Does a husbands authority wax and wane?

[steve]

On another thread statements were made about a husbands authority being removed. The following quote comes from that thread.

........the fact that recognizing 'authority', or any move of God, may take awhile to actually manifest, .....

Does YHWH move with an anointing of authority upon the husband, increasing as he walks righteously and decreasing as he wanders from the straight and narrow?
Or is authority intrinsic to the position?

 

[rustywest4]

Oh snap

 

[Pacman]

Does YHWH move with an anointing of authority upon the husband, increasing as he walks righteously and decreasing as he wanders from the straight and narrow?

No there is absolutely no scriptural support for that idea.

Or is authority intrinsic to the position?

Absolutely yes it is.

 

[steve]

Stolen from another thread:

....... When you search for a mate based on love (actually lust) we shouldn't be surprised that those marriages fail when the emotions which was their foundation fades with time.

You can see then how this all short-circuits with arranged marriage. The fact of that transfer of authority from father to husband never changes. Authority just is and is not subject to fleeting emotions.

 

[Phillip]

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required," Luke 12:48 KJV

In the case of King Saul, the ol’ Boy screwed up. He maintained his authority but the annointing left him. I’m not sure, but it would seem that authority remained due to the calling on his life. But without the annointing, Saul really got some things out of priority. Being able to tap into and get direction from the Holy Spirit seems to be a somewhat important aspect of our walk with God.

In trying to create a BF attitude on the inside of me, I don’t think I’d want to try Saul’s way.

 

[Pacman]

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required," Luke 12:48 KJV

In the case of King Saul, the ol’ Boy screwed up. He maintained his authority but the annointing left him. I’m not sure, but it would seem that authority remained due to the calling on his life. But without the annointing, Saul really got some things out of priority. Being able to tap into and get direction from the Holy Spirit seems to be a somewhat important aspect of our walk with God.

In trying to create a BF attitude on the inside of me, I don’t think I’d want to try Saul’s way.

Also it’s worth pointing out that the husbands authority is not the same as a kings. In fact scripturaly it is superior in many ways. So I don’t see why the situation of a king has anything to do with the husbands authority...

 

[Cap]

Does YHWH move with an anointing of authority upon the husband, increasing as he walks righteously and decreasing as he wanders from the straight and narrow?

No there is absolutely no scriptural support for that idea.

Or is authority intrinsic to the position?

Absolutely yes it is.

This doesn't make sense to me. If authority is intrinsic to the position of husband, then how can there be no scriptural backing? Maybe I misunderstand the original question, if the question is, can the authority be REMOVED or is it intrinsic makes sense to me. Did I misunderstand something?

If the question is can authority (anointing) wax and wane upon and husband (or believers in general) based on their walk? I would say yes and then I would also say yes I agree that it is intrinsic.

However I think I took it a step further in the other thread and said that the authority (anointing) could be removed.

Revelation 2:5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

I realize that the question is in regards to husbands and lampstands are different. Or are they? Are kings and husbands and believers in general dealt with differently? What about pastors? Authority comes with responsibility and the Word of God is full of instances where authority has been removed because of sin. The other distinguishing factor to consider is the concept of earthly and spiritually.

In the case of Saul, his authority was removed when he sinned, but it did not manifest until later as he slowly declined in his calling. He may have had an earthly authority that functioned until his death, but his spiritual anointing was removed when he sinned. Even David knew that he (David) was anointed king but had to wait until the right time. How could Saul and David be anointed to be king at the same time?

Same thing happens in a betrothal, a woman is married but not yet, there is a progression of events that are set in motion.

Also it’s worth pointing out that the husbands authority is not the same as a kings. In fact scripturaly it is superior in many ways. So I don’t see why the situation of a king has anything to do with the husbands authority...

Can you show me this?

If all that is being asked is in reference to husbands and I being to broad, please let me know.

 

[Mage]

In the military the amout of authority is proportional to the amout of responsibility. You are given the authority necessary to meet the responsibilities.

I see God doing the same. The man is responsible for his family and therefor God has given man authority over his family. It would not make sense that God would remove authority and still hold the man responsible. Now with the removal of responsibility comes the removal of authority.

 

[Mage]

When it comes to kings and their kingdoms would be different. A king is temporary and the kingdom is more permanent. It is designed that the kingdom would pass from one king to another to another and so on. I don't know if I would relate that to a husband and wife.

 

[Pacman]

Revelation 2:5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

I realize that the question is in regards to husbands and lampstands are different. Or are they?

Completely different the ”lampstand” represents a “bride” church. Not a husband. It has zero application to this discussion...

 

[Verifyveritas76]

In the military the amout of authority is proportional to the amout of responsibility. You are given the authority necessary to meet the responsibilities.

I see God doing the same. The man is responsible for his family and therefor God has given man authority over his family. It would not make sense that God would remove authority and still hold the man responsible. Now with the removal of responsibility comes the removal of authority.

Exactly.

Exodus 21:10 & 11. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

 

[steve]

Exactly.

Exodus 21:10 & 11. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

That’s a good point.
Part of being a husband is provision. If you are not providing, then you are not fulfilling the role of husband. And if you are not fulfilling that role, you don’t have authority.

Soooo, what does that mean for households that share the job of “breadwinner”?

 

[Mage]

Soooo, what does that mean for households that share the job of “breadwinner”?

So my thought is if you continue with the military analogy and a Major and an Lt share in the Major's duty, and let's say the mission fails. Who is held responsible? The Major.

If a husband and wife share in the duties of the husband who is ultimately held responsible for success or failure? The husband.

It wouldn't matter if the wife made more money than the husband because it comes down to who is God holding responsible for success or failure. Since the husband is still held responsible for his family the husband still retains his God given authority.

 

[steve]

This doesn't make sense to me. If authority is intrinsic to the position of husband, then how can there be no scriptural backing? Maybe I misunderstand the original question, if the question is, can the authority be REMOVED or is it intrinsic makes sense to me. Did I misunderstand something?

I submit that it is intrinsic to the position, but it doesn’t exist when the position is abandoned. As pointed out by vv76.
It in not an anointing. A king can have great anointing from YHWH or zero anointing, or even an evil anointing, but he still retains the authority of the position of a king. Only if he dies or is deposed does his authority stop. If his military and his ministers refuse to carry out his wishes, then his defacto authority is reduced. It exists, but it is useless until his people choose to recognize it.

A husbands authority exists, whether his wife chooses to recognize it or not.
Unless he fails to be a husband.
Note David’s circumstances, given Saul’s daughter but then chased from civilization and she was given to another man. But then when he became king he required her to be returned to him.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I submit that it is intrinsic to the position, but it doesn’t exist when the position is abandoned. As pointed out by vv76.
It in not an anointing. A king can have great anointing from YHWH or zero anointing, or even an evil anointing, but he still retains the authority of the position of a king. Only if he dies or is deposed does his authority stop. If his military and his ministers refuse to carry out his wishes, then his defacto authority is reduced. It exists, but it is useless until his people choose to recognize it.

A husbands authority exists, whether his wife chooses to recognize it or not.
Unless he fails to be a husband.
Note David’s circumstances, given Saul’s daughter but then chased from civilization and she was given to another man. But then when he became king he required her to be returned to him.

Nicely put.

Something I’ve been meaning to study for a while is the phrase “cut off from Israel.” A man or woman who acted certain ways was to be cut off from Israel. It was typically based upon Torah observance, or more precisely the lack thereof, and resulted in being excommunicated from the assembly and community of Israel, apparently for life.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it had a direct application in the dissolution of a marriage. I know that a woman could be divorced for cause if she was found to be disregarding the dietary restrictions, because the result was that her husband would unknowingly be unclean at certain critical moments and thus cut off from Israel.

From what I’ve found in the Babylonian Talmud, the passage I quoted in the post above was the legal basis used to prove that a man had abdicated his responsibility and thus had no authority. It did not result in him being cut off from Israel, but the shame of being called out for it, and subsequently left over it was (or could be) intended as a significant deterrent/ incentive to own your responsibility. What father would even consider a proposal/betrothal from a man who’d been found guilty of neglecting his earlier wife to the point that she would demand a divorce because of him breaking Torah.

 

[Pacman]

That’s a good point.
Part of being a husband is provision. If you are not providing, then you are not fulfilling the role of husband. And if you are not fulfilling that role, you don’t have authority.

Soooo, what does that mean for households that share the job of “breadwinner”?

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...

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Soooo, what does that mean for households that share the job of “breadwinner”?

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.

 

[Cap]

I submit that it is intrinsic to the position, but it doesn’t exist when the position is abandoned. As pointed out by vv76.
It in not an anointing. A king can have great anointing from YHWH or zero anointing, or even an evil anointing, but he still retains the authority of the position of a king. Only if he dies or is deposed does his authority stop. If his military and his ministers refuse to carry out his wishes, then his defacto authority is reduced. It exists, but it is useless until his people choose to recognize it.

A husbands authority exists, whether his wife chooses to recognize it or not.
Unless he fails to be a husband.
Note David’s circumstances, given Saul’s daughter but then chased from civilization and she was given to another man. But then when he became king he required her to be returned to him.

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?

Women are not animals, pets, or children. They are children of God just like men. Sometimes they make bad choices and so do men. The only reason men have an authority in a marriage relationship is because God gave it to him. God can at anytime withdraw that authority. Any statement about whether a woman should toe the line or not should also include a recognition of the man's responsibility in a relationship.

This is the reference to authority I made in the other thread, like most statements I make in this forum, for whatever reason, was taken out of context or otherwise not understood.

Man did not have an authority in a marriage before the fall. After the fall God gave man that authority. God can take that authority away at anytime and I suspect will do so once we go to Heaven and sin is dealt with. That's the context.

Now, this discussion for me has turned into one in regards to the difference between authority and anointing. I agree that authority is directly related to responsibility. And since God did give man the responsibility for his wife, he gets the authority. I don't imagine God will take a way the responsibility therefore will not take away the authority until such time as sin has been put in its place.

However, anointing is given in relationship to ones position towards God. A king can be given anointing or it can be taken away. A church can be given anointing and it taken away. A husband can be given an anointing and it taken away. A king, church, husband may still have the authority but the job becomes exceedingly difficult once God removes His anointing. With God's anointing a family runs smooth and is a blessing for others. 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.

1 Thessalonians 5:19 Do not quench the Spirit.

Which implies that the spirit can be quenched.

 

[rockfox]

Also it’s worth pointing out that the husbands authority is not the same as a kings. In fact scripturaly it is superior in many ways. So I don’t see why the situation of a king has anything to do with the husbands authority...

Yes, God didn't have a very high opinion of King's when His people asked for one. The same is not true about husbands. It is worth noting however, that when Sarah was held up by Peter as an example of great faith and submission, he did so because she called Abraham lord; a title used for kings, masters and gods.

When it comes to kings and their kingdoms would be different. A king is temporary and the kingdom is more permanent. It is designed that the kingdom would pass from one king to another to another and so on. I don't know if I would relate that to a husband and wife.

It relates in that the marriage is for life. If the husband dies and she is taken by a new man her identity changes. Whereas if a king is replaced, the nation still retains its same identity. But as with the king, so long as the husband lives he retains authority. This is why neither the woman nor the kingdom is free to go to another until their lord dies. David understood this, which is why he never attempted to seize the throne, even when the opportunity landed in his lap.

It in not an anointing. A king can have great anointing from YHWH or zero anointing, or even an evil anointing, but he still retains the authority of the position of a king. Only if he dies or is deposed does his authority stop.

This. The problem with comparing marriage to an anointing is that even the unbelievers who hate God have marriage, and a valid one at that.

what does that mean for households that share the job of “breadwinner”?

You mean like in Proverbs 31? This is a complex subject best undertaken in a new thread; because our concept of 'breadwinner' isn't actually Biblical but we don't realize it because our present economic system has blinded us.

That and "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." speaks of unequal distribution of resources between wives in a situation where the victim is a slave, not about a situation where the husband isn't the sole provider.

 

[rockfox]

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?

Someone would have to demonstrate the definition of anointing before I'd go that far.

Although in the case of David while Saul lived, he had an anointing but no authority.

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

I stridently disagree.

However, anointing is given in relationship to ones position towards God. A king can be given anointing or it can be taken away. A church can be given anointing and it taken away. A husband can be given an anointing and it taken away. A king, church, husband may still have the authority but the job becomes exceedingly difficult once God removes His anointing. With God's anointing a family runs smooth and is a blessing for others. 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.

1 Thessalonians 5:19 Do not quench the Spirit.

Which implies that the spirit can be quenched.

This may well be true. A practical example is...

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

But I see no Biblical bases of a husbands authority being removed short of death.