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

[andrew]

@andrew, I'm not offended by @Kevin statement so I could care less either way if he edits it. I'm a big boy who stepped into the fray willingly. I will speak boldly the truth as I see it and am willing to take it as I dish it out. I would just say to him: seeing as you got every single thing wrong in your guess about my life; I'd suggest you re-evaluate your reasoning that led to such conclusions and why you felt the need to resort to insults instead of ideas.

Doesn't really have anything to do with you or how big you are. It's about the type of "discussion" forum we want this to be and the engagement we seek from others who don't appreciate personal insults.

@andrewI'll attempt to follow the warning. But as I'm not sure what you mean by "if-the-shoe-fits mocking and belittling of anyone who disagrees with you" or how I was doing that I may have difficulty avoiding it.

I'll be happy to help you with that.

@andrewAs to "seeing a feminist under every rock on the prairie"... well that's probably guilty as charged. But justifiably so, to me it is an inescapable conclusion that feminism is a big driver in this debate. And really, how could it NOT be an influence in a subject like this? A couple hundred years ago few would have questioned the idea that men should rule their wives and set consequences for their misbehavior. Now that idea is shocking and disturbing to most. I too found the idea objectionable until I was forced to reckon with its consequences in the church and found the truth via in depth study of the scriptures. And I have come to realize feminism is one of the biggest influences and problems in the church today and touches everything. We truly live in the days of Isaiah 3, "women are their rulers".

Suit yourself. Something about the boy who cried wolf comes to mind. When you turn almost everything that comes up here into an opportunity to rail on women, you lose focus and effect in situations where it really matters. But you do you....

 

[andrew]

I mostly agree with @rockfox on this comment. I will however add that I don't think it is exclusively the fault of those women who have adopted the feminist ideology and then brought it into churches. I more so see it as a complete dearth of masculinity in society at large as well as within churches. Those beta males have sat back and allowed it to happen and in many cases have even encouraged, and helped it.

Great observation, and one of the reasons the MGTOW movement is generally (with exceptions) so lame. Men need to focus on being better men, rather than mere woman-bashing. And then the question becomes something like, Is the problem with beta males simply that they haven't been authoritarian enough, and they need to start barking more orders, or is it something deeper and more fundamental than that?

 

[andrew]

With that in mind, I think @rockfox has posed some very good questions around the definition of headship, and look forward to reading the answers to those.

To each his own. I think he's running down rabbit trails because of personal biases, but we're each entitled to our own opinion, right?

Just between you and me, are you saying that you, Samuel, think that inferences that can be drawn from verses about ruling or authority and applied to husbands "because headship" are more important than or even equal in importance to Paul's and Peter's express instructions to husbands in the context of express teaching on the husband/wife relationship? Or are you saying something else?

 

[andrew]

Would I scroll back through this whole thread and all the threads we've ever engaged on this topic? No. It's not that I don't think you're right to call for the proof but it's just we both know I'm not going to do it. So if someone isn't willing to accept my statement on this then they should discount it as unsupported.

Well, I had hoped you would back that up, so I wouldn't say we "both know" you wouldn't, and I hope you're not implying that that was some kind of rhetorical ploy on my part—I'm sincerely interested in clarifying my position if I'm miscommunicating. So I'm inviting you again to back it up, and would invite everybody here to discount it entirely if you're not willing to do so.

 

[andrew]

Curious if anyone has ever noticed that part of what God reprimanded Adam for was hearkening to the voice of his wife?

Yes.

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

 

[andrew]

However I don't think Andrew has been using that as an argument in this thread. I can see why you may have taken it that way if you were looking for it. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread we need to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Just my 2¢ ignore it if you want.

I'd say that's worth more than 2¢, and it's a good reminder that the context for this discussion is (or should be) a friendly sharing of ideas around what the bible actually teaches about husband/wife relationships. And you're right, that's not even close to my argument here, so if anyone wants to point me to something I said that miscommunicated my thoughts, please do.

 

[andrew]

What difference would this make either way?

@windblown, I really want to give you a fair answer here, but I'm confused, because I think the paragraph you quoted is pretty self-explanatory. In addition, the matter has been addressed repeatedly throughout this thread, so I'm at a bit of a loss. Take a look at this post and let me know if you still have a question: The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule

 

[FollowingHim]

Samuel, think that inferences that can be drawn from verses about ruling or authority and applied to husbands "because headship" are more important than or even equal in importance to Paul's and Peter's express instructions to husbands in the context of express teaching on the husband/wife relationship? Or are you saying something else?

I fully agree with you that the express instructions regarding love are of primary importance. However they're not the whole, because they are given within a contect that must be understood also (so you don't slip into "I love you dear so I'll do whatever you want" for instance).

Behind my comment is the thought that, when defined scripturally, 'headship' will include enough authority to back up both the strong-headship and mild-rulership views in this discussion, being the middle ground of views that I see as converging in all but terminology.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well, I had hoped you would back that up, so I wouldn't say we "both know" you wouldn't, and I hope you're not implying that that was some kind of rhetorical ploy on my part—I'm sincerely interested in clarifying my position if i'm miscommunicating. So I'm inviting you again to back it up, and would invite everybody here to discount it entirely if you're not willing to do so.

I stand by the statement but l am unwilling to do the work to prove it. If it was a rhetorical ploy I don't have a problem with that. I am deploying a rhetorical tactic to deal with it, trading some of my credibility to effect a limited salvage of the point with out expending resources that the issue doesn't justify . It's a debate and anything other than the many forms of lying is permissible. You won this small side issue.

 

[The Revolting Man]

To each his own. I think he's running down rabbit trails because of personal biases, but we're each entitled to our own opinion, right?

Just between you and me, are you saying that you, Samuel, think that inferences that can be drawn from verses about ruling or authority and applied to husbands "because headship" are more important than or even equal in importance to Paul's and Peter's express instructions to husbands in the context of express teaching on the husband/wife relationship? Or are you saying something else?

I think what we're saying is that they're the same thing. There's no conflict here. Paul and Peter are completely in agreement with husband's ruling their wives.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@windblown, I really want to give you a fair answer here, but I'm confused, because I think the paragraph you quoted is pretty self-explanatory. In addition, the matter has been addressed repeatedly throughout this thread, so I'm at a bit of a loss. Take a look at this post and let me know if you still have a question: The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule

I realize this is a little awkward, me taking up my wife's question but I can honestly say that I am just interested and I would be asking this even if it was someone else who posted the original question. @windblown is completely able to hold her own in these kind of debates (trust me on this) so I'm not trying to deflect or mark my territory or anything else beta-ish. Feel free to engage her on this as you see fit, but I do have a question that springboards off of her's.

What does it matter if a husband's rule was part of the curse and came with the Fall? As windblown pointed out to me this morning, childbirth is still painful and I still have to toil to earn my bread. The physical aspects of the curse are still in effect. If a husband's rule was a real thing at the time of the Fall, it's still a real thing now. It seems like this argument on your part is kind of self defeating. If it was part of the curse then why would it be gone now? I imagine you would say, "Jesus!" and I wouldn't argue with that other than to say that timing is everything. The curse is lifted, but we're not freed from it's effects while we're still in the flesh. We will not be giving in marriage (lordship) in heaven but we are still doing it here on earth.

 

[The Revolting Man]

. Behind my comment is the thought that, when defined scripturally, 'headship' will include enough authority to back up both the strong-headship and mild-rulership views in this discussion, being the middle ground of views that I see as converging in all but terminology.

If I have given the impression that I support a "mild-rulership" then I apologize. I believe a husband has near absolute authority in his home and this is a direct testament to the rule God/Christ has over Israel/church (not an endorsement of replacement theology). That is why this issue is so important, it is a direct testament to what we believe and demonstrate about God. The husband is a reflection, although no doubt a dim one (especially me), of Christ/God's Lordship. The degree to which one limits the husband's authority is a real good indication of how much some want to limit God's authority in their own lives.

And the whole issue of limiting a husband's authority completely negates the husband's authority. Because who is going to decide when he oversteps his bounds? The wife. Every time. If there are exceptions or limits then we are giving women (who represent us by the way and we all know how wrong headed and rebellious we are) a get out of jail free card to not submit whenever they decide they've had enough. It really is an all or nothing proposition.

 

[FollowingHim]

By that term I meant the sensible and loving end of what is labelled 'rulership', as opposed to the wife-beating end. That's all. 'Mild' was a poor choice of words. Pick something else.

 

[Pacman]

I believe a husband has near absolute authority in his home and this is a direct testament to the rule God/Christ has over Israel/church (not an endorsement of replacement theology). That is why this issue is so important, it is a direct testament to what we believe and demonstrate about God. The husband is a reflection, although no doubt a dim one (especially me), of Christ/God's Lordship.

This is pretty much what I was driving at way back in the beginning of the thread when I brought up being made in the image of God. And the fact that I think patriarchy is part of how we as men are supposed to image God. The language is pretty clear that man is created in God's image and that woman is created for the man... However many here have a vastly different take on the creation account and patriarchy before the curse...

 

[rockfox]

I mostly agree with @rockfox on this comment. I will however add that I don't think it is exclusively the fault of those women who have adopted the feminist ideology and then brought it into churches. I more so see it as a complete dearth of masculinity in society at large as well as within churches. Those beta males have sat back and allowed it to happen and in many cases have even encouraged, and helped it.

Curious if anyone has ever noticed that part of what God reprimanded Adam for was hearkening to the voice of his wife?

Genesis 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Agree with that 100%. When I call out feminism I'm pointing not to women, but to the ideology. Feminism is rebellion and is part of the curse. The problem is, the men going along with it.

Now women are still culpable for their rebellion, the buck stops here with men. It is, just as it was with the fall. It is not for nothing that 'sin came into the world' via Adam; even though it was Eve who was first deceived, first disobeyed, and first ate.

Likewise 'women are their rulers', while a problem in itself; was actually the result of the people turning away from God. It was a punishment.

 

[Pacman]

Just a thought. (my opinion and just thinking out loud) Perhaps we don't find it specifically stated in scripture because it is so self evident...Genesis 3:16 makes a simple statement that it will be happening. Perhaps Paul didn't include it in Ephesians 5 for the same reason. Perhaps he knew it was natural for a man to rule her and wanted to major on the love part because that is not as natural for us. We would be out of balance towards the ruling without those instructions...

I think my point in this post may have been misunderstood by some... My point was that it was so self evident that it was unessesary for Paul and Peter to say it. It is simply a given that the husband is the "master and lord" of his wife.

I asked for others to look into thier study recourses and define the word "baal" translated into English as married in some places in the old testament.

So far Kevin is the only one who has responded to that:

Baal (/ˈbeɪəl, ˈbɑːəl/), properly Baʿal, was a title and honorific meaning "owner," "lord" in the Northwest Semitic languages spoken in the Levant during antiquity. From its use among people, it came to be applied to gods.

This further helps support my point that it is simply understood by Paul and Peter and even Moses, that the husband is the lord and master of his wife.

 

[rockfox]

What is the context of the love command? We all have temptations unique to our station. To a ruler, you caution them to rule with love and understanding. Not to be unjust, to treat them as yourself and not as a lower caste. To those under rule you caution them to be subject to their rulers and to serve with a good attitude; showing their masters the respect due their station, even if they didn't earn it.

The entire context is to those in a hierarchy, and how they ought to behave therein. Rule is inherent to his station and the analogy to Christ makes this even stronger. The imperative to love doesn't cancel rule; it informs it. The imperative to submit doesn't mean there is no rule, but is there to reinforce it.

This further helps support my point that it is simply understood by Paul and Peter and even Moses, that the husband is the lord and master of his wife.

And they weren't just empty titles. In those ancient societies husbands and fathers had authority befitting the honorifics. To our mind honorific sounds like something empty; but that is a consequence of our culture. "
A title, phrase, or grammatical form conveying respect, used especially when addressing a social superior."

It is no coincidence that as that authority went away, so did the titles. You can see this at work in our own society today. There was a time no long ago when a wife would be called Mrs. John Doe; legally and socially her identity was one with her husband. Not only is that practice defunct today, people rarely even call her Mrs. Jane Doe and even taking the last name is happening less. Women are socially and legally independent, superior even.

 

[The Revolting Man]

By that term I meant the sensible and loving end of what is labelled 'rulership', as opposed to the wife-beating end. That's all. 'Mild' was a poor choice of words. Pick something else.

I actually knew that but you gave me an excuse to wax poetical and I took it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The imperative to love doesn't cancel rule; it informs it. The imperative to submit doesn't mean there is no rule, but is there to reinforce it

This whole post is excellent but I think this one line is the most relevant at the moment.

 

[Keith Martin]

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

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

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

I'm far from the expert on Hebrew grammar, but the CVOT uses 'shall,' and that would indicate future tense. @windblown poses a great question subsequently, though, which is why would it matter for now whether the husband's rule began before or after The Fall.

On the other hand, I have a comment and two sincere questions:

Comment and first question: The phrase, "And he shall rule over you," doesn't indicate how long he shall rule over her. It doesn't mention anything related even to permanence. God doesn't make mistakes, so can we possibly say it is a mistake that something along the lines of "from now until the end of time" wasn't used to qualify "he shall rule over you?"

Second question: How do we know that the curses God put on Adam and Eve were permanently attached to not only Adam and Eve but to all their descendants? How do we know that those curses weren't meant just specifically for Adam and Eve?

A couple hundred years ago few would have questioned the idea that men should rule their wives and set consequences for their misbehavior. Now that idea is shocking and disturbing to most. I too found the idea objectionable until I was forced to reckon with its consequences in the church and found the truth via in depth study of the scriptures. And I have come to realize feminism is one of the biggest influences and problems in the church today and touches everything. We truly live in the days of Isaiah 3, "women are their rulers".

Rockfox, I think I've already established that I view the philosophies behind postmodern feminism to be insidious, as I've made numerous comments along those lines in threads here on Biblical Families, but one still has to be careful about not extending an argument too far. In this paragraph above, you assert that the idea that men should rule over their wives would rarely have been questioned just 200 years ago, but then you go on to remind us that Isaiah 3:12 provided a warning of imminent ruling of men by women, so this problem wasn't unknown except just in recent times. I do, though, like your emphasis elsewhere on the true problem being the males (beta or otherwise) who knuckle under to female control (rule or otherwise). It is our responsibility to be the heads of our families, so no matter what the philosophy is that we use to justify abandoning our responsibility, we still, as men, remain responsible for the outcome.

Great observation, and one of the reasons the MGTOW movement is generally (with exceptions) so lame. Men need to focus on being better men, rather than mere woman-bashing. And then the question becomes something like, Is the problem with beta males simply that they haven't been authoritarian enough, and they need to start barking more orders, or is it something deeper and more fundamental than that?

I wholeheartedly agree with this, Andrew. There is a wide chasm of behavior choices between being eunuchs and being authoritarian. It isn't a matter of insufficient ruling; it's a matter of having abdicated headship, which does not require punishment, bullying, bossing or even yelling.

Please, anyone, hear this loud and clear, though: I have no personal foolproof evidence that I will, in the end, successfully establish the headship in my own family, after having been an ineffective Sensitive New Age Guy in my marriage for decades. I work on it, and it appears progress is occurring, but the two-steps-forward-one-step-back occasionally involves some tremendously monumental backwards one-steps . . .[/user]