Authority of the Husband

[proverbs35]

2 minutes ago, Ezra said:

It is not really necessary to quibble over this point.  It is a given. What modern Christians forget are the words of God to Eve at the very beginning:

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.

You must have misunderstood. I was not quibbling over that point about a husband not having the right to command his wife to sin. The focus of my post was about absolute authority vs. limited authority. 

 

[proverbs35]

17 minutes ago, Ezra said:

It is not really necessary to quibble over this point.  It is a given. What modern Christians forget are the words of God to Eve at the very beginning:

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 overth 

As for Gen 3:16, I commented on that earlier, but you may have missed, so I'll post it again. Gen 3:16 is DESCRIPTIVE rather than INSTRUCTIVE. It DESCRIBES how the relationship between husband and wife was affected after the fall of mankind.

The whole women covet man's authority idea based on Gen 3:16 is a relatively new interpretation of that verse. It is not the traditional interpretation of Genesis 3:16. Susan Foh introduced that interpretation in the 1970s in an effort to fight 2nd wave feminism. However, prior to that time, that was not the interpretation used or accepted by Biblical scholars and translators for centuries.

Bible translations and lexicons prior to the 1970s Susan Foh interpretation refer to DESIRE as a "longing for." The Hebrew word translated “desire” is used three times in the Old Testament: Genesis 3:16, Genesis 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10. In the Song of Solomon 7:10, it refers to sexual desire which is the traditional interpretation of it.

Wendy Alsup expounds on Susan Foh and the longstanding historical interpretation of Gen 3:16.

http://theologyforwomen.org/2012/04/a-somewhat-scholarly-analysis-of-genesis-316.html

I truly believe the Message Bible translates it best:

He told the Woman: "I'll multiply your pains in childbirth; you'll give birth to your babies in pain. You'll want to please your husband, but he'll lord it over you." Gen 

[Ezra]

2 hours ago, proverbs35 said:

The whole women covet man's authority idea based on Gen 3:16 is a relatively new interpretation of that verse.

Let's take the words for what they say in plain English (and naturally in plain Hebrew).  No need to worry about how they have been reinterpreted, or disregarded, or whatever.

If this verse was not to be taken in its plain literal sense, we would not have Peter saying that Sarah called Abraham "lord".  Where did Sarah learn this, and when did she say it? We don't even see that statement in Genesis, but the Holy Spirit revealed it to Peter for Christians about 2,000 years later (and now about 4,000 years).

[GoldenEagle]

20 hours ago, Butero said:

I am a bit skeptical about someone coming in and stating what Bill Gothard is teaching.  Why not use Gothard's actual material?  It seems to me you ordered it in the past so you could do that.  I think there is some spin going on here.  Still, I agree for the most part even with the spin, but not entirely.  I believe the husband's authority is absolute unless he tells his wife to sin.  There is no need for an appeals process.  She doesn't have to commit sin, even if he orders her to.  God is over everyone, and even in the case of earthly government, we are to obey the authorities unless they demand we sin. 

I don't believe a Father has the authority to pick a woman's spouse.  There is nothing in scripture that says a woman must go along with that.  I don't believe that a woman can't hear from God while praying on her own.  I just believe that there is a clear chain of authority, and the husband has the final say.  If he says something is right or wrong, his judgment is final, unless it is a sin issue like if he demands his wife go out and get drunk or join a swinger's club or get an abortion, like someone mentioned their husband was demanding of them recently.  The husband can't demand his wife sin.  His authority doesn't extend that far, but he can demand anything else.  That doesn't necessarily mean he should.  I personally don't think it is wise to try to keep a wife from visiting her family or having friends as some men do.  I don't think requiring her to be a perfect housekeeper or have dinner on the table at a precise time or else is the way to go.  In my opinion, it is better to pick your battles, but ultimately, when push comes to shove, the husband's authority is absolute under Christ.  That is what the Bible teaches. 

Hiya Butero!  

I will not go through Gothard's teachings again on this nor link it as he is a cult leader. Feel free to search and google the information for yourself.

I think Proverbs35 made some good distinctions between limited and absolute authority. 

Funny enough what you are describing seems to me to be more in line with the Complimentary view. Equal before God but the husband has the final responsibility or word. Still, a husband cannot tell a wife how to think or how to feel. That is part of her personhood. The Holy Spirit speaks directly to both spouses. 

God bless,
GE

[GoldenEagle]

3 hours ago, proverbs35 said:

As for Gen 3:16, I commented on that earlier, but you may have missed, so I'll post it again. Gen 3:16 is DESCRIPTIVE rather than INSTRUCTIVE. It DESCRIBES how the relationship between husband and wife was affected after the fall of mankind.

....

I truly believe the Message Bible translates it best:

He told the Woman: "I'll multiply your pains in childbirth; you'll give birth to your babies in pain. You'll want to please your husband, but he'll lord it over you." Gen 

I've always viewed this passage as descriptive rather than instructive. Part of the fall would be for a woman to want to please her husband and the husband to lord it over her. That is, from the flesh's perspective. Instead of working together and exemplifying the love of Christ, many men seem to lord it over their wives. That wasn't the case before the fall apparently. 

God bless,
GE

[proverbs35]

5 hours ago, Ezra said:

Let's take the words for what they say in plain English (and naturally in plain Hebrew).  No need to worry about how they have been reinterpreted, or disregarded, or whatever.

If this verse was not to be taken in its plain literal sense, we would not have Peter saying that Sarah called Abraham "lord".  Where did Sarah learn this, and when did she say it? We don't even see that statement in Genesis, but the Holy Spirit revealed it to Peter for Christians about 2,000 years later (and now about 4,000 years).

Some men readily and eagerly proclaim that a husband is the authority, lord and master of his wife.

But they usually don't acknowledge and embrace their responsibility to serve their wives as readily or eagerly.

For those who claim that marriage is a master/slave relationship where a husband is his wife's master:

FYI, we are ALL (husbands included) instructed to serve - become slaves to one another in love. It's part of the Christian lifestyle. Husbands are not exempt.

13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become SLAVES to one another. 14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal 5:12-14 NRSV)

The word that usually gets translated as serve in Gal 5:13 means slave.

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/galatians/5-13.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1398.htm

So yes, husbands have been given limited authority over their wives, and husbands and wives are suppose to serve -  become slaves to one another in love because that's part of the Christian lifestyle. A husband's limited authority over his wife should be characterized with servantship rather than lordship. After all, husbands are instructed to love their wives like Christ loved the church. How did Christ demonstrate love for his bride the church? One (there are many) of the primary ways Christ demonstrated love for his church was through servantship.

The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45

 

[Ariel16]

 

 

5 hours ago, GoldenEagle said:

I've always viewed this passage as descriptive rather than instructive. Part of the fall would be for a woman to want to please her husband and the husband to lord it over her. That is, from the flesh's perspective. Instead of working together and exemplifying the love of Christ, many men seem to lord it over their wives. That wasn't the case before the fall apparently. 

God bless,
GE

I do not quite understand that translation. What does it mean for a woman to "want to please her husband" and the husband (in response) will "lord it over her?" I agree it is descriptive but I believe it is to be translated in a negative sense. The whole dictation is negative, nothing good. The idea of the woman wanting to "please her husband" would have already been a godly trait from creation, not after the fall. I don't understand what a "fleshly perspective" implies.  I see it as the woman will desire to "own" the husband in the sense of "control" or "rule" but the man will, in contrast, seek to "master" his wife (unlimited authority). It is much like sin desiring to enslave us to its "way" but we are told to in Gen. 4:7 "you must mater it" (that's instructive there.) 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Ariel16

[enoob57]

1 hour ago, Ariel16 said:

 

 

I do not quite understand that translation. What does it mean for a woman to "want to please her husband" and the husband (in response) will "lord it over her?" I agree it is descriptive but I believe it is to be translated in a negative sense. The whole dictation is negative, nothing good. The idea of the woman wanting to "please her husband" would have already been a godly trait from creation, not after the fall. I don't understand what a "fleshly perspective" implies.  I see it as the woman will desire to "own" the husband in the sense of "control" or "rule" but the man will, in contrast, seek to "master" his wife (unlimited authority). It is much like sin desiring to enslave us to its "way" but we are told to in Gen. 4:7 "you must mater it" (that's instructive there.) 

A slight butt in here just a moment  ...
When the fallen state of man and woman became the norm to please the husband was not with God's as first seat in the heart in doing so... in fact the struggle of flesh and spirit lies this opposition of motives!   It is why we must die to ourselves and desperately with all diligence to live unto God

1 Cor 7:29-33

29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
KJV
Love, Steven

[Ezra]

On 9/5/2016 at 0:23 PM, proverbs35 said:

He told the Woman: "I'll multiply your pains in childbirth; you'll give birth to your babies in pain. You'll want to please your husband, but he'll lord it over you."

Yeah, sure.  "He will lord it over you!" That is utter nonsense.   Modern paraphrases play fast and loose with Scripture.  So if you trust them, you will be led astray.

Strong's Concordance

mashal: to rule, have dominion, reign

Original Word: מָשַׁל
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: mashal
Phonetic Spelling: (maw-shal')
Short Definition: rule

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to rule, have dominion, reign
NASB Translation
dominion (1), gain control (1), govern (1), had charge (1), have authority (1), master (1), obtain dominion (1), really going to rule (1), rule (27), ruled (5), ruler (18), ruler's (2), rulers (6), rules (9), ruling (3), wielded (1).

[proverbs35]

1 hour ago, Butero said:

We are told in scripture to obey those in authority.  That mean anyone in authority over us.  There is a chain of authority.  God the Father - Jesus Christ - The Husband - The Wife - The Children.  The husband's authority is absolute unless it goes against Christ, who is over both him and his wife.  It should be obvious what I meant.  When it comes to government officials, we are to obey them unless they tell us to do something sinful.  That is because Jesus Christ is above our government.  We have Biblical examples of this, whether or not to obey God or men.  The answer is God, but at the same time, you are disobeying God if you don't obey earthly authorities he placed over you with the one exception where they are telling you to sin.  So let me clarify this so you can clearly understand what I am saying. 

The wife is to obey anything her husband tells her unless he tells her to sin.  Is that absolute authority?  His authority is absolute with one exception.  He can't overrule Jesus Christ because Jesus is higher in authority.  He can't tell his wife she must sin.  At the same time, if she doesn't obey him in every other thing he asks of her, she is in sin, that of rebellion against the authority God placed over her. 

We simply have to agree to disagree because what you have described here for basically the 2nd time is not consistent with the definition of the word absolute.