They'll provide their own food, clothing, and money. Sounds to me like they don't need his physical provision either. But he IS providing for them in 'covering' them with his name. By having the role of their leader, their head, that IS his provision to them.

I firmly believe that the only way that this passage makes sense is that when they realize that being single women is a shame, they check out the guys and decide that the best choice is to join a family in which the husband has already proven that he can lead multiple wives. But his finances are already stretched with the existing family, so they volunteer that they will provide for themselves.
As opposed to picking single untried and unskilled men as husbands who would be expected to provide in a normal way.
This is the only case that I know of in Scripture where the wives expect to provide for themselves.

 

[Cap]

I would say that’s a reasonable assumption.
I’m just not sure how much of a mans success in leading his family is due to anointing or following Kingdom principles. I have seen heathens operate Biblically and do a better job than Christian with sweet hearts and good intentions.

What @Phillip said.

 

[Cap]

Yes
One can be a very anointed singer, without any authority.
One can have an anointed healing ministry, but have zero authority in anything else.
An anointing is a gift from YHWH that SEEMS to confer authority. This is where people get into deception thinking that anyone with any level of anointing is an authority on everything that they desire to expound upon.

It’s kinda like accepting teaching about climate change from a Hollywood actress. They actually have no authority in science.

Good points. So anything in life is done better with God's anointing, whether painter, or king, or husband.

 

[steve]

And that assumption is Genesis chapter 1 which God creates mankind, male and female in His image.

Adam was created in His image with both the male and the female within him, just as YHWH has both sides within Himself.
After a period of time, we don’t know how long, YHWH decides that it is not good for Adam to be alone and proceeds to remove the feminine from him and create a separate being.
True story, bro.

 

[Pacman]

Everything I say here is based on my assumption, just like everyone else. And that assumption is Genesis chapter 1 which God creates mankind, male and female in His image. I don't find authority there except His. And if Genesis chapter 2 is a detailed account of how mankind was created then it's basically stating the origin of the marriage unit into one which it came from. But that's just my view, you may see it another way.

This is one major point of disagreement. I think it’s inaccurate to claim that God created mankind in his image. It actually breaks the picture of human marriage reflecting the relationship between God and his people.

Genesis 1:27
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

That word him in the middle of the verse tells me that man was created in Gods image not woman. There are two separate but related thoughts being presented here.

Romans 5:12
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Either way you come down on that question, the fact that Adam took the blame for the fall even though his woman (later named eve) was the first to sin tells me he absolutely was in charge prior to the fall.

 

[Man@Home]

Genesis 1:27
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

That word him in the middle of the verse tells me that man was created in Gods image not woman. There are two separate but related thoughts being presented here.

Interesting thought! I always struggled to understand this verse. Makes sense to me.

 

[Pacman]

Adam was created in His image with both the male and the female within him, just as YHWH has both sides within Himself.
After a period of time, we don’t know how long, YHWH decides that it is not good for Adam to be alone and proceeds to remove the feminine from him and create a separate being.
True story, bro.

Genesis 1:27
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Not completely sure I agree with the details about male and female all being part of Adam. That word them indicates otherwise...

Genesis 2:21-22
[21] And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; [22] And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


the woman was created from the man but that doesn’t mean the feminine nature or body parts were part of him to begin with...

 

[Cap]

Genesis 1:27
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Not completely sure I agree with the details about male and female all being part of Adam. That word them indicates otherwise...

Genesis 2:21-22
[21] And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; [22] And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


the woman was created from the man but that doesn’t mean the feminine nature or body parts were part of him to begin with...

I'm not sure the problem here. Genesis 1:27 states the fact that God created THEM, but it doesn't say how or when.

Also, the description of taking inner parts out of someone sure could have a higher purpose in separating an individual being into what we can male and female.

But isn't the discussion of the creation of man different than the discussion of authority? This is a really really big subject.

 

[steve]

the woman was created from the man but that doesn’t mean the feminine nature or body parts were part of him to begin with...

I didn’t say that the body parts were with him, just the nature.

 

[steve]

But isn't the discussion of the creation of man different than the discussion of authority? This is a really really big subject.

Weren’t we discussing whether or not the first male had authority before the fall?

 

[Phillip]

the woman was created from the man but that doesn’t mean the feminine nature or body parts were part of him to begin with...

Medically speaking, men still carry body parts that are feminine. Do a quick search on gynecomastia and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[rockfox]

Solomon wrote Prov 31 about his mother

Try again... 31:1

The words of King Lemuel, the utterance which his mother taught him