I don't see why it doesn't apply to polygamy as well... But this is a bit of a distraction from the ruling and loving discussion.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule
- Thread starter Pacman
- Start date
I don't see why it doesn't apply to polygamy as well... But this is a bit of a distraction from the ruling and loving discussion.
I don't see how you have a recourse if your love doesn't include ruling. And as I mentioned a couple of times in this thread my marriage would likely have been over by now had I not applied this 5 years ago.
How does anyone with the rule over someone else deal with rebellion? There is some sort of consequence for the rebellion. Why would the same thing not apply to a wife?
C
Cap
Guest
The Christian idea of Tough Love is a concept I learned many years ago. It works very well wth God's leading.
And yet Christ's call was a call of service and death to self. So too did our example Paul call himself a bond-servant of Christ. This is an example of how you can't reach full understanding if you take a pedantic approach to scripture. There are many seeming paradoxes and both/and's in scripture. We are called son's AND servants. Husband's are expected to rule AND love. Wives are both one with us AND below us in the chain of command.
I realize the modern world hates authority and rule and see's it as in opposition to love. But with God it is not so. He repeatedly tells us that love without rule is not love at all. This is the very nature of hierarchical relationships; which is how scripture classes the parent-child, husband-wife, and God-man relationships.
@Cap I'm not sure what you're saying because this
and this:
are opposing ideas from the modern church perspective.
There is a difference between leadership and submission in love that edifies G-d and Rulership and subjagation that edifies the ruler. A call to love our wives is not a call to edify ourselves. Your assuming what I said was a statement about authority being bad because it doesn't mesh with your personal filter. You shouldn't assume. Ive said nothing remotely close to that. In fact I said it's not and excuse for wives to ignore what is clear in scripture. My wife submits to me because she trust me and believes that submission is scriptural, love for G-d and me not because I've enforced scriptures which are about G-d's right of Rulership cobbled together with scripture about all authority comes from G-d we are to obey secular rulers to say that that G-d gave me the right to rule my word is absolute. Even the the authority of rulers have there limits.
Then he spoke to them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto G-d the things that are G-d's.
Wasn't just about Taxes.
Yeshua is the King of Kings. Meaning His authority is absolute not the authority of lesser kings. If someone is asserting their authority is absolute then they're in Rebellion against G-d.
Since you can't reach full understanding of scripture through meticulous study and you've given no indication your talking about divine Revalation from the Holy Spirit. Tell us, how do you reach full understanding of scripture. By reading what is appealing to your preconceived notions and that fit with your personal ideology?
Last edited:
You used John 15:15 to claim wives are not servants but friends. But I am pointing out that while Christ said 'you are no longer called servants but friends'; both He and Paul characterized us as servants. In other words, to rightly use and understand scripture you have to take all of it into account. You can't cherry pick out passages to prove your point without due consideration to the full message.
Otherwise you come up with contradictory theology that claims things like husbands have no right to rule while elders are expected to have ruled well.
Okay, @Pacman, so in the 21 posts since I've been on here last, no one has brought out a direct commandment or instruction for a husband to rule his wife, so I'm going to consider my "question one" answered in the negative—no such commandment is argued because no such commandment can be found. Yeah, yeah, it's implied here and it's assumed there, but Pacman, as you conceded earlier, there are ways in which that kind of argument sounds suspiciously like the monogamy-only argument. And like that argument, where the realization that there is no direct prohibition of polygamy should give us at least a bit of a pause, I would argue here that the fact there there is no direct commandment to "rule one's wife" should at least merit a bit of attention on the part of anyone who's serious about this marriage business.
So without a direct command, we're left with the assumptions and inferences, which will segue us into "question two". Pacman, you mentioned 1 Tim 3 and Gen 3, and then quoted Gen 1. Let's start with Gen 1 & 2, and then go from there.
It is an assumption that Eve was created to wash the dishes and perform other menial tasks so that Adam could busy himself with important stuff like ruling creation (and women). And Gen 1 looks suspiciously like they were both charged with the task of filling and subduing the earth.
At the risk of being accused of "hair splitting",
I point out that the text actually says that Eve was present at the charge to "subdue and have dominion over the earth" and was created expressly for the purpose of helping Adam to, what?, well, what was he supposed to be doing? Having authority over the earth, in the image and likeness of God. And she was created from his very essence, having something like the relationship identical twins would have (same DNA). That's pretty close.
That's the imagery Paul is tying into in Eph 5:28-31:
Finally, for Gen 3 I'll simply repeat my assertion that future tense means future tense, which means it will happen in the future. Gen 3:16 says he shall rule over you, not he "will continue" to rule over you. Future means future. If that's hair-splitting, then all exegesis is hair-splitting.
Bottom line is: Woman is one half of the "mankind" that God said He would make "in our image and likeness", and was created from the very substance of man to be his partner in having dominion over the earth. Then she screwed it all up, one of the consequences of which was that "he shall have power over you". Way to go, Eve. (Adam's punishment was that his work would become miserable, but that's another part of the story.)
More later. Preview for tomorrow: Both the word "husband" and 1 Tim 3 point to the man's being the ruler of his house. If you can follow me through Genesis you can probably figure out where I'm headed with Timothy and the etymology and definition of "husband"....
Kevin, the story of the cattle and goats was golden. They follow because they know and trust. Let him who has ears to hear....
Good night, all.
So without a direct command, we're left with the assumptions and inferences, which will segue us into "question two". Pacman, you mentioned 1 Tim 3 and Gen 3, and then quoted Gen 1. Let's start with Gen 1 & 2, and then go from there.
So according to Gen 1, God created mankind male and female, and said to them to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and have dominion over every living thing.
And in Gen 2, we see that woman is formed from the stuff of man, and they in fact are "one flesh". She was formed to be a helper, right? Well, what was she supposed to be helping Adam with? Well, depending on how you parse all this, in Gen 2 Adam's job is to till the garden and keep it, so presumably she can help him with that. But in Gen 1, she is present when God tells "them" to have dominion over the earth and subdue it, so what does that mean? (Even if she weren't present, that's the job she was created to help with, but it's just more obvious since she was actually there hearing the charge.) I submit that Eve/woman is created expressly from man to be his partner and one flesh/body, and is given to man to help him in his task of dominion over the earth.
It is an assumption that Eve was created to wash the dishes and perform other menial tasks so that Adam could busy himself with important stuff like ruling creation (and women). And Gen 1 looks suspiciously like they were both charged with the task of filling and subduing the earth.
At the risk of being accused of "hair splitting",
I point out that the text actually says that Eve was present at the charge to "subdue and have dominion over the earth" and was created expressly for the purpose of helping Adam to, what?, well, what was he supposed to be doing? Having authority over the earth, in the image and likeness of God. And she was created from his very essence, having something like the relationship identical twins would have (same DNA). That's pretty close.That's the imagery Paul is tying into in Eph 5:28-31:
There is (or ought to be) an essential oneness between the woman and the man, within which "ruling" the woman would make about as much sense as "ruling" one's foot or pancreas.
Finally, for Gen 3 I'll simply repeat my assertion that future tense means future tense, which means it will happen in the future. Gen 3:16 says he shall rule over you, not he "will continue" to rule over you. Future means future. If that's hair-splitting, then all exegesis is hair-splitting.
Bottom line is: Woman is one half of the "mankind" that God said He would make "in our image and likeness", and was created from the very substance of man to be his partner in having dominion over the earth. Then she screwed it all up, one of the consequences of which was that "he shall have power over you". Way to go, Eve. (Adam's punishment was that his work would become miserable, but that's another part of the story.)
More later. Preview for tomorrow: Both the word "husband" and 1 Tim 3 point to the man's being the ruler of his house. If you can follow me through Genesis you can probably figure out where I'm headed with Timothy and the etymology and definition of "husband"....
Kevin, the story of the cattle and goats was golden. They follow because they know and trust. Let him who has ears to hear....
Good night, all.
Just trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying the husband has a form of authority over the wife, but not one you would call 'ruling'? Or that he has no authority?
You are in authority over your foot and your pancreas. But you don't mistreat them, you lovingly nurture them as part of yourself. But you still tell them what to do, and decide what luxuries / medical treatments / clothing etc they will receive - you define the parameters within which they live.
I am unclear on whether you're basically on the same page as everyone else regarding patriarchal leadership but don't like using the word 'rule' to describe it (because you feel it has the wrong connotations and wish to highlight instead the servant-leadership approach we are to take), or whether you're proposing a fundamentally different point of view.
Not completely in agreement here.
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Two related statements here with a very specific pronoun used in the first statement. I realize that the word man can refer to mankind sometimes in scripture but I do not believe that it does in this verse.
1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Also you will notice that Paul very conspicuously leaves out the image of God when referring to the woman but specifically states it when referring to the man.
This has been my suspicion throughout most of the thread. But I will wait for @andrew to speak for himself.
Last edited:
Yes it is an assumption but not one that I am making. You seem to have ventured into a strawman argument here. Who does the dishes is irrelevant to me. So is who mows the grass or repairs the car or remodels the house. We all have menial tasks to do and whomever is best suited for the task (or has time for it) should be the one doing the task...
C
Cap
Guest
I believe the issue here is in how love/rule is applied to a particular situation. The meaning of the term 'tough love' I guess is as varied as the difference in the idea of love/rule. We each have to a handle any situation in regards to how we perceive the outcome should be. In the end, for a child of God, the end result should produce love.
Suppose a husband comes to an understanding of biblical plural marriage. He brings it to his wife and she says absolutely no way am I or you going to do that. How should this be handled?
A. Tell her that by your authority in God she will accept it? (RULE)
B. Love her and patiently help her understand what has been revealed to you and help her with her relationship with God so that she can see for herself the value and purpose according to God's desire for a family, as a unit and for the world at large. Be long suffering, kind, gentle, but firm in your belief in letting her know that your love for her will never fail, but ultimately, it is the path you must go and by her free will you hope in God that she will follow. (LOVE)
Last edited by a moderator:
First that was one example if you want more examples ill post them if you want.
Your only hearing what you want to hear.
If I'm picking cherries your right there beside me.
I'm looking at scripture as a whole and trying to rightly divide scripture. Your looking at scripture and choosing and apply ones that justify your belief that you have the right to rule. You have a G-d given Authority to lead your wife.
All authority comes from G-d. Authority belongs to Him. We have no absolute authority. No right to rule because its borrowed from Him. I first Tim 5:17 The word used for rule also means preside or
to set or place before
1a) to set over
1b) to be over, to superintend, preside over
1c) to be a protector or guardian
1c1) to give aid
1d) to care for, give attention to
1d1) profess honest occupations
A husband has G-d's authority to lead but not Rulership.
You speak of Heiarchy. So here's an example. Employee X is contracted to work for Boss Z. He tells Employee X to obey their contractional obligations. Employee X refuses Boss Z can refuse payment or terminate contract. He tells Employee X to comit an unlawful act or acts not covered under contractional obligations. Employee X refuses and can have the contract voided. There are reprecussions for violating a contract without cause but Boss Z can not force Employee X to comit an unlawful act or acts not covered under contractional obligations. Boss Z dose not have the authority to effect other aspects of Employe X's life.
A husband does not have the ability to judge his wife. He can judge if her actions are inline with scripture but not Judge her. You have a G-d given Authority to lead your wife but when your wife faces Judgement it will be Yeshua in His absolute authority as ruler, not you who judges her.
Fair questions. I am saying that whatever form of authority the husband has over the wife, it is not one that the scriptures call ruling, except in a couple of indirect references that should be looked at more closely. There is no direct commandment to rule over one's wife, and it disturbs me that some are so quick to find or defend a "call to rule" using oblique references, as if that were more important than the actual commandments and injunctions that are directed to husbands about husbanding.
Just reading that paragraph out loud shows how odd that line of thinking is—no one would talk like that about a foot or a pancreas or any other body part in any other context but a bunch of Christians talking about male authority (rawr!). I don't "tell" my foot or pancreas anything; I certainly don't picture myself "ruling" them. And when Paul talks about male headship and the woman's being the body of the man, the express lesson he uses that metaphor to teach is that we should love and nourish and cherish our bodies, not that we should "rule over" our livers or kneecaps. Why do we need to talk about our bodies in a way no one would talk anatomically or biologically or medically just to make that metaphor say something else? Why not just take Paul's teaching the way he delivered it?
Well, first, I don't see that "everyone else" is on exactly the same page (e.g., Kevin and I are more 'on the same page' than rockfox and I are in general terms), so I can see why you'd be unclear about that. To the extent this thread is a work in progress, it is my hope that many of us will converge around what the scriptures actually say, rather than what we take them to mean, and that many of us will end up on the same page (as much as a bunch of feisty alpha males can aspire to that...).
So to illustrate, nothing important depends on whether I "like" using the word rule or "feel" it has the wrong connotations. Everything important depends on what God thought it was necessary to communicate to husbands about the exact nature of the husband/wife relationship. He doesn't ever come out and tell husbands directly "you must rule over your wife"; He does however have some things to say directly to husbands about how we should interact with our wives, and it gives a rather different picture. To use your language, the scriptures "highlight" aspects of the husband/wife relationship, and we should take those highlights very seriously, and not try to reverse engineer something else out of other passages based on inferences and assumptions.
And a whole lot depends on what you mean by "patriarchal leadership", a term that tends to mean different things to different people. I'm comfortable with the word patriarchy, in spite of cultural efforts to turn it into a slur, but sometimes I want to go full Inigo Montoya on people on both sides....
So having said all that, I'd say that I'd like to think that most of us are on the same page generally and we're just trying to get the priorities balanced. Whether that's a "fundamentally different point of view" from anyone else's here, let alone everyone else's here, will be more clear once this thread plays itself out.
Thanks Andrew, that's a lot clearer.
Agree
Disagree. Our authority comes from God and it is not absolute but that does not mean that it does not include ruling.
I agree with this statement (generally speaking) but I still don't see why this means a husband does not have the rule over her in this life.
The idea that this is not a binary choice is what I am trying to explain.
I will give a more simplistic example.
A wife has a spending problem and is starting to rack up some debt purchasing things that are not necessary and are even frivolous. The husband realizes the problem and tells her to stop spending money on things that are not truly needs. He lovingly and patiently explains to her that her spending habits will lead to financial problems in the future for the entire family and that she is not being a good steward of what God has given them. She slows down the spending for a little while but before too long she is back to overspending and starting to rack up more credit card debt. He talks to her again patiently but to no avail.
I contend that the loving thing for him to do is apply consequences for her actions. Take away her credit cards and give her a specific amount of money that will be sufficient for the needs she has to purchase. While continuing to teach her about proper stewardship and financial wisdom. (loving rulership)
The unloving and spineless thing would be to allow her to continue in her foolish spending habits and apply zero consequences allowing her to put the entire family into financial hardship. While only "lovingly and patiently" asking her to stop.
When done properly a husbands love will include ruling her. They are not two opposite things.
I believe I am in general agreement with Andrew here, but would have used different words to describe it. Rather than arguing against the word "rule", I'd take "rule" to be synonymous with "lead", and then look to scripture to see how to do that "ruling / leading". So the effective result would be the same, even if initially described using different words. I hate words with a passion, they are the root of so much confusion...
Matthew 20:25-28:
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Here Jesus is not saying that nobody will be "great", or "chief", among you. On the contrary, he assumes that there will be chiefs / leaders, as leaders are necessary. But He then teaches HOW a leader should act. I think this passage probably summarises the point Andrew is making.
Matthew 20:25-28:
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Here Jesus is not saying that nobody will be "great", or "chief", among you. On the contrary, he assumes that there will be chiefs / leaders, as leaders are necessary. But He then teaches HOW a leader should act. I think this passage probably summarises the point Andrew is making.
