Cheryl Schatz

I only have a quick minute and then I have to run.

Jesus is actually the “last” Adam according to the Bible. 🙂

Janet, thanks for your comment and welcome to my blog!

Piper’s taking time off is a good thing. But the amount of time off shows that there is a very serious struggle in his marriage and by his own admission it is attached to his own pride which seems to show that the issues are not just marital but personal sin issues. We need to pray for John Piper. I am certain that it isn’t easy for him to deal with these issues in a public manner. And it certainly won’t be easy for him to remove himself from ministry for such an extended period of time. There is no doubt that he needs our prayers.

Craig,
You are welcome! I am very happy to serve in any way that I can.

As far as Eph 1:22 I see a preeminence being brought out.
Although Christ has authority over all things, and the world is not His body, I still see a connection to what Christ is to the church. Maybe there is more and I am missing it. But this is what I see. In Eph 1:22, Christ is placed in His proper position of preeminence as the origin and source of all things. He is the origin of all creation and the One who holds all things together. Thus He is the starting point, the preeminent One. As “head” He is the Alpha, the starting point the initiator. Because He is “far above all rule and authority” the term “far above” shows preeminence. He is so far above His creation because He is the uncreated Creator. He is the starting point of creation, the source of creation and its origin. Thus He is far above everything that originated from Him.

In the head-body metaphor, we are connected to Him and He is not just our source, but He is a part of us. He is our source and origin yet He is connected to us as one body. Everything that belongs to Him, belongs to us. There is an intimacy and oneness that isn’t there in the rest of creation.

So while we could add in “authority” in Ephesians 1:22, I see the preeminent Origin of all creation as the key thought to the term “head”. I think that if Paul had merely wanted to emphasize His authority rather than His place of preeminence, he would have used an authority word rather than an origin word (i.e. head).

That’s the way I see it. There is a connection to origin, but one part of the connection (head and body) is far more intimate and mutual then the other part (head over creation).

Craig,
You said:

Are there better words for submit that would accurately convey its meaning?

I see Christian submission as meaning two things:

1. Submission for the benefit of another in order to lift them up in their need.
2. Submission to receive the good that someone is offering for your own benefit.

When we submit with #1 we are elevating the person’s need and well-being as greater than our own need thus serving them with true Christ-like service. It isn’t a submission to be used as a door mat. Nor is it a submission that is placing oneself as a conquered party to one who is commanding and controlling your actions. In fact submitting oneself to the self-centered control of another isn’t fulfilling the duty of love. It would be affirming a sinful lifestyle and it is not God-honoring. A sacrificial service would be providing what they need not supporting their sin.

In the submission of #2 above, we serve another by giving our will to allow them to serve us with their gifts. One who is a teacher cannot properly serve as a teacher if no one is willing to allow them to teach. They may have great gifts for us in helping us to understand the Scriptures, but if we refuse to submit ourselves to their care, they are unable to teach us. It is the same thing for those who have the responsibility to protect us. If we will not listen to their warnings of dangerous teaching and dangerous wolves, then we are not allowing them to work out their calling. It is a source of grief for those who are mature and have the ability to protect us as they are called to do, but when the flock is unwilling to be protected. We are told to submit to them so that they can do their job without grief. This is the second kind of submission that is based on our own good as well as the good of the other person. It is submission to receive.

Wives are called to submit in all ways to their husbands. Therefore they are to submit to meet his needs and lift him up and they are to submit to receive from him the things that he is to provide for them. Mutuality is men also submitting to meet their wives needs and submitting to receive from the hand of their wives the things that will benefit them. This kind of submission and this kind of mutuality is beautiful and finds its source in the Lord Jesus.

1 Peter 2:6 (NAS)
6 For this is contained in Scripture:
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

Jesus was set in place as a precious corner foundational stone upon which His church was to be built. As the corner stone Christ gave up His life so that the church could exist. Which that sacrifice there would be no building.

Contrast that with what the very first man did. He was laid as a cornerstone, the first one to be created and from him would come his bride. As the first stone laid and the source of his wife, he was to cherish her as his own body. He was to treat her as he treats his own body and the one who would initiate sacrifice as an example. But the first Adam failed to do that. Instead of identifying the deception and the deceiver (and he recognized both since he was not deceived) he allowed his own body (his wife) to be destroyed.

But Jesus as the last Adam did not fail to provide for His own body. He gave all He had to come and receive His wife to Himself. He laid down His life, He nourished us, He protected us and He allowed us to respond to Him in willingly love. He never took an authority to demand love but as the perfect example of husbandly love, He initiated the sacrifice, initiated the cherishing and initiated the clinging to or joining Himself with her. When a man follows Jesus’ example, he will willingly give himself for his bride to bring her up to his level so that she too has all the privileges and rights as he does. He will sacrifice himself to give her everything that she needs and not selfishly demand that she serve him and die to herself so that his needs will be met.

I believe that men as “head” of their wives (not head over their wives) have been set up by God as the preeminent part of the body to initiate in every way so that the wife is granted equality and equal opportunity to serve God. In the church there have been godly men who have elevated women past the place where the world has held females. The world values women as less than men in order to use them up for men’s benefit. When they are of no use, they are discarded. But Christianity with godly men has changed that to place a value on women that far exceeds the world’s value. When the church changes their mindset so that the men understand that Jesus gave up everything for His bride to elevate her beside Him, and they understand this they will release women to be beside them too. And when men and women walk in unity and in equality in the church, each working in the special giftedness that each has been given by the Holy Spirit, we will be a light set high on a hill to the world showing the heart of God. No longer desiring to rule over each other, but dying to self to elevate the other past the restrictions and the prejudices of the world.

Another way to look at the metaphor is to focus on all of the metaphors together to get the full meaning of what Paul is saying. Paul not only calls Jesus the “head” but he calls Him the cornerstone.

Ephesians 2:20 (NAS)
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

Is the corner stone a metaphor about authority? Or is a metaphor about a foundational source a preeminent stone upon which all is built?

My understanding is that “head” represents the image of source of all as all things come out from Him as the alpha (beginning).

Craig,
It looks like you and I were posting at the same time.

Why did he say “head over” and not “authority over”? If he had said “authority over” I wouldn’t be confused. Is Paul using “head” in two different ways in the same passage- one toward the world as “authority over” and one toward his body as “united in a symbiotic relationship” and together having authority over all things.

That’s a great question! I believe that Paul uses the term “head” to show the source of all authority and all power. On one of these posts I commented that there is no authority except that which is given by God. He then is the source of authority and only God can give what exists within Him.

When Jesus is returned to His rightful place after all of His enemies are placed under Him, it will be seen that Jesus as God is the source of all authority as He Himself holds all things together.

Hebrews 1:3 (NAS)
3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

As the source of all authority, He will be placed in the preeminent place so that He may have the preeminence and the one who started all things and finishes all things. The absolute amazing thing is that He places us there with Him as His body and in union with us He has first place.

Craig #303,
You said:

If I use the context to work out the meaning of the head/body metaphor the head loves, feeds, cares for the body and is united as one with the body. There is no mention of authority. But if I go back to Eph 1:20-23 the head/body metaphor seems to be associated with authority. Is Paul using the metaphor in different ways within the one letter? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

There has been some very good comments here and I will just jump in to point out a couple of things. If you start from the beginning you will see that we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (verse 3). This is because we are so connected to Christ that when He is seated in heaven, we are said to be seated there with Him.

Ephesians 2:6 (NAS)
6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Ephesians 1:22 becomes quite clear when we consider that it is the one body (head – Christ and body – church) that is seated at the right hand of God in the heavenly places. With this understanding we can see our place with Christ:

Ephesians 1:20–21 (NAS)
20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

In the verse 22 we can see that the things that are placed in subjection are placed “under His feet” and that Christ is “head over all things” to the church.

Ephesians 1:22–23 (NAS)
22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,
23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

The church is not placed in subjection, it is all things placed under our feet as we are the body of Christ. In this context “gave Him as head over all things” is a position of preeminence of first place as is fitting for the source of all creation. Col. 1:18 brings this out well

Colossians 1:18 (NAS)
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. It is the first place of importance as He is the beginning and ending of all things.

In this context although there is authority, but it is not authority over the church which is His body. It is authority over all other power, all rule, all dominion and all other “names”. And the subjection of all other sources of power are placed under Him and under us. It isn’t a situation of the head taking authority over the body but rather that the head and body are one and all else is under that one body.

pinklight,
I finally got your email. Sorry for being off line for so long, but it is year end accounting time for me and this has kept me very busy.

Elastigirl,

I have not yet heard a comp give an argument but your two options may be the only options they have. But there would be trouble claiming either option.

First of all we should be able to agree that authority ultimately must come from God. But if God does not directly give this authority (which He has not directly given it in the case of males or husbands) then is it valid authority? We can do a search of the Bible to see where valid authority was given and how God did that and what we can see is that God giving the authority was not a secret. Otherwise anyone can claim to have God’s authority and command people to obey them. In fact many have done that and they have become cult leaders. So God giving His authority to a human is a big deal and it is not a secret.

Next consideration is if God “implied” authority in the text. This is as good as saying that God “implies” laws. He doesn’t. And the reason is because with disobedience (of laws or of authority) there is a consequence and sin is involved. Since God is very interested in making sure that we do not sin, He has made it very clear what sin is. His law is clear, it is understandable and it is enforceable. If God has created an authority over certain people (like wives) then God has to identify that an authority is given and who the authority is given to so that those who would be under this authority would not sin against God by rebelling. But in the case of husbands, no authority is directly and implications are never a part of the law. Also if the husband was her authority then he would be instructed what to do with that authority. He would need to know its boundary, its application and the extent of the punishment that he can mete out for disobedience. It is impossible to have “implied” authority in God’s kingdom. It is also impossible to have “implied” sin for the woman. God does not operate this way as it is against His nature.

But I would still like to know from comps how they are so sure that they have this “authority”, when it was given and the extent and responsibilities of this authority. I don’t think I will ever get an answer from them.

Dana, welcome to my blog!
Yes, and I have always wondered what men would do if women just quit playing. I think that everything would just grind to a halt.

gengwall,
You said:

Why on earth would I trust me to decide everything for us when we do such a better job at it.

That is it! Why should one person be given the license to make every decision when two people coming to a mutual decision using both of their gifts and input from both is the best for both? If a mutual decision doesn’t come right away, maybe God is saying that more work is needed for a one-flesh decision. Giving only the husband a final decision-making power or authority is bypassing the hard work of mutuality. It may be an easy way out for a woman who isn’t used to making decisions, but how will she learn? Not by giving over her responsibility. And as I said, one person making all the decisions promotes selfishness and I don’t think any wife should want to promote that.

Kristen,
You said:

Logically, choosing not to force authority upon someone is not the same as not having authority.

Yes, you are right. However the question I still have is how do we know someone really has authority? With Christ we know that he has all enemies under his feet and he rules over them. He has authority to judge all lawbreakers whether they like it or not. Christ has true authority.

Now we know that each of us as believers also has authority. But what is that authority? We have authority over the earth and the animals and all spiritual authority that Christ gave us. But do we have authority to make decisions for other believers? If we did, they wouldn’t need to give us authority, we would already have it.

Mark shows us no way that we can tell that he truly has authority. We know that his wife gives him her own authority to make a decision, but we don’t see any authority that is inherent in him that would make it morally right to override his wife’s will.

Mark also has given us examples of how his wife has given him the right to make the final decision but he has not shown us through making those final decisions that he is sacrificing for his wife.

I think that however a husband and wife mutually decide to run their marriage should be up to them. After all if Mark were to sacrifice himself to make a final decision that would make them go his wife’s way, then what difference would that be to those marriages where sometimes it is the husband who submits to the wife’s desires? In the end it is the same thing. However if a wife gives the final decision to her husband and he uses that authority that she gives him to promote his own way every time, I would submit that she has given him the power to be selfish and I don’t think that should be something that is encouraged in men (or women!)

The more I think about what Mark is saying, the more I believe that his wife is the key to his authority. He has not authority to force himself on her or to take authority over her so if she doesn’t give him his “rights” there is nothing that he can do. In other words the power is in the woman’s hands not in his. She gives him the right to make the final decision and she gives him the right to make an “authoritative” decision.

I would also like to know what Mark considers is an “authoritative” decision. Is it a decision that cannot be reversed? Is it final… that’s it…no-more-influence-will-be-accepted kind of “authoritative” decision?

Again, I give Mark a lot of credit in being willing to actually answer some of the questions that we have asked him. There aren’t too many brave comps around who will agree to answer these questions. So kudos to Mark.

One last thing, Mark, did you get my emails this time?

Mark,
You said:

In this process, i did not ignore her, abuse her, not take her feelings etc into account. Simply when an authoritative decision is to be made for us or our family, i make it.

May I ask if you made the “authoritative decision” to do what she wanted to do or did you make the decision to do what you wanted to do?

If i choose to make a decision deliberately to antogonise my wife, or to make life harder for her, is that reflecting Christ-no it is not.

How about if you make a decision that you want to do but you don’t do it deliberately to antagonize her, but you still did not choose what she wanted. Do you believe that is reflecting Christ to her since you know better than she does what is good for her? Or how would you explain how your decision which is opposite of hers would reflect Christ to her?

My decisions and thus authority, i always try to manage in a Christ like way.

Actually, if I may be so bold to say, that it isn’t your authority. It seems to me that you have no authority unless she gives it to you. If you do still have authority if she doesn’t surrender it to you, then how is that shown?

It is rare that I get to see inside a complementarian’s brain and try to understand how they think. I really appreciate being able to ask questions and any answers that you can give would be much appreciated. I think that we all appreciate knowing how and why you consider yourself to have authority of yourself. It sure seems to me that unless your wife gives you hew “right” to make a decision, thus empowering you, that you don’t really have any authority at all. Perhaps I am wrong about this but I fail to see how. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Mark,
You said:

Likewise if she chooses to obey God’s commandment, it is between her and God. I will never, and don’t ‘take’ or demand authority from my wife.

This seems to confirm my earlier comment that it is your wife that gives you the authority. That you can’t demand she give you her authority. But rather that she can submit her “rights” to you but you have no “right” to demand that she give up her “rights” with the children?

You said:

To apply it differently, when we moved house last year to another state, we discussed the issue, prayed about it etc. However, when the crunch time came and we needed to decide to do it, my wife left it to me to make the decision.

Does this mean that she had no decision of her own so she let you make the decision? Or that she was not in favor of what you wanted but she submitted to your decision?

Mark,
You said:

If she chooses to reject God’s commandment, it is between her and God.

That actually seems to come across as if you have no authority over her at all. That you have no permission from God to punish her as if it is none of your business as God will deal with her? Is this right? If you have no power or authority to punish her, then how is it that you actually have authority unless she actually gives you authority? If she gives you authority to make decisions that she could have made, doesn’t that mean that she has the power to give something that actually belongs to her too? Wouldn’t that mean that she is submitting to your equal right to make decisions and she is yielding to you, but that you do not have any more authority over the children than she does?

Mark,
You said:

I can choose to break laws, but it doesn’t mean that the authority to fine me, no longer applies.

Do you have the authority to “fine” your wife for not deferring to your authority? Do you have the authority to punish her for making a decision regarding the children when you are in the home together and when she hasn’t asked you your opinion or given the decision over to you?

What type of authority do you actually have concerning your wife?

My wife could equally choose to usurp my authority, since it is not in my opinion, my job to ‘take’.

How could your wife “usurp” your authority? An authority can be usurped only if the authority belongs to one person and not the other. Does the authority over your children belong solely to you? If it doesn’t, and your wife makes a decision about your children, how could she usurp what also belongs to her?

As i have said earlier, the Bible commands her and thus God, not me.

Are you sure? Where does the Bible command that she make no decision about the kids when you are in the house? And does the Bible go further by commanding that she make no decision about the kids even when you are not in the house? Would it also be usurping your authority if she did that? Should she be calling you first to ask your permission to put the kids to bed if you are not in the house? How exactly does the Bible describe your wife’s usurping of your authority?

Mark,
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue with an example from your own marriage.

You said:

It simply shows, that when both parents are there, and an authoritative decision is to be made, i make it.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that your wife has no power or authority to make an “authoritative” decision when you are home? Also why would the simple matter of when children leave the table require an “authoritative decision”? When you say this it seems to imply that your wife doesn’t have the authority to tell the kids when they can leave the table. Are they many other things that she doesn’t have the authority to do? Does she had the authority to tell the kids when it is bedtime when you are home?

My wife expects me to make it. Would she make the same decision if i were not there…of course she would.

It seems like her authority is there when you are not home and when you are home you have an unspoken authority that claims the right to make all decisions regarding the children when the two of you are together. Is this how you see it?

I have never said i need to ‘take authority’ over my wife, as appears common in these threads. It is not about ‘taking’ the auhtority, it is whether authority exists.

How would we know if authority exists unless someone takes authority?

Secondly in your “authority” role can you give your wife the opportunity to make an “authoritative” decision when you are both there or would that remove your authority?

Even when authority exists we can choose not to obey it.

If you said nothing and your wife made a decision concerning the kids without deferring to you to make the decision, would that be disobeying your authority?

More to come…

Craig,
You said:

In Eph 5, wives are to submit to their husbands because he is the head of the wife. The church is to submit to Christ because He is the head of the church.
This can mean either:
Wife/church submit (obey) because husband/Christ is head (authoritative ruler) of wife/church OR
Wife/church submit (serve) because husband/Christ is head (loves, cares for) wife/church

I believe that the second reason is correct but I also think that it goes beyond this reason for those men who do not know or love the Lord Jesus and who may not show love or respect for their wives. I believe that wives will submit to serve these unbelieving husbands also in ways that will cause them to see Jesus in them. This honors the Lord Jesus and may very well bring them to the Lord. So while it is much easier to serve a husband and receive from him when he is a believer who truly wants to love and sacrifice for his wife, we are also required to respect an unbelieving husband who has not yet come to understand that his wife is not beneath him but is his own flesh.

If all husbands would act first in love and sacrifice, their wives would have a very easy job to respect them, love them and serve them with joy in ways that honor them. It is not so easy to submit to a man who treats a wife like her submission is what belongs to him as his “right” and who uses that to selfishly get whatever he wants from her. I believe that being in the marriage as “head” he is the one who is to initiate the sacrifice first and what flows from that in his relationship with his wife will be peace, honor and love. Those who demand submission before they have a heart attitude of sacrifice are not doing what is required of them as “head”.

The entire mindset of patriarchy is male entitlement and you-do-it-first mentality that places the onus on the wife to initiate the sacrificial submission. While wives are to submit no matter the “attitude” of their husbands, I believe that the “head” place in the body is to “start” or “initiate” just as Jesus initiated our relationship with Him by coming to earth even when we didn’t know Him and we were still alienated from God. It is interesting that most pastors do not give this kind of counsel but look to the wife to be the “head” in initiating a sacrificial submission in order for him to “respond” in a good way to her. I believe that this is completely backwards to the “leaving” and “cleaving” that the man is called to do.

Craig #214

My wife and I have been following the recent discussion on authority, submission and Ephesians 5 with interest

I am so happy that you are able to join us even if it is just in following the discussion. I believe that this is a very important discussion and that we can all learn from each other. If you have a comment or two, please feel free to jump in at any time.

This message is for Mark. I have copied my last personal emails to you and forwarded them from my ministry email address since your hotmail account is apparently not receiving my emails. I think the first resend you already received, but my answers you have not seen. I don’t know what else to do except to say that if you don’t get them now, could you please write me and give me another email address to use. Maybe sign up for gmail and that should solve any problems. This is quite baffling to me. I did have to resend a lady an email twice before she got it. She also had a hotmail account. Gmail had no problems receiving.

pinklight,
Those are very deep questions. Good job!

Kristen,
An excellent comment!

It was also very good to remind Mark:

But a Christian egalitarian marriage does NOT mean a no-authority family where the children run wild. It means that both the husband and the wife have equal authority over the children.

For some reason comps often think that because we do not believe that the husband has authority over the wife that this equates to a no-authority home. The Bible clearly talks about the “law” of the mother and the father so there is not just one ruler in the family who sets out the family “law”.

Proverbs 6:20 (NKJV)
20 My son, keep your father’s command,
And do not forsake the law of your mother.

Elastigirl,
I love this:

The buzz words of “mutual submission” in ordinary language is simply “treating others the way you want to be treated”

That about sums it all up.

I actually have no problem with a wife making sure that the kids see the father as an authority figure. After all they are with her all day and it is her authority that they must respect. The dad they see far less (usually) and I think it can be really sweet for a wife to defer to her husband to show respect to him as a model for her kids. What wouldn’t be good would be if the husband did not show her equal respect and disrespected her authority. This would give the children the idea that she is an inferior authority and would cause them also to disrespect their mother.

I saw this attitude in the Middle East when we were there in the mid 1980’s. The wives have no respect from the children because the father is set up as the key authority figure. We saw a boy throwing rocks at his sister. His mom tried to stop him but he only responded by throwing rocks at her. Our guide told us that the mothers are not allowed to discipline the sons as that is taking authority over a male and it isn’t allowed. If she were to discipline him she would invite a beating from her husband. The result is that the males are raised with a haughty mindset of male privilege that allows them to disrespect women.

While Mark’s wife is willingly giving her husband respect (and I commend her for her effort), if he does not also show her respect for her authority with the children he is giving them an unspoken message that he alone is worthy of respect and only males have the highest worth.

I believe that one day when we are in heaven there will be some sadness at the lack of humility that some expressed here on this earth thinking that they alone are worthy. Jesus never took an attitude of having a higher worth nor did He give the impression that He alone could make decisions or that He alone had authority and He is God! If He could live a life of respect for others and not lording it over those less than He is, then surely godly men today should live as Christ did in humility and respect.

TL,
Are you sure that you want me to remove the comment? I think the conversation can be helpful to others, but if you still want me to, I will.

Yup, putting words in Mark’s mouth. A little poke in fact. Mark has said that he will not submit to his wife and I added the real meaning of submission – to go underneath a person to meet their need. Now I realize that Mark isn’t seeing submission this way. I would venture to say that he does this very thing regularly but refuses to call it submission and my little poke was set to bring this out. Gengwall you uncovered my ruse. Rats!

I would like to see Mark’s example of manly authority over his wife and her submission that he would never stoop to doing for her. But in reality I think that they live just as egalitarian a life as we all do for the most part and that Mark never takes his authority. Sadly men taking authority over their wives is actually hurtful to women whether a man knows it or not. By the time that many men find out the harm that they have caused, their marriage is already destroyed beyond repair. I sincerely doubt that Mark does takes authority over his wife because it strikes me as a inner attitude that he has rather than an outer taking authority over his wife in reality.

I also doubt that Mark in reality would fail to support his wife with submission when she needs it. He would just call it something else because I believe that Mark truly does love his wife and he would do for her whatever she needs even if it is letting her take authority over a situation that is highly important to her. While Mark may be rude here sometimes and he still has not repented for his calling me the equivalent of a self-righteous Pharisee, I believe that he is gentle with his wife respecting her needs and never calling her Pharisaical names in order to demean her. If I am right, Mark is not the same way in his marriage as he comes across on this blog.