Oh great all this time I thought you were on my side.
(totally joking) I think you are right we are probably just talking past each other for the most part and we are not that far apart on what we actually think...
-
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
Oh great all this time I thought you were on my side.
(totally joking) I think you are right we are probably just talking past each other for the most part and we are not that far apart on what we actually think...
There is some convergence happening. Once we realize/admit that there is no such specific instruction, we can start to think about why that is.
Personally (@Pacman, just walk with me a second here...), I still see Gen 3:16 as curse stuff. I think the grammar is pretty clear about that, and I'd like to officially dial 1-800- @IshChayil to see if we could get a ruling on the Hebrew grammar in Gen 1, 2, & 3. [Chap 1 - Looks like God originally purposed to create mankind both male and female. Chap 2 - Looks like the signature teaching is the UNITY of the male and the female ("bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" - he didn't say "oh, finally you're here, go make me a sammich"). Chap 3 - Looks like "he shall rule" is definitely future tense (it certainly is in the Greek translations, I just don't have a good Hebrew interlinear). In other words, in the garden we had "one flesh", with a "first among equals" or "partners in dominion with a managing partner and an assisting partner" vibe, until Eve tanked that arrangement.
So the only thing I would concede here is that man 'has the rule over' or 'has power over' the woman as a result of the fall, which is congruent with Jesus's teaching (cited by both myself and Samuel) that the Gentile rulers lord it over their subjects and "exercise authority over" them, but for those of us following Christ's example it should not be so. Rather, we are called to serve/minister and lay down our lives for those we love even as Christ did. Basic "love v. fear" stuff. When you are 'being that guy', then people will follow you because they know you and trust you., not because they're afraid of some kind of punishment.
But that's just my little excursion through Gen 3:16. Where I agree with Pacman is that it is worth thinking about why scripture doesn't admonish men to rule their wives. I'd like to go back to the body metaphor for a bit.
I don't think about 'ruling' my hands and feet because I don't have to. A normal, healthy, functional body reacts predictably to signals from the brain. It's a . . . wait for it . . . no-brainer!
I just focus on diet, exercise, and sleep and let God's design do the rest, at least until there's a problem. If there is a problem, it could be one of two things. About four months ago, I fell and injured my left hand in a way that means at present that it doesn't function correctly. I try to grab something or form a guitar chord and my hand is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. On the other hand, I could have a traumatic brain injury or a seizure or something and my hand would start doing weird things because it's getting screwed up signals from the brain. (Fortunately that's not my problem at this time....)
If a husband is not wired correctly to Christ and is sending contradictory or unclear signals to the wife, she will not be able to follow his 'leadership', and he won't be able to properly evaluate her responses. If the husband is following Christ and secure in that, though, and he's still not getting appropriate responses, he can start to diagnose why. Based on his instruction to love his own flesh and nourish it and cherish it, he can look for the appropriate remedy or therapy for whatever is disrupting the otherwise expected unity of action. So for example, trying to solve the problem of why my hand doesn't work properly isn't an exercise in "ruling" at all, is it?
This is going to spill over eventually into my "question three"—what's the practical takeaway?—but I don't think we're there yet. In time....
Re that "master of the house" thing (anyone humming a tune? Les Miz, anyone?), Paul does tell Timothy that a candidate for overseer must "rule his own house well, having his children in subjection" and a candidate for deacon must "rule his children and his own house well" (so about the same instruction). It is clear from both scripture and the etymology of the word 'husband' that the man is supposed to be in charge of his household, which includes wives, children, servants, guests, and animals. But again, nothing specific or direct about ruling over a wife (whereas there is a specific mention of children...), and there is no clear contradiction of my thesis (from back when we were talking about Genesis): that woman was created from man (one-flesh unity) to assist the man in the dominion the man has, whether throughout creation or within the household.
Just recapitulating, we husbands have a fair amount of direct instruction re the need to love/wash/nourish/cherish/honor our wives (that our prayers not be hindered!). There is nothing specific about ruling our wives, other than God's word to the woman in Gen 3:16 that appears to be a future consequence of her disobedience and Paul's instructions to Timothy re what to look for in an overseer/deacon, which is generally focused on a well-run home, and specifically mentions children, but doesn't doesn't specifically mention wives. (Neither of those situations is a direct teaching to husbands, just a conversation we get to overhear and draw inferences from.) There is a ton of specific stuff in the NT about what kinds of followers Christ is looking for, and how we are to see ourselves in relation to others, including a direct injunction not to follow the bad example of the Gentiles and exercise position-based dominion and authority over others. There's the overall metaphor of the head of the body, and whatever inferences we can draw from that (but again, "ruling" is just not the right word there...). And some other church management stuff about women not making disruptive noise in church and learning from the husbands instead of interrupting a teaching, but that doesn't seem to support a "husbands rule your wives" conclusion. Anything else we need to take into account to answer "question two"?
C
Cap
Guest
My scenario was not to show binary answers but the difference in rule and love.
Your example is understood and is what you would expect in a loving family that is trying to succeed in what God has provided for them. You would hope that loving correction would be enough. And the same could be said, if the husband spent time neglecting his wife and she appealed to him in hopes of letting him see her needs, lovingly. These are things that any loving relationship would do for each other to live together.
However, these are the 'rules' (your scenario) that could very well be applied to a son or daughter to help them understand the idea of stewardship. The example I gave was more in the lines of a clear direction given by God and the choices that two adults need to make to follow the path they see before them. Yours is a manner of trying to establish the frame of living together. Mine has to do with free will. With rules there has to be an ultimate consequence, what would be that consequence if she didn't stop? That's the part I am trying to get to, rules are defined by consequences, and if a husband doesn't have the ultimate consequence, does he have the ultimate rule?
But in all fairness, I understand what you are saying and try to live in the manner you describe. But, as described by more profound thinkers in this discussion, the idea is better understood in 'leadership' as apposed to ruling by authority.
Pacman, I don't have a problem with what you're saying about the two verses cited, it's just not my point.
Re Genesis: My point is that both Gen 1 and Gen 2 accounts point to an essential unity of the male and the female: one flesh. God's stated purpose in creating woman was for to help man. Help man do what? Have dominion. Together, they are one in the dominion, filling, and subduing that is 'the human project'.
Re Corinthians: When is the man actually observably the glory of God? When he is completely submitted to God. That's his task. When is the woman actually observably the glory of the man? When she is completely submitted to him. That's her task.
Men should be focused on submitting to Christ, our head, and in doing so will naturally 'lead by example' (which by the way is what Christ did for us...). Women should focus on submitting to their men and thus being the "one flesh helper" they were designed to be, but if they have a bad example, then it's not likely to go well. (Women do the same thing when they disrespect or rebel against their husbands and then just can't figure out why the children rebel against them....)
It's not really a strawman as much as an "if the shoe fits..." comment. It may not fit you, but I can promise you it fits many.
This is "where the rubber meets the road" stuff here at BF. You know the old saying "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"? If you are preoccupied with rule, then every dysfunction looks like a rebellion. If you are preoccupied with love (a position strongly endorsed by Jesus and his apostles...), then every dysfunction looks like an opportunity for growth and learning and the practice of fundamental Christian virtues.
Humor me for a moment please and give me your thoughts on this statement I made earlier.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
3 For everything there is a season,
a right time for every intention under heaven —
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to throw stones and a time to gather stones,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to discard,
7 a time to tear and a time to sew,
a time to keep silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
Please excuse my nit-picking here, but when coming to weighty conclusions based on Scripture, I believe it's especially worthwhile to do some research to ensure that one's English-translation (i.e., more-than-average prone-toward-linguistic-corruption) Bible is relatively consistent with the Hebrew and Greek.
So I got out a Hebrew Interlinear along with the Concordant Version of the Old Testament (CVOT), which isn't infallible but which I trust above all other English translations, because it works directly from the Hebrew (primary) and Greek (secondary; primary for CLNT, Concordant Literal New Testament, same publishers) and makes the best effort to consistently translate any given Hebrew or Greek word the same way every time it appears (there are exceptions, some of which can't even be justified, but generally speaking the CVOT is far more trustworthy than anything that has been translated from the KJV or the Latin Vulgate (the major source for the KJV).
Before I start on the verse in question, it should also be noted that 'adm' [אָ דָ ם] actually can be translated either 'the human being' or 'humanity,' depending on the context. On the other hand, e·adm [ה אָ דָ ם] is almost universally translated as 'the human' or 'the human being,' as it refers to a specific individual.
Genesis 1:27 (CVOT): "So Elohim created humanity in His image; in the image of Elohim He created it [or him or them, according to some interlinears]: male and female He created them." [Bolded words are direct translation; non-bolded words are added by the translators for the purpose of modern-day English readability, not for substance purposes.] Note that 'them' at the end agrees in number with 'humanity,' given that both indicate plural people, as does 'male and female.' This verse presents an understanding, as @andrew has already indicated, that men and women were created in God's image. (By the way, I don't know how many of you caught George Gilder on Mark Levin's Sunday night Life, Liberty and Levin TV show on Fox last week, but Gilder made very convincing comments about how it is specifically in the creativity of our minds that we are made in God's image -- not in any physical attributes.) What matters here is that nothing is said in Gen 1:27 about hierarchy between men and women. It will become plain as day in Genesis 2 that men and women were purposefully designed to be different, but I digress, because I believe it's inappropriate to just pull out Gen. 1:27 in isolation. Let's first go back to the previous verse:
Genesis 1:26: "And Elohim said: Let Us make humanity in Our image and according to Our likeness. Let them hold sway over the fish of the sea and over the flyer of the heavens, over the domestic beast, over every land animal and over every creeper that is creeping on the earth." Let them . . . , not let the men hold sway while the women clean/cook the fish and milk the cows. Then we establish some more context by reading the verse that follows Gen 1:27:
Genesis 1:28: "Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said to them: Be fruitful and increase; fill the earth and subdue it. Hold sway over the fish of the sea and over the flyer of the heavens, over every domestic beast, over all the earth and over every animal that is moving on the earth." Which, of course, reemphasizes Gen 1:26: they (man and woman) are to do this together. No mention of one ruling over the other. In fact, we can jump ahead to the curse passages at Gen. 3:16 and find, "Yet by your husband is your restoration. And he shall rule over you." The super literal translation of the Hebrew, though, would read that her husband would be her impulse (or inspiration for existence) and that he will rule in her (not over her), which agrees semantically with impulse. It is as if the curse is declaring that henceforth wives will be ruled from within by their husbands -- as if the curse is to be hardwired to follow and to know it within themselves that following their husbands is how they were designed, but (a) what rules is from within, and (b) following his headship is the path to "restoration." [I would love it if I had extant copies of all the original manuscripts of Divine Scripture, because then we wouldn't have to engage in so much interpretation, but even with what we do have, I believe it is only appropriate that we don't stop with superficial reliance on just one translation (especially English ones, given that most of them are at best translations of translations of translations of translations). Organized religion has very frequently rewritten God's Word (research the mandates behind the creation of the textus receptus and the KJV to discover how polluted the mandates were) to become something that fit organized religion's agendas, and I have no problem believing that convincing husbands that they were to rule over their wives, subordinating their wives to lesser roles in life, was an agenda that benefited as well from reinterpreting patriarchy-as-overlord backwards in time; it has not been atheists who have been the primary promoters of The Wrathful God above all other interpretations of our Lord.] This speaks to the partnership dynamic that @andrew later asserts in this thread.
For whatever reason, Divine Word backtracks after Gen. 2:6 to fill in some information gaps. Gen. 2:7-20 details how God made the human, established the Garden of Eden, put the human in charge of and naming everything in it, and admonished the human to refrain from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "for on the day you eat from it, to die you shall be dying." What follows may only be tangentially enlightening, but I find it one of the more fascinating passages of Scripture, not to mention fodder for fascinating commentary on the types of topics that mainstream Christianity apparently believes we're better off not fully understanding; as @andrew says, learning Biblical truth about polygamy is a gateway drug for the lifelong habit of uncovering other truths that have been hidden from us; this is another gateway:
Genesis 2:21-23: "Then Yahweh Elohim caused a stupor to fall on the human. While he was sleeping, He took one of his angular organs [literally, 'angulars,' as that was the idiomatic expression for sexual and reproductive organs] and closed up the flesh over its place. Yahweh Elohim built the angular organ that He had taken from the human into a woman and brought her to the human. The human said: This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called woman [womb-man], for this was taken from her man." The implication of this is that Adam (Hebrew for 'the human being') was originally an all-in-one, and Eve (Hebrew for precursor/mother-of-all-who-follow) had previously been part of Adam. For the purposes of companionship, reproductive inspiration and getting some help with his chores, Adam's singular nature was divided up into a dual nature that would forevermore seek its other halves. And it probably begs the following question: prior to that stupor Adam underwent, was his male angular ruling his female angular?
Oh, boy, Andrew, did you hit the nail on the head with those sentences. The only thing I'll add to that is that, in all instances, I have to recognize that, when my wife is clueless about how her disrespect and rebellion translates into chaos with the children, I am still 100% responsible for the reigning rebellion, because it was my job to elevate familial respect to a high priority.
Amen, brother. I mentioned just above that I'm 100% responsible for the results in my family. What I have learned and continue to learn is that transforming my family is an endeavor that is not served well by any attempt on my part to rule, to demand or to dominate. Coming from love is always the answer, and, yes, there is a time and a place for tough love, but if most of the love is tough then it can't possibly really even be love; it's just insecurity-inspired bullying masquerading as love. Often -- and just when it can seem like anger or bullying or authoritarian rule are justified -- what is even more effective than those is to just temporarily back away from the situation. Give oneself time to think. And give others time to recognize what positive contributions are missing when one isn't engaged. Don't withhold yourself to punish, but when you recognize that the ship isn't headed in the right direction, let everyone else do all the rowing; what I've learned is that I often unconsciously row harder than most everyone else in the very direction I simultaneous claim I don't want to be headed.
Excellent point. Please forgive me for drawing it out a little further, @Cap. I love your distinction between leading and ruling, but distinguishing among another family of words is worthwhile. Author, authentic, authority, authorizing, authoritarian and authoritative all emerge from the same root, but the distinction you have made would more accurately have been between leadership, on the one hand, and authoritarian ruling, on the other. I'm tweaking this because 'authority' actually implies recognizable expertness; an 'authoritarian' just lords hirself over others because s/he has the power to do so, and that power may have next to nothing to do with any legitimate authority.
Again, amen. Except in the case of fully self-motivated individuals, how else can others learn? -- or, perhaps more appropriately, how else can our helpmeets learn to help us if we're not showing them what would be helpful? If someone doesn't know how to do something, modeling the behavior is one of the most effective teaching methods in existence. People rarely learn anything when told, "Here, do these chores that I don't want to do and don't even want to have to show you how to do, because those are the chores of your gender." We have been guilty of passing down lies as gospel, generation after generation, and both Christ and Paul have had more than enough to say about how we can make life more wonderful by putting love in the driver's seat. When my wife knows that I'm coming from love, that I'm committed to her best interests, and that I'm listening to her as well as wanting her to listen to me, she's much more likely to end up doing exactly what I wanted her to do in the first place.
I would only say though that I think when it comes to poly acceptance/transition overall, no amount of words and listening will make her jump up, happy to do what you want lol
Well let's just look at the clear statement of scripture back in the original passage we started discussing.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
So a husband is clearly stated to be the head of the wife here in Ephesians 5 as well as in other passages.
Now let's define the word head.
Thayer's Definition
1. the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
2. metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
A. of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
B. of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
C. of things: the corner stone
What level of authority does a master or lord have in relation to those under his authority? Is it not rule?
We can go round and round about Genesis and the exact roles that were in place prior to the curse but it really doesn't matter if after the curse we are said to be her head. That word is very clearly used to describe our relationship with her.
The idea that Jesus leadership and love was only sunshine and roses and unicorns is not true. He directly rebuked people on multiple occasions. He overturned the tables of the money changers. Of course patience and teaching was the first priority as it should be with a husband but the idea that we do not include ruling as part of the love we practice I believe is incorrect.
The idea that ruling someone is somehow a polar opposite of loving them is also incorrect.
Hebrews 12:6
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Before someone accuses me of suggesting that we scourge our wives let me clearly say that I am not recommending that. I bring up this verse because it is clear evidence that ruling and loving are absolutely able to exist at the same time.
Perhaps we disagree about the word rule being used but I stand by my claim that it is a scriptural word and it does describe part of how we are supposed to love our wives.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
So a husband is clearly stated to be the head of the wife here in Ephesians 5 as well as in other passages.
Now let's define the word head.
Thayer's Definition
1. the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
2. metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
A. of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
B. of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
C. of things: the corner stone
What level of authority does a master or lord have in relation to those under his authority? Is it not rule?
We can go round and round about Genesis and the exact roles that were in place prior to the curse but it really doesn't matter if after the curse we are said to be her head. That word is very clearly used to describe our relationship with her.
The idea that Jesus leadership and love was only sunshine and roses and unicorns is not true. He directly rebuked people on multiple occasions. He overturned the tables of the money changers. Of course patience and teaching was the first priority as it should be with a husband but the idea that we do not include ruling as part of the love we practice I believe is incorrect.
The idea that ruling someone is somehow a polar opposite of loving them is also incorrect.
Hebrews 12:6
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Before someone accuses me of suggesting that we scourge our wives let me clearly say that I am not recommending that. I bring up this verse because it is clear evidence that ruling and loving are absolutely able to exist at the same time.
Perhaps we disagree about the word rule being used but I stand by my claim that it is a scriptural word and it does describe part of how we are supposed to love our wives.
I've been giving you thoughts on Gen 3:16 off and on throughout this thread, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for at this point. The man's "power over" the woman was an artifact of the fall. In Gen 1 they look more like co-leaders (both having been charged by God to fill, subdue, and have dominion over the earth), and Gen 2 adds the part where the woman was split off from and fashioned from the man's flesh to help him and so he wouldn't be alone (which I believe goes more to her reproductive capacity than the idea that she single-handedly solves his alone-ness problem). Then they booger it all up, and God says the man shall have power over the woman.
Fortunately for us, that's not the end of the story. Jesus comes along a few millenia later, becomes the ultimate remedy for our sin problem, and unleashes the Holy Spirit to fill and empower believers, then His apostle Paul comes along and teaches us how we're supposed to treat wives, emphasizing again the essential "one flesh" unity of the man and woman and specifically using the metaphor of a head and body: we are to love, sacrifice for, bathe, nourish, and cherish them, just as Christ did the church, just as a (sane) man does his own fleshy body.
What else do you want to know?...
Pacman, it looks from your most recent post (#112) like we're just going in circles now. You want to insist that "head" means "master" means "rule" because one of your study aids and a couple of inferences get you from point A to point B. I insist that Paul meant what he actually clearly said, and his purpose in using the head/body metaphor was sufficiently explained in his own words: to denote the intimate unity that should exist between a man and a woman and the level of care a head should have for its own body. You turn that into something else at your own risk.
My apologies I was unclear with my post I was referring more to the first part of the statement. Trying to find out if we are defining rule the same way.
Ruling is not possible without the authority to compel obedience (if necessary) from the follower.
This is all very interesting reading @andrew and @Keith Martin, and you've given us all plenty to ponder. And I must stress that I have no problem with the intent of your statements, to encourage loving leadership rather than authoritarianism. But I think you're going a bit too far in your reasoning.
We must ensure that our exegesis of Genesis aligns with the exegesis found in scripture. And Paul's exegesis of this passage is as follows:
1 Corinthians 11:3,8-9
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. ... For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
So according to Paul, man is the head of woman, not because of the fall, but because the woman was created from him, and for him. He doesn't mention the fall at all. He sees this as something existing from creation.
I think this is actually completely consistent with @Keith Martin's proposal that Eve may have been created from a sexual organ rather than a rib (I don't know whether that's correct, I'm just accepting it for arguments sake in this post). So, the original human had a head (in control), and various body parts (under the control of the head). Then one of those body parts was taken and formed into a separate being. But that part was not the head. The original head remained on the man. Thus the authority remained with the man.
We must ensure that our exegesis of Genesis aligns with the exegesis found in scripture. And Paul's exegesis of this passage is as follows:
1 Corinthians 11:3,8-9
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. ... For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
So according to Paul, man is the head of woman, not because of the fall, but because the woman was created from him, and for him. He doesn't mention the fall at all. He sees this as something existing from creation.
I think this is actually completely consistent with @Keith Martin's proposal that Eve may have been created from a sexual organ rather than a rib (I don't know whether that's correct, I'm just accepting it for arguments sake in this post). So, the original human had a head (in control), and various body parts (under the control of the head). Then one of those body parts was taken and formed into a separate being. But that part was not the head. The original head remained on the man. Thus the authority remained with the man.
I agree with you on this(mostly). Paul meant what he said. What I'm saying is that definitions of the terms matter. Define head in Ephesians 5 and anywhere else that it is used to explain the authority of the husband.
My point in that post is not to go back in a circle. I'm drawing out a different point. It seems to me that the master and lord part is simply assumed by Paul everywhere that he uses the term head to describe the husband's authority.
It also seems to fit every passage that I can think of about how a wife is supposed to behave towards her husband.
Agreed. The essence of "ruling" is that you use force to compel people to do what you want them to do, even if it's not what they want to do.
Trying to define head solely within the body metaphor and not superimposing any external opinion from commentaries, how is a head to treat the body?
We should obviously start with:
Eph 5:28-29 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
1 Cor 12:22-26
Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
But must not ignore:
1 Cor 9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Mat 5:29-30
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
If you look at only one side, you're unbalanced - doesn't matter which side you're focussing on.
So the take-home message is the same even sticking solely within this illustration. The head directs the entire body, lovingly and tenderly, but also fully. Absolutely this should be a loving and natural arrangement. However the authority of the head is still real. We are taught how to exercise that with care, love and restraint.
We should obviously start with:
Eph 5:28-29 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
1 Cor 12:22-26
Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
But must not ignore:
1 Cor 9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Mat 5:29-30
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
If you look at only one side, you're unbalanced - doesn't matter which side you're focussing on.
So the take-home message is the same even sticking solely within this illustration. The head directs the entire body, lovingly and tenderly, but also fully. Absolutely this should be a loving and natural arrangement. However the authority of the head is still real. We are taught how to exercise that with care, love and restraint.
So is Mat 5 an argument for capital punishment of disobedient wives, or just divorce? 
I'm gonna have to get back to you on the rest of it (esp this most recent post), but a word on your next-to-last post above: I never argued that the headship is a result of the fall; I argued that the word translated "rule" in Gen 3 was a result of the fall, and I'll stand by that (future tense, yada, yada). The question that I was afraid you were begging until you followed up with the next post is "what does headship imply?".
Note that 1 Cor 11 is a discussion of order in the body of Christ; in other words, it's not exactly on point with Eph 5 (how husbands are supposed to love their wives), and it's not self-evident how far it goes in a practical sense beyond the actual teaching that women are supposed to pray with their heads covered, and maybe actually have long hair, because "headship".
There's also the fiddly bit that Paul follows up with that no one likes to quote in these conversations:
Bottom line, though, for 1 Cor 11: Once again, the thing the man is supposed to remember and deal with is that he is submitted to Christ, his Head (so he prays uncovered), and the thing the woman is supposed to remember and deal with is that she is submitted to her man, who is her head (so she prays covered). There is no "therefore men, rule your wives" in this passage.
Meanwhile if they were about husband/wife relationships, 1 Cor 9:27 would be an argument for wife beating, and Mat 5 would be an argument for even more extreme remedies, but fortunately neither passage is directly related to husband/wife relationships. Not really sure where you want to go with all that, but I'll come back later and give a more useful response.
To be continued....
I'm gonna have to get back to you on the rest of it (esp this most recent post), but a word on your next-to-last post above: I never argued that the headship is a result of the fall; I argued that the word translated "rule" in Gen 3 was a result of the fall, and I'll stand by that (future tense, yada, yada). The question that I was afraid you were begging until you followed up with the next post is "what does headship imply?".
Note that 1 Cor 11 is a discussion of order in the body of Christ; in other words, it's not exactly on point with Eph 5 (how husbands are supposed to love their wives), and it's not self-evident how far it goes in a practical sense beyond the actual teaching that women are supposed to pray with their heads covered, and maybe actually have long hair, because "headship".
There's also the fiddly bit that Paul follows up with that no one likes to quote in these conversations:
Once again Paul brings up the issue of our essential unity in the Lord. And now he introduces a new concept: That the first woman was made from the first man, but every man after that came "by" (or maybe better, "through") the woman! But "all things of God", right? Don't you wish Paul had spent a little more time on what he meant by that, instead of just repeating himself on the hair and covering thing?
Bottom line, though, for 1 Cor 11: Once again, the thing the man is supposed to remember and deal with is that he is submitted to Christ, his Head (so he prays uncovered), and the thing the woman is supposed to remember and deal with is that she is submitted to her man, who is her head (so she prays covered). There is no "therefore men, rule your wives" in this passage.
Meanwhile if they were about husband/wife relationships, 1 Cor 9:27 would be an argument for wife beating, and Mat 5 would be an argument for even more extreme remedies, but fortunately neither passage is directly related to husband/wife relationships. Not really sure where you want to go with all that, but I'll come back later and give a more useful response.
To be continued....