OK so I am going to try to state my take on the issue as clearly as I can. The points I am about to lay out are a major part of what saved my marriage. I do actually apply these things in my home. And yes I want feedback please whether you agree or disagree. Point out where you think I'm wrong. I want to learn. I want to become a better husband.
Lovelovelovelovelove this. I'll do my best to give it a fair response.
1. The title of the article is misleading and would be better titled "A husbands call to love includes a call to rule"
I think you're being charitable to the author (in a good way), but certainly the way you've framed it is at least arguable, while the author's stated equivalence is a blatant lie. Whether the 'call to love'
includes a 'call to rule' is a more nuanced discussion (that we're about to have).
2. The amended title is pretty much what my opinion is while the exact reasons for it may be a little different from the article.
I'm glad to hear your reasoning is different, and I look forward to engaging more with
your reasoning and less with the article's author. At this point we can forget the author and the article (yea!) and just be Pacman and andrew (sounds like a '70s TV show...).
3. I do believe that Ephesians 5 teaches that a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church which includes but is not limited to the following:
- Give yourself for her. Even to the point of death if needed
- Sanctify her (make her holy, purify her) with the washing of the word of God (teaching her the scripture) for the purpose of presenting her to both himself and God without spot or wrinkle
- Love her as if she were your own body
- Nourish her (bring to maturity, nurture, bring up)
- Cherish her (tender love, foster)
Since that's essentially a recap of what Eph 5 actually says, I would simply say "which includes the following:", since that's how Paul explains himself (in other words, I would leave out "but is not limited to"). If you want to bring in other verses to try to help Paul explain what he meant, we can look at those in turn, but I'm certainly in 95% agreement that that's what Eph 5 teaches.
The quibble (and now we're in "the Samuel zone", agreeing on the main points, differing around the edges) is over exactly what is being said in the "so that" passages. I've mentioned this before, but will go over it again here as part of the "reset" of this conversation.
What Paul said: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but
that it should be holy and without blemish."
The words I highlighted are a Greek conjunction that is adequately translated "that" in the 1600s, but could more clearly be translated "so that", or even "in order that". As Strong's puts it, that conjunction denotes "the purpose or the result". (I know,
@IshChayil, go ahead and laugh, but Strong's is just such a common point of reference....) "A that B" means "B is the purpose or result of A".
So in the AV, at least, we have this wording: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" semi-colon "
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" comma "
that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing" semi-colon "but
that it should be holy and without blemish" period, or let's look at it visually:
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing;
but
that it should be holy and without blemish."
It's not clear whether all those thats stack in series or in parallel. Are they all the "purpose or result" of Christ's loving and giving of Himself? Or is "holy and without blemish" the result of "presenting a glorious church" which is the result of "sanctifying and cleansing", which is the sole proximate result of "loved and gave"? I don't think that matters for our purposes, more of a speculation, but the one clear thing is that they're all (somehow) the "purpose or result" of Christ's loving and giving.
My comment earlier in this thread was that all the clauses prefaced by "that" are grammatically and linguistically not
equivalent with "loving and giving", but the "purpose or result" of "loving and giving". In other words, they don't properly
define the "call to love", they give us our
motivation, and they give us a
goal. Or at least they certainly give us Christ's motivation and goal.
My point here is something else. Have you ever given someone a bath?
Even the metaphor of washing is a delicate, nurturing, caring act. The image of Jesus's washing the feet of the disciples comes to mind. He gave us a very specific example and called us to follow Him in it. (Side thought: If you've ever cleaned someone's wounds, you know it's a
very nurturing and caring and delicate act. Something to keep in mind as we're washing our wives....)
I can't tell you how many times I've heard or seen someone turning this specific admonition to "wash" into an excuse to boss wives around based on the idea that through teaching we have to straighten out our women, but to me that suggests a reading comprehension problem.
We know that the reason Christ gave Himself for the church was "so that" He could ^^^ (see above). We want to be good disciples and "love as He loved", so we try to figure out what that means for us—what's
our "so that"? I have some qualms around morphing the word
rhema into "teach her the bible", but that's nothing compared to the qualms I have around morphing "washing her with water and the word" into "being her teacher and that means being her ruler PERIOD". (Okay, sorry/notsorry about that slap at that author. Please indulge me.)
Can we agree that everything on your list above, including the washing, is essentially a nurturing and caring activity? You and I may have some slight differences re how we work out the "so thats" in our homes—that is, in what we actually do that falls under the category of "washing our wives so that we can present them to Christ"—but overall, I'd agree with your exposition of Eph 5 there in its entirety. Every bit of it describes a loving, caring, thoughtful, attentive husband, and stands as basically an amplified version of what Paul said in the first place.
4. I believe all of those things listed above are involved in ruling her as well. (yes ruling has a much more harsh tone to it and includes dominion such as is typical of a king) The fact that she is commanded in verse 33 to reverence him is at least an indication of this. That word reverence is an interesting word study on its own...
And we were having so much fun....
JK. We're still tracking together.
The word "reverence"
is an interesting word study on its own, but it's an instruction to the wives, not the husbands; let's focus for now on what husbands are told to do. And for now let's table whether that Eph 5 stuff is ruler stuff, because you're going to throw away that point in the next paragraph. Let's talk about ruling and leadership and headship (per your questions below) in the next section.
I am aware that Ephesians 5 does not specifically state that a husband is to rule his wife. That I think is the central debate here. Is a husband called to rule his wife? If not what level of leadership and headship does he have? How should we be practically applying that to our marriages?
THANK YOU for the concession that Eph 5 does not specifically state that a husband is to rule his wife. Now we can turn our attention to your excellent questions:
1. Is a husband called to rule his wife?
You tell me.
Where in the bible does it say "husbands, rule your wives?". No inferences, no metaphors, just where is the bald statement. Because if we're going to make it commandment, we should probably see it as a commandment somewhere in scripture, right? Where is the verse that makes this assertion, straight up, in plain imperative language?
[This is not to prejudice the outcome of this exercise (I am asking sincere questions, not rhetorical ones), but I have to tell you that this sounds eerily similar to the "where in the bible does it say I can't have more than one wife?" conversation. Plenty of inferences, and "this must mean that" reasoning, but no direct instruction. Let's see where the "husbands, rule your wives" convo ends up....]
I did a quick mental check of the ol' memory banks, and an even quicker cursory word search of the bible and came up blank. I don't think there's any verse that specifically says, "husbands, rule your wives" or anything similar (a direct instruction, or "call", to husbands to "rule" their wives). It's not my case to make, though, so I'm open to your proving me wrong. Is there any such verse?
I think a fair answer to your fair question is, "No, a husband is not 'called to rule' his wife—not in Eph 5, and not anywhere else. Some people infer from various passages that there is some kind of duty of a husband to rule over his wife, but there is no explicit 'call to rule' (for husbands to rule wives) anywhere in the bible."
2. If not what level of leadership and headship does he have?
This is where the real conversation should be happening, as soon as we can get past question one. [Note to other mods: I think the direction here will be to take up questions 2 and 3 in a way that might lead to another thread or even two other threads, but let's leave all of this here for right now, until Pacman and I are agreed on the issues.] The best way to approach the bible for information would be to simply ask "what does it actually say about the topic I'm actually interested in?" When we're collecting verses that actually treat of a husband's headship or leadership, I'll betcha Eph 5:25-33a doesn't even make the list, but again, let's wait and see, once we get past question one.
3. How should we be practically applying that to our marriages?
Yahtzee!!
This is the question we need to be able to answer, but we have to go through question two to get here, so for now I'd consider this question on hold until we can get through two.
Pacman, I just want to say that though you and I have gotten crosswise before (and probably will again...
), I consider you an honest guy with good questions, and see our dustups more as just the hazard of online discussion forums and written communication. In person I'd like to think we could get to this part of the conversation quicker, and I hope at some point we cross paths at a retreat.
how do you rule over someone who will not submit?