Authority of the Husband in the Home

Steve_S · October 22, 2015

Greetings All,

This discussion will be between Shiloh357 and Butero regarding the authority of the husband in the home.

Please be cognizant of the fact that this forum is specifically designed for one on one discussions between only the two members involved. If you are not Shiloh357 or Butero, please do not, under any circumstances, post in this thread.

October 23, 2015

In order to understand the roles of both husband and wife in marriage, we first need a working knowledge of God’s view of marriage and what He intends marriage look like and how it should function. I do not have time and space to unpack an entire theology of marriage. My purpose by way of introduction, is to zero in on what I see as the most important and the most relevant aspect of a theology of marriage to our discussion today. One of the most important biblical concepts regarding marriage is that marriage is a covenant between a husband and wife to each other, as well as a covenant between them as a couple with God.

Marriage as A Covenant

Whereas the religious leaders treated marriage like a contract, The Bible treats marriage as a covenant. The first explicit reference to marriage as a covenant is found in Malachi 2:14 where God chides the men of Israel for being unfaithful to their wives and violating their marriage covenant. The word for “covenant” in Hebrew (brit) is a strong word and speaks to the strongest, unbreakable relationship known to the ancient world. In Genesis 15, God cut a covenant with Abraham of a type that was the strongest covenant known to the ancient near east at that time. God casts marriage as a covenant to show how important marriage is to Him. He speaks in v. 15 of having made them one so that they would produce godly offspring. God, in this verse encourages them to remain faithful to their wives, thus promoting marriage as a monogamous relationship.

So it is vitally important for us to understand that marriage is not a contract wherein we seek what benefits us. A covenant relationship between husband and wife is based on a mutual desire to seek that which makes for each other’s highest good. That what being in a covenant is all about. In a covenant, I live to serve and bless you, and I will live for you and die for you. In covenant, it’s all about making each other’s life better. So with that in mind, let’s look at the foundational Scriptures regarding marriage to understand the role of husband wife.

Leave and Cleave

The first marriage in the Bible took place in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:24-25 reveals the first marriage that took place. It is the foundational passage on marriage. The man is to leave his parents and cleave unto his wife. She is to take precedence over his parents, and by implication her loyalty is to be to her husband. The word “cleave” means to be joined to, and in this context it is a joining that is reflected in supreme loyalty, affection and devotion. They are to be one flesh. The husband and his wife are to be unified together, they are a team and function as single unit, while at the same time maintaining their unique personalities as individuals. It was Gen. 2:24 that Jesus quoted and commented on in Matt. 19:3-9. Jesus affirmed the institution of marriage. In both passages, they mention man leaving his parents and cleaving to his wife. The word “leave” is juxtaposed against the word “cleave” as being opposite in meaning. The man is to separate from his father and mother and his wife takes priority over all other family members. The word “cleave” means to join and become as one. The text says they will become one flesh. The word “one’ is a word used to describe the unity of Godhead in Duet. 6:4 and it is used here in the same way to speak of the unity or oneness of a husband and wife.

The Wife as a Helper

Marriage is the most foundational institution for human society, but humans did not create marriage. Marriage is of divine origin. God, the creator of heaven and earth was the first to ordain marriage. Marriage is His domain, His institution. God had created Adam and while all of the animals had mates there was no one suitable for Adam. In Gen. 2:18 God says that he would make a “helper” (ezer) for Adam. Interestingly, this word doesn’t mean “helper” in the sense that Adam was the expert and the woman would be his sidekick. We often think of a “helper” as the novice who holds the tools for the master craftsmen. The helper is often the inferior in our way of thinking. But this word is often used of God Himself as man’s “helper.” And it is in that sense that word is used in Gen. 2:18. She is not one level down from her husband. The woman would be the “helper” she is the one who would fill up with the man lacked. She would make him better.

Husbands and Wife in Mutual Covenant Service

Let’s examine Eph. 5:22-25. We have, in this passage, the essence of a covenant relationship where both parties serve one another. Notice that this passage addresses wives and husbands, not men and women. This is to be understood only in the framework of a marital covenant. The wife is to submit to the love and leadership of her husband. He is to love His wife sacrificially just as Jesus loved the Church and gave his life for us. Here, we see marriage compared to the New Covenant. The husband and wife are a picture of Christ and His Church in a loving, covenant relationship.

Eph. 5:22-25 exists in a context of mutual submissiveness as an expression of a Spirit-controlled life. Those who see the man as the autocratic master of the home always quote v. 22 but ignore v. 21. “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” In chapters five and six of Ephesians, Paul is laying out for us what a Spirit-filled/controlled life looks like and starting in v. 21 he describes mutual submission and the first area of mutual submission he goes to is marriage in 5: 22-33, secondly the submission of children to their parents, in 6:1-4 and employees to employers in 6:5-9.

But only in 5:22-33 do we have a covenant relationship and the idea of submission given in that passage is mutual. Husbands are commanded to love their wives. Love, by nature is a servant. As stated earlier, love is always looking out for your best interests. The covenant ideals of loving kindness and mercy are part of how God works out His covenants. God expects those ideals to be in operation in marriage. A man cannot love his wife without serving her and loving her sacrificially. In a covenant, you love that person to your own detriment if need be. You love them through thick and thin. That’s what a husband should do, biblically. She is not there to serve his selfish whims and it is not his biblical duty to micro-manage where she goes, what she wears, what she eats, etc. She submits to him as her spiritual head. He serves her needs, gives her a home, financial stability, protection, and loves her as himself. Paul in expanding on man and wife being one flesh in Eph. 5: 28-33 , states that the husband is to love and care for her in the same way he cares for himself. They are one flesh, to love her is to love himself, according to Paul.

Husband as Ruler?

Butero rests the notion of the husband being the “ruler” or master of the home on passages like Gen. 3:16 and I Tim. 3:12. In Gen. 3:16 it says, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Now, if we take this passage at face value, it looks like man is the master of the wife. She is to sit down, shut up and do what he says, when he says, and she is not allowed to deviate whatsoever. But face-value approaches to texts in the Bible often results in really bad theology.

This passage isn’t as crass as it may seem and it is not giving man autocratic authority over his wife. Too often husbands just grab those last six words of that verse and run with it. But it needs to be kept in mind that the marriage covenant is still in force. The covenant relationship was not annulled after the fall. In fact, it is needed more after the fall than before. Because we are dealing with a covenant, the “rulership” isn’t what we think of when that term comes to mind. It is true that the Hebrew word, “mashal” means to rule or govern. But what does that look like in the context of a marital covenant? What are the husband’s responsibilities in that regard? In a marital covenant, the only “Master” is God. He is the Lord of the marriage. The man, as the spiritual head of the wife is responsible before God to “rule” in that he provides the home, the necessities and takes care of the needs of the wife. He rules only in the sense that she is able to depend on him as her provider and her protector.

This is borne out even more in I Tim. 3:12, which says, “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” This verse is not referring to autocratic leadership, and is comparing the role of the husband to that of a deacon, which by the way, is a servant. The Greek word for deacon means, “servant.” This verse states that a deacon must be shown to be a faithful husband. He must demonstrate that he is a capable manager of his own house. The role of deacon is not a “rulership” role and so the idea that Paul would state that a qualification for a deacon is that he be an autocratic ruler simply doesn’t follow. The role of the husband is to nurture, protect and provide for his family. If a man cannot provide for and nurture his family, then he is not qualified to be a deacon. He must be shown to be a servant-leader in his home first. That is the most practical training ground for being a deacon. The same applies for the role of bishop/pastor. A pastor, like the deacon is a servant-leader. He is not a controller.

The idea that the husband can needle his wife over the most miniscule things and she is to comply or else be considered a rebel is simply not found in the Bible. If his wife decides to live in sin and rejects his spiritual leadership, then yes she is in rebellion, but she is rebellion against God, as well. But to argue that the husband can dictate to her what she can or cannot eat, how much makeup to wear, if any, or how to cut or not cut her hair and if she doesn’t comply, she is in “rebellion” is simply not biblically defensible and doesn’t agree with the covenant concept of marriage.

October 23, 2015

Let's begin with the assertion that marriage is a covenant. I agree with that. It certainly is. What is a covenant? The Greek word for covenant is diatheke, and it means a contract. Shiloh said, and I quote "Whereas the religious leaders treated marriage as a contract, the Bible treats marriage as a covenant." This is the foundation for much of his message. The problem is, a covenant and a contract are the exact same thing. That alone destroys much of his argument.
A covenant or contract is basically an agreement between different parties. The Old Testament word for covenant was beriyth, and it means a compact or league. To be a covenant, both parties don't have to be looking out for what is best for each other or the other person at all. Many covenants exist to protect each person as an individual, so again, these claims by Shiloh sound good on the surface until you do a little research with a Greek and Hebrew Dictionary. Then they fall apart.

First of all, the claim that covenant means "contract" isn't true. Greek Scholar Spiros Zodihates in his Greek Dictionary published by AMG Publishers, explains diatheke this way: "A covenant, but not in the sense that God came to an agreement or compromise with fallen man as if signing a contract. Rather, it involves the declaration of God's unconditional promise to make Abraham and his seed the recipients of certain blessings (Gen. 13:14-17; Gen. 15:18; Gen.17:7-8, Gen. 17:19-21; Gen. 21:12, Gen. 21:14; Gen. 22:2, Gen. 22:12)."

Gary Chapman gives, what I think is the best explanation of the differences between a covenant and a contract:

“There are four general characteristics of contracts:

1. Contracts are often made for a limited period of time.

Although most marriage ceremonies involve the phrase, "till death do us part," many couples interpret that as, "We're committed to each other if this relationship is mutually beneficial."

2. Contracts often deal with specific actions.

Most informal contracts made within the marriage also deal with specific actions. Such informal agreements can be a positive way of living out a covenant marriage.

3. Contracts are based on an "If..., then...," mentality.

Couples with this mentality in which one spouse relies on the other spouse for happiness may struggle deeply in the first several years of their marriage.

4. Contracts are motivated by the desire to get something.

People sign a lease contract because they want to have a car. The salesman signs the contract because he wants the commission. Many conversations in marriage are motivated to get something.

Covenant Characteristics

A covenant, like a contract, is an agreement between two or more persons, but the nature of the agreement is different. The biblical pattern reveals five characteristics of covenants.

1. Covenants are initiated for the benefit of the other person.

Many of us can honestly say that we entered marriage motivated by the deep desire to benefit the person we were about to marry. Our intention was to make them happy. However, when needs aren't met, spouses can revert to a contract mentality.

2. In covenant relationships people make unconditional promises.

Covenant marriages are characterized by unconditional promises, such as those spoken in traditional wedding vows.

3. Covenant relationships are based on steadfast love.

In a marriage, steadfast love refuses to focus on the negative aspects of one's spouse. Steadfast love is a choice.

4. Covenant relationships view commitments as permanent.

Unquestionably the biblical ideal is one man and one woman married to each other for life. As Christians, we must not lower the ideal. This standard can only be attained if we practice the fifth characteristic of covenants.

5. Covenant relationships require confrontation and forgiveness.

These two responses are essential in a covenant marriage. Confrontation means holding the other person responsible for his or her actions. Forgiving means a willingness to lift the penalty and continue a loving, growing relationship. Ignoring the failures of your spouse isn't the road to marital growth.” http://www.lifeway.com/Article/HomeLife-Marriage-Covenant-or-Contract

Next I want to address what Shiloh said about the word help-meet. The definition speaks for itself. The Hebrew word is ezer, and it means aid, help. Shiloh says that this word is often used by God himself to show himself man's helper, so it can mean something other than an assistant or one step below, however when Shiloh takes this a step further and claims it does mean it in similar fashion to God being our helper, that is pure speculation on his part. It could just as easily mean assistant or sidekick. All we have to go by is the fact the word ezer is used and it means aid, help. That is it. My opinion is that Shiloh is wrong in how he is using that word, but I can't go beyond the Dictionary with any credibility anymore than he can.

“Ezer” means exactly what I said it means and to say that I am only speculating that it is often used to refer to God as our Helper, is a rather weak argument given that there are myriads of verses that say just that. Here are some: (Exo.18:4; Deut. 33:7; 33:26; 33:29; Psalm 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9; 115:10; 115:11; 121:1; 121:2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos. 13:9)

In all of those places the word ezer is used and in NONE of those references is it ever used of someone who is inferior. In fact, there is not one place in the OT that ezer is ever used to refer to someone as inferior to the one being helped. In every case, the “help” or “helper” is there to fill up a need of the one needing help. The abundance of Scripture doesn’t support his view of helper. Thankfully, I don’t have to speculate about this.

Next, Shiloh goes into Ephesians 5:22-25, which does speak about marriage, and claims he finds mutual submission here, but that simply isn't true. He bases that claim on two things. One is his teaching on covenants verses contracts, which was flawed from the beginning since they mean the same thing, and his claim that love means submission, which it does not. Christ loves us, but when we are in heaven, we will be submitting to him, not the other way around. Everything in that paragraph is full of holes.

Actually, the mutual submission is based on Eph. 5:21 which introduces the context of relationships and how being “submitted one to another works. Paul uses three examples: Marriage, Children and Employees. From Eph. 5:21-6:9, there is mutual submission in all three examples. In all three examples, there are ways that both parties serve each other.

I have already dealt with faulty notion that covenants are contracts. Next, I did not say, the love means submission. What I am said is that love, by nature is a servant. Love is always others-centered, never self-centered. Love within the context of covenant is the strongest love you can have for another person and it is entirely based on their needs, not your own needs. So in marriage, there should be two people expressing covenant love for each other by seeing to each other’s needs. Love doesn’t mean, “submission,” but love will seek to meet the needs of its object.

Shiloh comes against the clear meaning of the word rule in Genesis by trying to water down the actual definition by slight of hand. He goes back to this flawed covenant teaching. He makes the claim that the only master in the covenant relationship is God, and that just not true. He gives nothing to back that up. It contradicts scripture and he has already contradicted the dictionary definition of the word translated to rule. The New Testament refers to how Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord, and that is used as an example. Shiloh makes all kinds of unsubstantiated claims that the clear meaning isn't correct. He says the man's authority is limited to this or that, but has no basis for making those claims. It is just Shiloh saying it is so, and we are supposed to accept it, even if it doesn't jive with the definition of words or what the text actually says, based on his faulty covenant verses contract doctrine.

I am not changing the definition of the word, rule. I am expanding its application within the context of a marriage covenant relationship. “Rule” means far more than simply being a despotic overlord that makes demands and barks out orders. Rulers in marriage are providers, protectors and nurturers. They take the lead in seeing that the family is plugged into a local Church, they raise their family in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They discipline the children, they keep the family sheltered, well fed and they keep the bills paid. They encourage their wives to be modest. They look to please their wives and meet her physical needs and they are willing to put their own lives at risk to save hers. That’s what good “ruler” does. He is a good manager of household. He leads by example in all matters of honesty, integrity, and godliness.

The deacon does hold a type of servant role in the church, but that has no bearing on the meaning of the word rule. He is seeking a very important position, and they are looking for people that have proven themselves to be of good character. Bishop has the same qualification, and he leads the whole church, so that is a smoke screen argument. That is not even worth giving serious consideration to. Shiloh claims the Pastor or Bishop is not a controller. That is not true. He has real power, and is free to make decisions as he sees fit. He can choose to be a mild mannered leader or a tyrant, but the authority is there to do whatever, as is the husband's authority in the home.

The servant-leader position of deacon does have an incredible bearing on the application of the word “rule.” If you are wanting to fill that kind of position, then it naturally follows that you would seek someone with the kind of servant-leader qualities that such a position requires. There is no better place to look than how a man manages his family. A man who is tyrannical at home, who is a manipulator, a control freak, is not the kind of man you look for to fill the position of a servant. But a man who loves his wife, who openly respects her and praises his children and is always careful to be a man of integrity in all matters is responsible in his home life, is a man fit to be servant in the Church. The man who faithfully serves his family is the kind of man fit to serve the Church.

Shiloh's final comment is just false. The husband's authority is not limited at all. Lets look at the text he brought up in Ephesians 5:24.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
There are no limitations here. It doesn't limit him to where he cannot tell his wife not to wear make-up or what to wear. There is no limits whatsoever.

It’s not that a husband’s authority is limited. I don’t recall saying it was limited. Rather, the Bible doesn’t have a tyrannical, manipulative application of the husband’s authority in mind at all, anywhere. The autocratic husband who thinks his wife is there to serve him and to wait on him and must obey every one of his silly petty whims is a self-centered man and is in fact, not operating in the fruit of the Spirit and cannot really make the argument that he loves his wife. Love doesn’t make a laundry lists of demands, but rather seeks to be a blessing and operate with the understanding that he is part of something bigger than himself and more important than himself.

In reference to Eph. 5:24. I agree that she should be submissive in everything he asks her to do. But that submission is in the context of a godly relationship. It is in the context of a man who is being controlled by the Spirit and loving her in the way that Christ loves the Church. There is no Christian woman who would not submit to that kind of man.

October 23, 2015

I was going to go through here section by section Shiloh and dispute things you said as I did before, but I am not sure it is worth doing until I get a straight answer to your view on the husband's amount of authority. My position has always been that his authority is without limits. He can ask anything he wants of his wife and she is supposed to submit, so long as he isn't asking her to commit a sin. Before I try to go through this entire thread and deal with each point, which I am prepared to do, if you are not saying that the husband's authority is limited, what are you saying? We haven't even begun to address how the husband should behave, or we have barely touched on it because our discussions weren't about that. I already stated I was ok with starting a thread on that subject after this topic had run it's course. I am just saying that the husband's power is absolute.
You have a lot of opinions about a man who rules his household in a certain manner, but that is all they are. You can't prove anything you said. Regardless of that, I will ask you one question, and if your answer is satisfactory, we may be able to wrap this thing up much sooner than I had thought possible.
I recognize that you don't think the husband should behave in a controlling manner towards his wife. I get that. My question to you is, if the husband does choose to rule in a controlling manner, telling his wife how to fix her hair, dress, and have his dinner on the table at a certain time, does he have that right? When I say right, I mean Biblical authority. Again, I am not saying he should do this or shouldn't do this. I just want to know if you acknowledge his authority, yes or no?

Asking if the husband has the right to act like a tyrant and micro-manage his wife is the wrong questions and it demonstrates an unbiblical view of what marriage is supposed to look like. You do not demonstrate a biblical view of marriage. Your view is selfish. Nothing the Bible presents marriage as a one way street, where man is an autocrat. There is nothing in the Bible that gives a man the right be a dictator. You have not made the case that it does.

I gave you the definition of ezer. It means what it means according to the Dictionary. To add to that is speculation regardless of what you say. This is a clear example of what I predicted you would do. You would deny the Dictionary definition of Greek and Hebrew words were correct. I am not surprised by this at all. Anyone can look them up for themselves.

Nothing you posted from the Greek dictionary proves that the helper is inferior to the one being helped. That's the case you need to make. I demonstrated from Scripture how the word ezer is used. And it never uses ezer to refer to the helper as an inferior tag-along. Your notion that the helper is inferior is YOUR subjective opinion. You didn't get that from a Greek dictionary.

The scriptures about mutual submission have nothing to do with the husband and wife in the sense of making null and void the chain of authority.

I never said it did.

We are to submit to each other in the sense of if someone has a need, trying to meet it. That is in a general sense towards all brothers and sisters in Christ. In the home, there is a clear chain of authority, and there is nothing that makes that null and void as a result of mutual submission.There

There is a chain of authority, but that authority is exercised in the context of a marital covenant between two equal partners.

October 26, 2015

Covenant according to New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language: An agreement entered into by two or more persons or parties, a compact. The word compact according to that same dictionary means a covenant, agreement, or contract.
Covenant according to The New Compact Bible Dictionary means: A mutual agreement between 2 or more persons to do or refrain from doing certain acts.

Covenant according to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language says: An agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified. Just to be really thorough, I decided to also look up the word contract in that same dictionary, and notice how close that definition is to the definition of covenant. An agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.

Covenant doesn't mean what you say it means or what Gary Chapman says it means. It means what the Dictionary says it means, and it doesn't have to meet the guidelines Gary Chapman says it does. It doesn't have to be for the benefit of the other person. They don't have to be based on stedfast love. A covenant relationship doesn't require confrontation and forgiveness. All of those comments are false, and he didn't give anything to back any of those comments up. There are multitudes of authors who have to come up with new insight into a subject in order to sell their books. They make up things that are not true, but who cares, since there will always be people that will buy them and accept what they say without question. I have seen well known ministers like Benny Henn, Kenneth Copeland, and Myles Munroe create weird doctrines to sell books and audio cassettes, and gain a following. Everything these authors say aren't always wrong, but they make things up to come up with original doctrines. That is what Gary Chapman seems to have done in making up his covenant relationship in marriage teaching. There is no way to prove anything he said, because much of it is false. Now on to ezer, the word translated to help-meet

The problem is that you are trying to apply modern definitions to a biblical concept. Today, in our day and age, we do use the word “covenant” to mean contract. But that is not how the Bible uses the term. The Bible never views a covenant as contract. A good example is the Abrahamic Covenant. When God made the Abrahamic Covenant, He didn’t treat it as a contract. He even altered the actual covenant procedures by not allowing Abraham to walk with Him between the halves. Only those who walked between the halves were obligated to keep the covenant and God walk alone between those animal halves. That meant that God alone was responsible and obligated to keep the terms of the covenant and thus only God gets credit and the glory for it.

The problem with your response is that you cannot point to any of the biblical covenants to show how they operate as contracts. Simply calling them contracts, as if that pronouncement is enough, doesn’t really cut it. There are seven other biblical covenants, beside the marriage covenant, and none of them operate as contracts, none of them have the character of contracts. And to argue that marriage is a contract demonstrates a fundamental flaw in your view of marriage and the nature of that relationship.

A contract is based on self and what I get. It based on me getting the best deal I can get and how I can come out on top, how I come out the winner. That is the kiss of death to marriage. Marriage is a covenant that is based on doing what is in your best interest, where I sacrifice my needs to see to that your needs are met.

You said, "In fact, there is not one place in the OT that ezer is ever used to refer to someone as inferior to the one being helped. In every case, the "help" or "helper" is there to fill up a need of the one needing help." Here is an example where that is not the case.

Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help (ezer): but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. Daniel 11:34 That hardly sounds like God coming to the rescue. The word means by definition aid, help, as I said it does, so when you go beyond that, you are speculating

Well, you must not have read the passage. The ones who stumble need help from someone who is able to help them. That places the helper above the one who stumbled, the one needing help. So, my point remains intact. I am not speculating. I provided a multitude of Scriptures that you have conveniently brushed aside, and the only verse YOU provide you misunderstand. So you really haven’t accomplished much, here.

But here is an interesting way I can turn this word comparison around on you. You are claiming that the word ezer doesn't mean someone inferior like a sidekick based on how it is used throughout the OT. Lets do that same exact thing with the word translated rule, and how it is used in the OT. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The word again was mashal, and it means to rule, have dominion, governor, reign, bear rule, have power. Now, lets look at some examples where that word is used in other places in the OT.

Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule (mashal) thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also. Judges 8:22 They clearly meant like a King.

And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord: and a fierce king shall rule (mashal) over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. Isaiah 19:4

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule (mashal) over thee. Genesis 3:16 Mashal defined: rule, have dominion, govern, reign, bear rule, have power.

I stated that the husband's position is that he would literally bear rule over or reign over his wife like a king over his castle, and using the same exact method you chose to back up your use of the word ezer, I am using that method on the word mashal to show examples of how it is used to show I am correct

Yes, there are contexts where “rule” means to reign. But that is not how it is used in the context of a marriage covenant between two people are one flesh. The concept of the intimate union of two people who are one flesh doesn’t fit with the idea that one is reign over the other. The marriage relationship is a picture of the union of the Father and Son, and I guess we could say that union of all three members of the Godhead. Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus and the Father are equally God. While Jesus submitted to the Father on earth, they were/are co-equal in deity. Submission in the context of the Trinity, never means that the One submitting is inferior to the One being submitted to.

The husband has a higher rank in the family structure, but that does not make the wife his vassal, or his inferior partner. The husband and wife have different roles but they operate as equal partners in the covenant. That means that the usage of “rule” in a familial context doesn’t mean to reign over or exercise mastery over the other person.

Before we delve into this discussion further, I want to close out this post by once again showing why my position is correct and Shiloh's is wrong. My position is based on scripture and it's plain meaning. It is based on the Dictionary meaning of words. Shiloh's positions is based in large part on what Gary Chapman says about marriage, and a teaching he came up with that states that marriage is a covenant not a contract. Again, covenant means contract according to the Dictionary, and both words have the same definition in Webster's Dictionary. Gary Chapman does a lot of explaining about what he thinks a covenant is, but can't back up any of it, and it doesn't jive with the Dictionary. It is just made up. It is nothing more than a doctrine he made up to create a marriage teaching he could profit on by selling books and doing seminars. Shiloh apparently got hold of this mess, accepted it as true, and has been teaching it as fact

Your position has so far ignored Scripture with the except of a few proof texts, one of which you misrepresented. My position isn’t based on Gary Chapman, but rather I feel that Gary Chapman explained the differences between the nature of the contracts vs. covenants. You didn’t actually engage Chapman’s claims. You summarily brushed them aside and decreed them to be wrong without actually engaging his comments and demonstrating WHY he is wrong. You take modern dictionaries use them to address issue they didn’t intend to address. Those modern dictionaries were not trying to define the ancient near eastern concept of a covenant. They were address our modern western use of “covenant.”

Basically, Gary Chapman is wrong because YOU say he’s wrong and evidently you don’t think you need to actually engage his comments. The problem is that you cannot scripturally prove that Chapman’s comments are mistaken. I challenge you to take his points one by one and prove him wrong.

October 27, 2015

First of all, I came back and added modern day definitions to definitions I had already given from the Greek and Hebrew words used in the Bible. You chose to ignore those definitions. I just did that for further proof of something I had already shown. I dismissed what Gary Chapman said for a couple of different reasons. First of all, the word translated to covenant in our New Testament, hardly modern English, means contract. I already showed you that. The other reason I have dismissed what Gary Chapman said is he stated what he claims a covenant is, but he gave nothing to back it up. He just said it so we are supposed to accept it. The burden of proof is on him to show why what he said is true, and he didn't do that.

You tried to claim that the Bible defines covenant as contract in GREEK (not “Greek and Hebrew), but then you were working from Strong’s. I provided a better Greek dictionary source that says that covenant, in the Bible isn’t a “contract.” I cited Spiros Zodiahates, a Christian scholar in Greek who says the following about the Greek word diatheke: "A covenant, but not in the sense that God came to an agreement or compromise with fallen man as if signing a contract. Rather, it involves the declaration of God's unconditional promise to make Abraham and his seed the recipients of certain blessings (Gen_13:14-17; Gen_15:18; Gen_17:7-8, Gen_17:19-21; Gen_21:12, Gen_21:14; Gen_22:2, Gen_22:12)." The idea of a “contract” is really a very bad definition of covenant from a biblical perspective because it doesn’t really communicate what a covenant is. You are not relying on Scripture for your definition of “covenant.” You are relying on Augustus Strong and modern dictionaries.

I would add that the New Covenant isn’t a contract, in that the New Covenant is based on Jesus’ finished work on the cross. The New Covenant is not based on the idea of, “I will die for you, IF you do this for me.” Mankind didn’t have to enter into a contract with God in order for Jesus to be willing to die for us. The New Covenant came into existence unilaterally. Man had nothing to do with God’s decision to send His Son to be our Redeemer.

Gary Chapman’s explanation of the differences between covenants and contracts is based on their character, not lexical definitions. The burden of proof is not on him. The burden is proof is on you because you say he is wrong. If you cannot offer up any substantive challenge to show that covenants are in no way different that contracts, then his comments stand unchallenged. There is nothing for him to defend since you cannot really give any reasons to doubt what he said. Simply because you reject his view, doesn’t mean he is wrong and doesn’t place a burden on him to prove anything. Just because you don’t like his view doesn’t give anyone a reason to doubt what he said is true. You seem to think that rejecting what someone says counts as a refutation, and it doesn’t count for that at all.

I feel like we are going around in circles here, in that I am basing my position on the obvious meaning of the Biblical text, and the actual definitions, and you are basing your conclusions on Gary Chapman's teachings on a marriage covenant. You are bringing in extra-Biblical materials to try to prove your case, where I am just staying with the Bible and going with the meaning of the words found in the Bible.

No, you are not basing anything on the meanings given in Scripture. You are basing your position on what others have said. The Bible gives the definition of “covenant” but you opted for extra-biblical definitions based on Strong’s and modern dictionaries. You have not taken any of the major covenants of Scripture and demonstrated why they are nothing but contracts. I used Gary Chapman’s remarks, not as an authority in place of Scripture, but to show that the character of covenants and contracts are not the same thing and that the selfless nature of covenants is a better fit for the covenant of marriage than the self-seeking character of contracts. Chapman said it much better than I could have ever said it, so I deferred to him to make that point. To use Greek dictionaries and modern dictionaries to make your point and then accuse me of basing my views on extra-biblical sources is rather hypocritical.

There are a couple of major things I want to address before I attempt to move past this. First of all, I don't think God loves women less than men or values women less than men. I don't think women are inferior in the sense of less smart or capable in many areas. In some areas, women are able to do things men couldn't do. That really isn't the issue. The point I was making concerning the creation of the woman is that she was created by God for the specific task of being the man's help-meet. She was created for the man. That is her purpose for being. It is not about a self identity separate from the man, her husband. The second point I was making is that after the fall, it was decreed by God that the husband would rule over his wife. The word translated rule does mean like a King, and is used in that manner throughout the Old Testament. You are claiming it can't mean that in the marriage relationship, even though that is what it says and how the word is used, because of your marriage covenant doctrine that has not been shown to be true. It is just made up.

But you DO consider women inferior to men in some areas. You may not be claiming that God loves women less, but you have made the point more than once that women were made inferior to men and you are misusing the phrase “help-meet” to make that point. You have, in your mind, the image of the “help-meet” as the inferior tag-along who is there to clean up after the “ruler.” That is not how the Bible pictures it at all. Rulers don’t have help-meets. Rulers have subjects that do what their told to do. Rulers also have the power to punish as they see fit, if their decrees are not followed.

In fact, your notion of covenants being contracts completely nullifies the idea of rulership, if you are wanting to apply the “contract” analogy to marriage. Rulers don’t make contracts with their inferiors. They don’t need to. If they are rulers, then what they says goes, and the inferior person they are ruling. Contracts are mutual, and based on equally important interests on both sides. There are risks and obligations on both sides in a contract. Rulers don’t have obligations to their vassals. The vassals has the obligation of obedience. The Ruler unilaterally decides what benefits their subordinate receives or doesn’t receive. There is no contract. So you really can’t claim that the husband is ruler and at the same time argue that the marriage is a contract. You cannot mix those two concepts.

There is nothing given to verify any of it. I did promise you an example of a covenant that was based on self, rather than the other person, so here goes. This is an example of a covenant made purely out of fear, and the desire for self-preservation.
Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath one of his friends, and Phichol the chief captain of his army. And Isaac said unto them, Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you? And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a COVENANT with thee; That thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace: thou art the blessed of the LORD. Genesis 26:26-29
Clearly, this covenant doesn't come close to being what Gary Chapman represented a covenant to be. I have shown that the word covenant means contract, from the New Testament. I have shown that covenant and contract have the same meaning in Webster's Dictionary, and a Bible Dictionary. I have now given you a Bible example of a covenant made out of fear for self-preservation, and there is at least one more such example if I need it, if this isn't satisfactory. At this point, I want to move on to another point in my argument.

I will concede this one example to you. It is an exception to the rule. However, the exception to the rule doesn’t negate the rule. It doesn’t negate what has been said about the nature of marital covenant. It doesn’t mean that everything I have said about the nature of covenants vs. contracts is wrong. The overall treatment of covenant in Scripture is not contractual and marriage is not contractual, ever.

The only reason you feel the need to slam the marriage covenant is to make a case for the view that women were created to be subordinate to men and husbands are the masters and rulers over their wives. You can’t make the case within the context of a mutual covenant between equal partners. So you are not trying to defend the integrity of Scripture, but are using Scripture to impose and promote your tyrannical view of marriage.

Let's move to the New Testament, to Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit (hupotasso: To subordinate, to obey, be under obedience, put under, subdue unto, subject, submit self unto) yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject (hupottasso: To subordinate, to obey, be under obedience, put under, subdue unto, subject, submit self unto) unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. The word translated everything is pas, and it means all, any, every, the whole, all manner of, always, every, thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
Lets break this down. Wives are told to obey their husbands in the same way the church obeys Christ. How is that? In everything, the whole, always, every, thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever. In other words, no matter what Christ says, the church is supposed to obey him, and the wife is supposed to obey her husband no matter what he tells her to do. If we are going to say the wife doesn't have to obey her husband if his request seems unreasonable, then we can also claim that if Christ asks us to do something we don't like in the Bible, we don't have to do it either. Wives are to submit to their husbands in the same way the church is to submit to Christ. This is very plain. There shouldn't be any way to mix this up. In order to get this wrong, you have to deny the passage, and the Greek Dictionary explanation of the meaning of the words in the text.

But what the passage is not doing is giving the husband dictatorial authority. The reason I say that is based on what is said in both v. 21 and v. 25. Paul begins this discussion in v. 21 saying that we should submit to each other and then he gives three examples of what that looks like beginning with marriage.

Verse 25 precludes the husband from being a dictator and a tyrant because he is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church. The act of loving his wife as Christ loves the Church make it impossible to be dictator. In fact, love is based on service, not rulership. It is based on serving the needs of the other person. Love is a servant. So man is not commanded to reign over his wife; he is commanded to serve her and to lead by a godly example. He is commanded to love her with the same love that sent Jesus to the cross to give his life for the Church. It is a sacrificial love that gives everything to other person. He is to provide, protect and serve. Nothing in that text presents man as the overlord.

October 28, 2015

I was hoping to be able to do more in this next post than it looks like I will be able to, given all the things I have to rebut. You didn't give a better definition than what was found in my Dictionary for the word covenant. You gave the opinion of a Rabbi. That is not a Dictionary. A Dictionary simply tells us what the word means, it doesn't give us opinions. What you have done is tried to use a commentary of sorts to override the definition.

Gary Chapman most certainly does have the burden of proof on him to prove he is right. He made statements about what he says a covenant is based on nothing. That is like me saying there are 1,888,776,543 stars in the sky. That is how many God created. Then someone comes along and says that is not so, and asks for proof, and the other fellow says the burden of proof is to disprove it. That is the exact same thing you are expecting me to do. You have rebuked people in the past for doing that very same thing. Of course, I have already disproven it. The 5 sources of definitions that don't agree with Gary Chapman is one proof and the other is the covenant I provided from the Old Testament. If all covenants must meet the requirements he gave, then he has been proven wrong by my example.

The man is not ruler over his wife to be while they are single, as men in general are not automatically in authority over all women. The two enter into a marriage covenant or contract, and after that, the man is ruler over his wife. They even used to have the promise to "love, honor and obey" in the marriage vows for women. There is actually a part of the law of Moses that allows a man to enter into a contractual agreement to become his slave. The man doesn't need an agreement to own the slave he has, but he needed an agreement to take possession of that slave. Your entire reasoning is flawed. You are speaking of how a person already in authority doesn't have to enter into a contract with someone he is already over.

Now, lets tackle mutual submission. This has been misused to make null and void clear Bible teachings.

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Ephesians 5:21

This has nothing to do with the husband's authority in the home, anymore than it has to do with anyone else's position of authority anywhere. For one thing, there is nothing in the Bible that says one brother or sister is the same as another and all shall rule over you as part of the curse in Genesis. If that was the case, imagine the chaos it would cause. Lets look at this in light of other people in positions. Lets say the Bishop in a church. Most recognize him as the highest authority in a local congregation under Christ, but lets suppose I use your arguments towards him. He has a vision for his church, and he seeks to bring it about. That requires leadership, and some don't like his ideas. They tell him they refuse to follow him because he has no real authority as we are to submit mutually to one another. Lets say we did that with law enforcement. The Sheriff comes to enforce an ordinance and we refuse to comply as he has no real authority in that the Bible teaches mutual submission. We ask who are we to follow, God or man, and refuse to follow the law. Everyone wants to use this to claim the husband has no real authority in the home, but they don't use it anywhere else. It is like those who like to claim the rule over part of the curse is done away with, while ignoring the rest of the curse remains. That makes no logical sense.

All that Ephesians 5;21 is saying is that if someone has a need, and they ask for our assistance, we are to lend them a hand. Every time I do that, I am submitting to them. They are setting up a tent for a revival, and ask me to hold up the stake while they hammer it in. If I do, I have submitted to them. One of the ladies asks me to help her carry in the food she has prepared for the church dinner, and when I do, I have submitted to her. That is all that is talking about. It doesn't diminish one bit the authority anyone has, including the husband. If it means what you claim, then nobody has any right to rule over anyone, because we can all claim mutual submission and refuse to obey. We can rebel against all church officials for sure, but you know we aren't able to do that.

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 1 Peter 2:13-15

The Hebrew word that was translated rule in Genesis is the same word used to describe the authority of a King. Why is it that only the husband's authority is always coming into question, and nobody else's? If this submit to one another takes away his power, it would surely take away everyone's authority. Not only that, but wives are told to submit to their husbands in the same way the church submits to Christ. If I follow your teaching, then I don't have to submit to Christ. He has no right to demand anything of me. He must submit to me, so I can just name and claim anything I want. That person that was posting what is nonsense to me about God acting as a waiter to the church and stepping aside so we can move by in heaven would be correct. All I have to do is consider how should the church submit to Christ? When he says something in scripture, should I ignore it, and act as you claim wives are free to do towards their husbands? Remember once again that I have not been saying what they husband should do. Each household is different. I am only stating that he has absolute authority to reign as King of his castle, and he can make any demands he wants of his wife and kids, so long as he isn't telling them to sin.

Just to clear one thing up. My example of slaves was to show why you would need to enter into a contractual agreement with someone you will in future tense have authority over. That is the only reason I brought that up.

October 28, 2015

I was hoping to be able to do more in this next post than it looks like I will be able to, given all the things I have to rebut.
You didn't give a better definition than what was found in my Dictionary for the word covenant.

You gave the opinion of a Rabbi.

That is not a Dictionary.

A Dictionary simply tells us what the word means, it doesn't give us opinions.

What you have done is tried to use a commentary of sorts to override the definition.

No, Spiros Zodihates is not a Rabbi. He is a man of Greek descent and is a Christian scholar of the Greek New Testament. I was quoting from the Greek Dictionary he edited and which is published by AMG publishers, which is not Jewish owned company. His Greek dictionary is linked to Strongs. I didn’t give you the opinion of Rabbi, I cited from a well-known Greek scholar. And yes, it was a far better definition than you offered and it came from a better and more authoritative source.

Gary Chapman most certainly does have the burden of proof on him to prove he is right.
He made statements about what he says a covenant is based on nothing.

If that’s the case, then he should be easy to refute. You seem to think just pronouncing him wrong is a refutation. You have not enaged one thing he said and offered any reason to believe he is wrong. You’re response to his view is, “I reject what he says, therefore he is wrong.” That’s pretty much an empty response in a debate and it proves you can’t really demonstrate at all why he is wrong. Why don’t you take is points, one by one and explain why each one is wrong??

The 5 sources of definitions that don't agree with Gary Chapman is one proof and the other is the covenant I provided from the Old Testament.
If all covenants must meet the requirements he gave, then he has been proven wrong by my example.

You ran to five modern dictionaries that all basically say the same thing in regard to how the word covenant is used in modern parlance. That doesn’t at all refute what a biblical covenant is. Biblical covenants were never contacts. You provided one example of a man who made a covenant that didn’t follow the biblical pattern. That doesn’t negate the biblical pattern that God used, and it is His covenant pattern that marriage is based on. His pattern is not that of a contract.

God made seven different covenants in the Bible outside of the marriage covenant, and none of them were “contracts” and don’t at all resemble contracts. Marriage was a covenant that God instituted between two people who become one flesh, companions, partners.

The man is not ruler over his wife to be while they are single, as men in general are not automatically in authority over all women.
The two enter into a marriage covenant or contract, and after that, the man is ruler over his wife.

He is her spiritual head, not her master. You have it all wrong. The idea of man ruling over his wife must be seen within the light of everything God says about marriage. Genesis 3 is not God’s final word on marriage.

Now, lets tackle mutual submission.
This has been misused to make null and void clear Bible teachings.
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Ephesians 5:21
This has nothing to do with the husband's authority in the home, anymore than it has to do with anyone else's position of authority anywhere.

It has everything to do with the man’s role in the home. It doesn’t nullify his authority, but it reveals how that authority is to be applied. Verse 21 does preclude a man from acting like a tryant over his wife. That doesn’t nullify his position as he head of the home. It simply means that being the head is not that of a king or despot.

All that Ephesians 5;21 is saying is that if someone has a need, and they ask for our assistance, we are to lend them a hand.
Every time I do that, I am submitting to them.

They are setting up a tent for a revival, and ask me to hold up the stake while they hammer it in.

If I do, I have submitted to them.

One of the ladies asks me to help her carry in the food she has prepared for the church dinner, and when I do, I have submitted to her.

That is all that is talking about.

It doesn't diminish one bit the authority anyone has, including the husband.

If it means what you claim, then nobody has any right to rule over anyone, because we can all claim mutual submission and refuse to obey.

We can rebel against all church officials for sure, but you know we aren't able to do that.

You’re trying to refute an argument I didn’t raise. I have never said that wives don’t need to submit to their husbands and I have never said anything against the authority of the husband. I am speaking out against misapplications of that authority.

Eph. 5:21 is explained by the verses that follow into 6:9. Paul gives three examples of mutual submission. Marriage, family and employer/employee relationships. All three examples have one thing in common. They command wives children and employees to submit to their husbands, parents and employers. And they also command husbands, parents and employers how to treat their wives, children and employees so that they are easy to submit to. None of it even remotely gives husbands, parents or employers the permission to be tyrants and controlling jerks.

The Hebrew word that was translated rule in Genesis is the same word used to describe the authority of a King.

That’s what it means, yes. But it’s the application of that meaning that is at issue. No one is disputing the meaning of the word.

Why is it that only the husband's authority is always coming into question, and nobody else's?

Because this discussion isn’t about anyone else’s authority. That would be outside the scope of this debate.

If this submit to one another takes away his power, it would surely take away everyone's authority.

No, it doesn’t take away his power. But a husband is not a king. The relationship of king to his subjects is not analogous to a husband’s relationship to his wife. And that’s where the problem in this lies. You are trying to apply the rules that govern how a king reigns over his subjects, and you are apply them to marriage and these are two completely dissimilar relationships. There is nothing about being a King that transferrable to marriage.

Not only that, but wives are told to submit to their husbands in the same way the church submits to Christ.
If I follow your teaching, then I don't have to submit to Christ.

He has no right to demand anything of me.

Yes, but the Bible defines what that looks like. There is familial relationship in play between the church and Christ. But it also says that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and that is also a sacrificial love on the part of the husband, as well as the nurturing relationship of a shepherd. He is her protector, her provider, her leader and her nurturer. He is to be her rock and it is his role to guide and lead the family as the spiritual head. She is to submit to him in all of those things.

What YOU are trying to foist on the rest of us is that if the man wants to be a tyrant, a jerk, a controller, and if he wants to be unreasonable and miserable to even be around, that’s biblical and it’s his biblical right to be all of those things so long as he is not telling her to kill someone or rob a bank or something. That’s where I take issue with your position.

October 28, 2015

I was hoping to be able to do more in this next post than it looks like I will be able to, given all the things I have to rebut.
You didn't give a better definition than what was found in my Dictionary for the word covenant.

You gave the opinion of a Rabbi.

That is not a Dictionary.

A Dictionary simply tells us what the word means, it doesn't give us opinions.

What you have done is tried to use a commentary of sorts to override the definition.

No, Spiros Zodihates is not a Rabbi. He is a man of Greek descent and is a Christian scholar of the Greek New Testament. I was quoting from the Greek Dictionary he edited and which is published by AMG publishers, which is not Jewish owned company.   His Greek dictionary is linked to Strongs. I didn’t give you the opinion of Rabbi, I cited from a well-known Greek scholar. And yes, it was a far better definition than you offered and it came from a better and more authoritative source.

Gary Chapman most certainly does have the burden of proof on him to prove he is right.
He made statements about what he says a covenant is based on nothing.

If that’s the case, then he should be easy to refute.   You seem to think just pronouncing him wrong is a refutation.   You have not enaged one thing he said and offered any reason to believe he is wrong.   You’re response to his view is, “I reject what he says, therefore he is wrong.”    That’s pretty much an empty response in a debate and it proves you can’t really demonstrate at all why he is wrong.    Why don’t you take is points, one by one and explain why each one is wrong??

The 5 sources of definitions that don't agree with Gary Chapman is one proof and the other is the covenant I provided from the Old Testament.
If all covenants must meet the requirements he gave, then he has been proven wrong by my example.



You ran to five modern dictionaries that all basically say the same thing in regard to how the word covenant is used in modern parlance.   That doesn’t at all refute what a biblical covenant is. Biblical covenants were never contacts.   You provided one example of a man who made a covenant that didn’t follow the biblical pattern.   That doesn’t negate the biblical pattern that God used, and it is His covenant pattern that marriage is based on. His pattern is not that of a contract.

God made seven different covenants in the Bible outside of the marriage covenant, and none of them were “contracts” and don’t at all resemble contracts.   Marriage was a covenant that God instituted between two people who become one flesh, companions, partners.

The man is not ruler over his wife to be while they are single, as men in general are not automatically in authority over all women.
The two enter into a marriage covenant or contract, and after that, the man is ruler over his wife.

He is her spiritual head, not her master.   You have it all wrong. The idea of man ruling over his wife must be seen within the light of everything God says about marriage. Genesis 3 is not God’s final word on marriage.

Now, lets tackle mutual submission.
This has been misused to make null and void clear Bible teachings.
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Ephesians 5:21
This has nothing to do with the husband's authority in the home, anymore than it has to do with anyone else's position of authority anywhere.

It has everything to do with the man’s role in the home.   It doesn’t nullify his authority, but it reveals how that authority is to be applied.   Verse 21 does preclude a man from acting like a tryant over his wife.    That doesn’t nullify his position as he head of the home. It simply means that being the head is not that of a king or despot.

All that Ephesians 5;21 is saying is that if someone has a need, and they ask for our assistance, we are to lend them a hand.
Every time I do that, I am submitting to them.

They are setting up a tent for a revival, and ask me to hold up the stake while they hammer it in.

If I do, I have submitted to them.

One of the ladies asks me to help her carry in the food she has prepared for the church dinner, and when I do, I have submitted to her.

That is all that is talking about.

It doesn't diminish one bit the authority anyone has, including the husband.

If it means what you claim, then nobody has any right to rule over anyone, because we can all claim mutual submission and refuse to obey.

We can rebel against all church officials for sure, but you know we aren't able to do that.

You’re trying to refute an argument I didn’t raise. I have never said that wives don’t need to submit to their husbands and I have never said anything against the authority of the husband. I am speaking out against misapplications of that authority.
Eph. 5:21 is explained by the verses that follow into 6:9.   Paul gives three examples of mutual submission. Marriage, family and employer/employee relationships.    All three examples have one thing in common.   They command wives children and employees to submit to their husbands, parents and employers.    And they also command husbands, parents and employers how to treat their wives, children and employees so that they are easy to submit to.   None of it even remotely gives husbands, parents or employers the permission to be tyrants and controlling jerks.

The Hebrew word that was translated rule in Genesis is the same word used to describe the authority of a King.
That’s what it means, yes.   But it’s the application of that meaning that is at issue. No one is disputing the meaning of the word.

Why is it that only the husband's authority is always coming into question, and nobody else's?

Because this discussion isn’t about anyone else’s authority.   That would be outside the scope of this debate.

If this submit to one another takes away his power, it would surely take away everyone's authority.

No, it doesn’t take away his power.   But a husband is not a king. The relationship of king to his subjects is not analogous to a husband’s relationship to his wife.   And that’s where the problem in this lies. You are trying to apply the rules that govern how a king reigns over his subjects, and you are apply them to marriage and these are two completely dissimilar relationships. There is nothing about being a King that transferrable to marriage.

Not only that, but wives are told to submit to their husbands in the same way the church submits to Christ.
If I follow your teaching, then I don't have to submit to Christ.

He has no right to demand anything of me.

Yes, but the Bible defines what that looks like. There is familial relationship in play between the church and Christ. But it also says that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and that is also a sacrificial love on the part of the husband, as well as the nurturing relationship of a shepherd.   He is her protector, her provider, her leader and her nurturer.   He is to be her rock and it is his role to guide and lead the family as the spiritual head. She is to submit to him in all of those things.

What YOU are trying to foist on the rest of us is that if the man wants to be a tyrant, a jerk, a controller, and if he wants to be unreasonable and miserable to even be around, that’s biblical and it’s his biblical right to be all of those things so long as he is not telling her to kill someone or rob a bank or something.   That’s where I take issue with your position.

Here is where the issue comes in. I am saying he has the authority to control his wife in any way he sees fit, as long as he doesn't tell her to commit sin. I am only saying his authority extends that far. In reality, he could tell her to sin, but then she would have to say no because God's laws are higher. I know that is the case because wives are even told to submit to husbands who are not living right. Those are men who have no regard for what the Bible says about how they are to behave, so it stands to reason they will sometimes be control freaks.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 1 Peter 3:1-2

What you are trying to do here is say that the husband doesn't have the Biblical authority to be a "tyrant, a jerk, a controller," because he is given teachings on how he is to treat his wife. I agree that the Bible does teach a Christian man how to treat his wife, but we know that all men don't follow the Bible. That leaves the issue of the Christian wife. Just because her husband doesn't follow Biblical guidelines on how a Christian man should behave, doesn't make her wrong right if she rebels. As a matter of fact, it goes completely contrary to 1 Peter 3:1-2. She is told she is to be subject to a man who doesn't obey the word. Christian men should love their wives as Christ loved the church, but the issue isn't that. The issue is the amount of Biblical authority he has been given. The authority is absolute, even for those who "obey not the word.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and they conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, AND HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE. Genesis 3:16. It doesn't say he should rule over her. It doesn't say he might rule over her if he meets certain conditions. God decrees that "he shall rule over" her. When I was Pastoring a church, I remember learning how important little words are in the manual. If the word "shall" was in the text, there was no way around it. We had to comply no matter what. Sometimes they would use the lesser word "should" if they wanted wiggle room, but there is no wiggle room here. The word translated to rule means reign over, and it is used to describe a King reigning over a people.

One other issue I need to address is this. People will differ over what constitutes abuse. Parents will be accused by one person of being abusive for something that is not abusive to someone else. It is not really my place or anyone else's place to tell another man how to rule his household, anymore than it is my place or anyone else's place to tell parents how to raise their kids, so long as their isn't physical abuse taking place. A lot of times I see men doing things towards their wives I don't agree with and parents doing things towards their children I don't agree with, but that is their business. But the biggest thing I see in all of this are these questions. Does the Bible give the husband authority to rule his household? Are their limitations? Since the wife is told to obey her husband in everything, and she is told to obey her husband if he obeys not the Word, and God says the husband shall rule over his wife, it is my position that there are no limitations, regardless of how much you wish there were.

Your Bible teacher made up things out of thin air concerning a covenant. That is like me making up something out of thin air right now. I will give you an example.

"When we think of gold on earth, we grade it. I might say it is 12K gold, 16K gold, or perhaps 24K gold. When God speaks of gold in heaven, it is always 24K gold. When we think of mansions, we have all kinds of images in our minds, but in heaven, your mansion will be like the Biltmore House in Asheville N.C. The man who build the Biltmore House didn't know it, but God was using him to design a replica of what our mansions will look like in heaven."

That is a bunch of stuff I made up, as your Bible teacher made up stuff out of his head on what a covenant is next to a contract. I could insist everything I said is true, and demand that you prove it is wrong. If you cannot, then it must stand. Frankly, I don't know how you can disprove any of it, given we haven't seen the streets of gold, or the mansions in heaven, but that is your problem. In your world, someone can make things up out of thin air with nothing to show it is true, and the burden of proof is on us to disprove it. That is, until it works against you, and then you will cry foul. It is a silly game, and anyone should be able to see through it.

October 30, 2015

Here is where the issue comes in.
I am saying he has the authority to control his wife in any way he sees
fit, as long as he doesn't tell her to commit sin. I am only saying his authority extends that far. In reality, he could tell her to sin, but then she would have to say no because God's laws are higher. I know that is the case because wives are even told to submit to husbands who are not living right. Those are men who have no regard for what the Bible says about how they are to behave, so it stands to reason they will sometimes be control freaks.

I don’t think you can make the biblical case that a husband can control his wife any way he sees fit as long as he doesn’t tell her to sin. The biblical, New Testament profile of a husband doesn’t mesh with that assessment of yours.

There are plenty of Christian men who are overbearing, domineering and controlling, who abuse their authority to treat their wives any way they see fit. I think it should go without saying that husbands do not have the right to tell their wives to commit sin. But that is like saying the sky is blue. It really isn’t making much of an argument.

If a husband is being domineering and controlling, then he has already stepped outside the biblical boundaries of what a husband should be like. He is already violating God’s will for husbands.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1 Peter 3:1-2

What you are trying to do here is say that the husband doesn't have the Biblical authority to be a "tyrant, a jerk, a controller," because he is given teachings on how he is to treat his wife. I agree that the Bible does teach a Christian man how to treat his wife, but we know that all men don't follow the Bible. That leaves the issue of the Christian wife. Just because her husband doesn't follow Biblical guidelines on how a Christian man should behave, doesn't make her wrong right if she rebels. As a matter of fact, it goes completely contrary to 1 Peter 3:1-2. She is told she is to be subject to a man who doesn't obey the word. Christian men should love their wives as Christ loved the church, but the issue isn't that. The issue is the amount of Biblical authority he has been given. The authority is absolute, even for those who "obey not the word.

Yes, the husband does not have a biblical right to be a tyrant or a jerk on the grounds that his wife must submit to him, no questions asked. Too often, men misread the commandment to submit as a blank check for them to be overlords in the home and a license for them to be selfish jerks and the wife just sit take it.

He is the one who is in the state of rebellion. If he is forcing sexual intercourse on her and she is ready or even wants to do that, he is the one in rebellion, not her. He is rebelling against God’s prescription for how a husband is to behave. That’s the problem. You are promoting a rebellion against what the Bible offers as a godly prescription for husbands and then claiming that if the woman doesn’t comply with his rebellious, overlord attitude that SHE is the one in rebellion and no matter how much he violates God’s will for husbands, she is required to comply because it’s HER rebellion that is the problem. So you ignore the husband’s rebellion against God’s commandment and actually justify it as his “right” and at same time demand that she submit to his rebellion.

Nowhere does I Peter 3:1-2 say that the woman is to subject to her husband’s disobedience to the word. It says she is to submit to her husband’s authority even if he is an unbeliever and she is to do this as a witness to him. If she was converted and her husband has not yet been converted and perhaps still worships idols, she is to be the example of a Christian wife toward him. She is still obligated to her wifely duties as a believer even if her husband is not and even if he is hostile toward her faith.

A man’s authority has the head of the home is absolute, but that does not mean he is given the fullest latitude possible to exercise that authority in any way he sees fit. What you are arguing for isn’t absolute authority, but are arguing that man has the right to define, as he sees fit, the way his authority is applied in the home, and that right is not offered to him, biblically.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and they conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, AND HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE.
Genesis 3:16.

It doesn't say he should rule over her.

It doesn't say he might rule over her if he meets certain conditions.

God decrees that "he shall rule over" her.

When I was Pastoring a church, I remember learning how important little words are in the manual.

If the word "shall" was in the text, there was no way around it.

We had to comply no matter what.

Sometimes they would use the lesser word "should" if they wanted wiggle room, but there is no wiggle room here.

The word translated to rule means reign over, and it is used to describe a King reigning over a people.

I am not disputing the meaning of the word. I have made this point, multiple times. I am disputing your shallow application of that word. You are taking Gen. 3:16 at face value, as if everything else about marriage in the Bible is subordinate to Gen. 3:16. You want the only working definition/application of the word “rule” in Gen. 3:16 to mean, “reign.” That’s where you stop. If that was the last thing and/or the only thing God said about marriage, then you would have a case for your application of that word. But when we take a full-orbed view of everything Scripture says to the husband and wife, then “rule” takes on a far deeper application than to simply “reign.” The application of “rule” when we look at other passages, indicates that God wants the husband to be responsible manager and a good leader. Good managers and leaders have a way of leading that makes other people want to follow them. They don’t have necessarily bark out orders and force compliance, “or else.” A good husband can lead his family in way that they want to be led by him. He doesn’t have “reign” over them in the way you suggest and he doesn’t have to be a dictator because he is following the biblical prescription for what a husband is supposed be like in word and deed. If you are at the point where you have to be a dictator in the home, you are not a good, biblical husband. Dictatorial husbands who have to bark out orders and have rule with an iron fist have failed in their biblical role as husbands.

People will differ over what constitutes abuse. Parents will be accused by one person of being abusive for something that is not abusive to someone else.

That is what the abusers say. They don’t see their behavior as abusive at all. I understand that there are people who act like every little inconvenience is “abuse” and they are frivolous in that. But to act like abuse is some nebulous concept that we can’t really nail down, isn’t true either. This isn’t about disagreeing with how people manage their households. I see things I disagree with, but are not abusive. But I have seen things that really do indicate abuse, such as when a husband is openly disrespectful to his wife, criticizes her in public, makes fun of her, cusses her out in front of others, etc. That tells me that their marriage is in a shambles. She is beat down emotionally and does her best to please him but meets with nothing but more put downs, because nothing she does is right.

That is not same thing as a man who takes on his role as the spiritual head of the home and makes sure the family is active in church, and guards against bad influences infiltrating the family. A good husband protects and provides and nurtures and instills good, biblical values. He is a rock the family can anchor to.

Your Bible teacher made up things out of
thin air concerning a covenant.

That is like me making up something out of thin air right now.

I will give you an example.

"When we think of gold on earth, we grade it. I might say it is 12K gold, 16K gold, or perhaps 24K gold. When God speaks of gold in heaven, it is always 24K gold. When we think of mansions, we have all kinds of images in our minds, but in heaven, your mansion will be like the Biltmore House in Asheville N.C. The man who build the Biltmore House didn't know it, but God was using him to design a replica of what our mansions will look like in heaven."

That is a bunch of stuff I made up, as your Bible teacher made up stuff out of his head on what a covenant is next to a contract.

Okay, if that claim of yours is true, prove it. Simply claiming he made a bunch of stuff up, isn’t a refutation. Prove that he made it up out of thin air. If your claim is true, you should have no problem actually supporting it. So far, you have completely ignored any request to take his specific claims and expose them one by one as to why they are wrong.

What are you afraid of? Prove his claims wrong instead of just proclaiming them wrong.

That is a bunch of stuff I made up, as your Bible teacher made up stuff out of his head on what a covenant is next to a contract.
I could insist everything I said is true, and demand that you prove it is wrong.

If you cannot, then it must stand.

Frankly, I don't know how you can disprove any of it, given we haven't seen the streets of gold, or the mansions in heaven, but that is your problem.

In your world, someone can make things up out of thin air with nothing to show it is true, and the burden of proof is on us to disprove it.

That is, until it works against you, and then you will cry foul.

It is a silly game, and anyone should be able to see through it.

That comparison between what he said and what you made up about heaven isn’t a fair comparison because his position is based on a conviction of what the Bible says about marriage. You claim it is made up out of thin air. There’s the problem, you made up stuff about heaven that cannot be tested against Scripture because there is a lot of information about heaven we don’t have. I could say that in heaven, chocolate grows on trees. No one can “disprove” that claim. But that is not analogous to Chapman’s claim about the difference between biblical covenants and contracts. He is insisting that his claims are biblical.

So if you really feel his view isn’t biblical, then take each of his claims one by one and prove they are not biblical.

Sign In

Join Worthy Christian Forums today!

Authority of the Husband in the Home

Recommended Posts

Steve_S

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Steve_S

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Butero

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Butero

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity