NN

To Charis (comment 135)
You asked – ‘NN, do you believe that God has given husbands “final decision making authority”?’

That is a very delicate question to answer – to answer it one would first have to determine what exactly is meant by “final decision making authority.”

Of course each of us has in ourselves the ability to make decisions – whether they be in accordance with authorities in our lives; parental, marital, employment, governmental, or God Himself.
Furthermore of course if ever a lesser authority directly contradicts a greater authority then the greater authority overrules the lesser: thus if the government requires the renunciation of faith in God the government is to be denied. Barring this, it is the nature of any authority to give authoritative decisions – thus Caesar had the authority to put the apostle Paul to death despite its injustice.

So I guess it depends upon what you might mean by “final authority” but hopefully that addressed the origin of your question.

To Kay (155)
My apologies – I only have time for the quickest of responses.

In Luke 22: 26, Christ says ““But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.”

The word translated here as “leader” is hegeomai – which is used of authority, command and judgement – as a noun it refers to a prince or governor.

(*These passages say nothing specifically about husbands – I was merely addressing the [rather common] objection to authority in general)
He doesn’t say “Don’t have leaders, Don’t have people ‘in charge'” – It says “the kind of leadership that I am calling you to is different that what is natural to the world”

To SM (comment 135)

I would be glad to discuss this at greater length – but may I suggest that we do it at my article directly (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/53190.html) to prevent creating even more disconnected threads in the current discussion?

You can comment & ask questions at the link given above and I will be glad to see if I can answer you more clearly. (Also, if you can be more specific about what you find unclear then I may be of more help in explaining it.)

To Cheryl & TL (comments 132 & 133)

Oh, well that explains my confusion… You see, I was under the impression that God occasionally told us what to do, and even more strangely that we were supposed to obey Him for some reason….

To Charis (comment # 129)
You might find the following commentary interesting (not my own, a quote):
http://nuallan.livejournal.com/6888.html

To TL (comment #128)
You said:

Personal authority over another is like two friends who have an hierarchical relationship. One exercises authority over the other, ruling over his decisions and actions, making choices for him, making decisions for him. In real life such a ‘friend’ would not be a friend for long.

Yes, of course… this is why Jesus had no authority over the apostles after he called them “friends,” the rest of Jesus instructions were just personal advice which they could take or leave as they chose without consequence … oh, wait… Christ has All authority… yes, definitely a disconnect here.
(apologies for the sarcasm)

To Sue (comment # 120)
You have hit upon the very crux of the matter:
“I do not feel that any person should have personal authority over another, due to the prevalence of sin. ”

Yet this is the instruction which the Bible repeatedly and explicitly gives us.

Rom 13:1 ~ Let every person be subject [hupotassoe] to the governing authorities [exousia]. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
(Titus 2:9, Titus 3:1, 1 Pet 2:13-18, Eph 6:1, Col 3:20, etc.)

Is this authority often abused sinfully and does sin cause harm? Of course: just read the Gospels – Pilate crucified the sinless Christ (and Christ acknowledged that He had such authority). Read the book of Acts, the “governing authorities” who Paul told the people to submit to repeatedly tortured and imprisoned him, and ultimately killed him. Yet he submitted to all this treatment at the hands of authority being used sinfully, just as he instructed in his epistles.

I understand that you do not feel that anyone should have authority over another because you can see the destruction so often incurred. Any power has this potential, gasoline is quite useful for running a car engine – but if you atomize and ignite it you can level a building (which itself can be fun in the right context); atomic energy has given us an amazing power supply, and Hiroshima and the nuclear fear of the Cold War; even the battery in my laptop can produce roughly the same explosion as a hand grenade if used incorrectly. As with any of God’s gifts – they are meant for good – but they can be twisted by sin to create something horrible.

We must realize that the inspired instruction of Scripture stands over our own personal feelings on any matter. Else we do not serve God, we require that God serve our own sensibilities and desires (and we can read the book of Judges if there is any doubt as to where this leads).

To Sue (comment #113)

I have not denied any meaning in 1 Cor 7 and in fact previously discussed the meaning of this passage in discussion on this very blog here. And if you read what I wrote above – the proper use of the man’s authority is always to the good of his wife; not selfish exploitation of the woman’s sensuality without regard for her.

Let me apologize for any unnecessary emotional turmoil that I have might caused. However, and to put a rather fine point on the matter – the question is not what some people may find offensive: from the ancient Pharisees and Sadducees to the Greeks and Romans, to the postmodern atheistic liberal or the modern Hindu or Muslim. The question is only what is God’s message and how we can obey (for He is our ultimate authority).

To comment #99
-As stated repeatedly, this is not an argument. I don’t believe that it proves anything regarding the question currently under discussion.

That said, biofeedback has primarily been tested as a means of treating hypertension. But the effect itself is not limited to such a scope. The brain can also make the heart speed up (not just slow down). And this is just the conscious portion of the brain. The heart itself is regulated by the ANS – with primary control factors being located in the brainstem. (Apologies to the general group about the neurology tangent)

To Jane (comment # 95)
Actually there are some interesting parallels in biology. I’m not sure what they prove but they are interesting…

The body can of course come under attack from external sources (e.g. car accidents, plague infection, etc.) but one of the most prevalent difficulties is with internal attack when the body stops doing what it is supposed to.
Cancer is one of the most common forms of this. When little parts of the body become “selfish” and “decide” that they are the “most important” part of the body. They begin sequestering resources that aren’t theirs and hurt the rest of the body to grow beyond their intended design – ultimately causing widespread death throughout the body – including the death of the cancer itself.

To Comment # 92
Yes people can. This has been known since at least the mid 70s. Do a search on google scholar for some of the papers on it. Typical name for it is usually something like “biofeedback control of heart rate.” Once again our conscious control exists but is limited. The primary control comes through our autonomic nervous system (particularly in the brain stem).
[Once again, doesn’t prove anything to the present topic – just a response to an untrue statement that was made, and a fact that I find rather interesting]

Oh, missed it –
Not true about the heart by the way. It is regulated by the brain. In fact if we train ourselves then we can consciously alter our own heart-rate. We can’t will it to stop beating completely because this is controlled by regions of the brain (particularly the brainstem) that we don’t consciously have access to – but is still a function of the brain (“in the head”) nonetheless.

To Gengwall, pinklight & susanna (comments #77, 82, 88)

Since this seems to have struck a cord, I feel compelled to point something out. (Not that I think it proves anything to the case in hand).
Anatomically the brain does control the body not the other way around (go for it, type a response back, it’s your brain sending those little signals), not your fingers telling the brain what you should think. Susanna pointed out that the hand can also send signals to the brain, but this is to be expected in any working system. However, the brain is still in control (ever dug a needle out of your hand, it hurts; your pain reaction wants you to move and your brain has to force your body to keep still).

Again, not that it proves anything to this case but it is anatomically clear that the brain does have primary control over the body; when this doesn’t happen it is called paralysis and is a bad thing.

Follow up to comment # 81
And perhaps I’d better specify. I therefore believe that men are “superior” any more than I believe that the Jews were “superior.” Certainly there were some advantages of being born a Jew in having been culturally entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom 3:2). Simply because one is entrusted with authority (e.g. governors, masters, parents, etc.) does not make them metaphysically “superior” over those whom they are charged.
Certainly it is tempting to the carnal mind to think this way – but it is not in accordance with the new heart which is to center our being.

To Kristen (comment #79)
You are correct – I didn’t, I didn’t want to address too many things at once lest we all get lost on a tangential rabbit trail.

To answer:
You presume that the nature of our birth is accidental.
I do not.

We must not ignore that the first chapter of Matthew was a geneaology – the Messiah was promised of a very specific lineage. In fact in the Torah – long before there was a Hebrew kingship at all – God established that the King of Israel would be born of the tribe of Judah and that the priests would be of the tribe of Levi. These are “accidents of birth” yet God chose to ordain them for His purposes. I feel highly uncomfortable suggesting that God was not quite as enlightened as our modern society has come to be.

To All,
Rather than try to answer individual comments (there have been many), I wish to address two threads which have emerged and which I see converging to the core of the question. Let me address these questiosn, make a couple of aside remarks, and then tie them together by examining the very concept of “Christian authority”:

1) Despite the pushback about specific instances of authority – it seems that there is general understanding that legitimate authority can exist within human Christian relationships. If this is true then a logical corollary of this truth is that Ephesians 5:21 is NOT incompatible with authoritative hierarchy within Christian relationships. Therefore Ephesians 5:21 is compatible with a hierarchical understanding of marriage. (It doesn’t by itself prove it – proof is made clear from other passages as outlined here.) And of course none of these (governor-citizen, parent-child, inter-officer, etc.) authority structures is exactly like marriage just as none of them is exactly like the others. Each relationship is of course different, but in all of them authority legitimately exists and is not in conflict with right Christian behavior.

2) TL asked a good question: “how does one add authority to “oneness” without destroying the oneness?”
– I will not answer “how” that is a much longer (though very worthwhile) conversation. But we see that Christ, Bridegroom of the Church, has authority over the Church. Whatever you believe about how and when He got that authority – He has it NOW and will have it forevermore (Matt 29:18, etc.) and He is the Bridegroom now and forevermore (Eph 5:22-33, 2 Cor 11:2, Rev:19:7). Therefore we have an example of a relationship of “oneness” in which there is yet authority. And in fact it is this very relationship which which Paul explicitly compares to human marriage in which the Bridegroom rightly has authority.

Asides:

a) I never said “spiritual” or not, the question was of whether there was some kind of authority – what kind it may be is a separate and subordinate question.
If you will do me the courtesy of listening to what I say and not what “camp” you must therefore presume I must be in (or Augustine, Tertullian, etc.), we will make much more headway.

MOST IMPORTANT – Read this if you read nothing else!
• But let me be clear for this is more important than all the rest. – there is problem which we will very naturally encounter regarding any contemplation of authority derives from our all-too-human experience with authority, both its abuse and its temptations. It is not wrong that human authority should exist, but the very power of it makes it natural to abuse. Just as with sex, food, or money; power and authority are not wrong of themselves but certainly can be carried out so wrongly that they we may be tempted to wonder what good could come of them. And our Lord, who has ultimate authority over us taught us about this. In Matthew 23, Luke 22 and elsewhere. He taught his disciples about the temptations and abuse of power. Christ does not say that greatness does not exist: He says rather that our ideas about “greatness” are all wrong. The whole point of the authority which Christ commands is to be looking outside ourselves, just as the love to which we are commanded differs so fundamentally from the selfishness of worldly love. The authority of Christ over us is complete, He is our God and our Lord – it could be no other. But His authority was one not to come and be served as a king of men to demand obeisance, rather He considered our need and in ultimate love took upon Himself to do what we could not. Any complementarian male who feels smug or complacent with the idea that they “have authority” has misunderstood every lesson about Christian authority which Christ Himself lived out for us (and any complementarian woman who has experience this misunderstanding lived out will rightly feel hurt by this). This is in fact exactly what Paul tells husbands in Ephesians 5 – in Christ, “authority” is not about my comfort, it is not about the fact that I would really like a glass of iced tea right now. It is about the Good of those with whom I have oversight. Whether as a father, a master/employer, or a husband. Christian authority means that my responsibility is to their benefit – not my own comfort.

To Elastigirl & Cheryl (#38 & 43)
My question was never addressed:
Rank clearly exists in relationships such as within the coastguard, parent to child, governor to citizen. If both people involved are christians, does this then negate the “rank” and authority intrinsic in the relationship?

To Susanna (comment #36)

On the authority of Christ – yes He calls his disciples (and by extension us) friends. Are you saying that this means He therefore doesn’t have authority over us? That His commandments are really not binding on us if we don’t think that they are good ideas? That when he said “All authority in heaven and earth” what He really meant to say was “all authority except over you who are my friends. No, surely not.

(Post Script on comment # 37 – I said nothing about women teaching or not teaching men.)
Christ was LORD from before His immaculate conception (“before Abraham was I AM”). And it is worth noting that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Some will confess in willing and reconciled submission and some in grudging defeat but ALL WILL CONFESS. Jesus is Lord, He could not be else – but in His lordship He loved us so much that He died to reconcile our rebellion-damned selves to His loving Lordship. Christ did not die to become the Lord, He died to make us reconciled to our Lord.

To Cheryl (comment # 29)

To reiterate – we are agreed that Christ (in human form) had authority and that Christ now has authority – in fact All authority (irregardless of its origin).

You argue that Christ gave up said authority to be the Bridegroom. But both during His time on earth and now, He has authority. Therefore, your argument that Christ gave up His authority to be the Church’s Bridegroom CANNOT logically be correct.

Furthermore, in Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul explicitly relates the proper mutual interaction of husband and wife as a parallel of Christ and His bride the Church. As such, the idea of authority is implicit within the construction of this passage. Just as Christ’s sacrifice was not of His authority – but of His very life. So too are husbands called to love their wives and give themselves for them. Even so as we are told to obey the authority of Christ, wives are told to submit to their husbands – “even as to the Lord.” Not because it is exacted by Christ (or the husband) but because it is right and proper to God’s ordination of the relationship.

To Cheryl (comment # 18);

I will answer all of your questions with a sim

– If two christians are in genuine dispute over the correct course of action on a matter and are unable to come to an agreement, what course should they choose?

Perhaps to be more pointed – let us say that two christian’s are both serving in the coast guard and are in disagreement over the best course of action to take. The higher rank gives an order than the lower rank does not think is the best idea. Should the lower ranking officer follow the order (as is required by their relationship as officers in the coast guard) or does their relationship as christians change this? Or when a father tells his son something that his son disagrees with – does this mean that the son is free to disobey his father? (that would certainly change my perspective on some rebellious actions of my teenage years…)

No.
Despite our overriding imperatives to act as christians at all times, this does not negate that we are also related by other relationships that apply additional constraints on the proper conduct in these interactions.

To Cheryl (comment # 17);
It is easier to form elliptical statements in Greek but even English can give the type of statement which you “don’t think possible.”

“John and Katie are going to support each other, and Max is going to do the same for Steve.” – We’ve gone from a reciprocal to a non-reciprocal statement.
It’s more awkward in English but possible nonetheless.

Before you say it – of course this doesn’t prove that the second is not non-reciprocal; it is just compatible with it. So you have to look to other information to find out whether or not the second construction is also reciprocal (which is why looking at other parallel instructions in the epistles is necessary to be certain of correct interpretation).

To Cheryl (comments #13 & 15) – on the authority of Christ.

Whether you believe that during His earthly life Christ had intrinsic authority [due to His deity] or only extrinsic authority as granted Him by the Father, you would agree (as far as I can tell) that He had authority during His earthly ministry and now has all authority. (again whatever its origin; after all, all right human authority is also granted by God)

Therefore, Christ – Bridegroom of the Church has ALL authority… Whether His authority was intrinsic or given Him by the Father (just as any authority which we rightly possess must be) is immaterial to the question of whether He had authority. I don’t see how you can possibly construe this to support your idea of ‘Christ – our Bridegroom – being without authority.’

To TL (comment # 10);
I think this is what you are looking for (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?redirect=true)

Of course my question has lots of negative connotations – it has exactly the same negative connotations of the question you asked. I asked the question to highlight the mode of thinking that leads to these negative connotations. The mode of thinking so natural to this world that gives ‘used’ a soiled connotation. Does God “use” us? Certainly! (e.g. Rom 9:21) – Is this a bad thing? or detrimental to us that are His? – of course not.

The rest of your argument (that God is “above authority”) has no logical meaning whatsoever. God Himself speaks of His authority and power over all things and particularly over His people (Matt 9:6, Matt 28:18, Rom 9:21, Jhn 19:11, Col 2:10, etc.). As He declares these things, we are in no position to decide that He used the wrong word.

Lastly, Paul seemed to think that the marriage relationship does reflect the relationship of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33). I think I’ll go with Paul on this one…
Though this is not to say that we always reflect the Truth in our own earthly lives. Whatever our lives say “We cannot shut up about the gospel, we may be e telling the truth about Jesus or telling a lie about Jesus but he is always, always talking about Jesus.”

To Cheryl (Comment # 5);

I start by highlighting one critical point in your argument:

If we see Jesus as the perfect example of husbandly love, the very first thing that we see Him doing in coming to earth is giving up His rights and His authority so that He can live for and die for His bride. (emphasis mine)

No, He didn’t. He gave up His rights certainly (e.g. Phil 2:7) – but nowhere are we told that He gave up His authority. In fact we are told quite the opposite in a great many places (e.g. Matt 9:6, Matt 28:18, etc.) Being of the power and authority of God, He chose a life of service to those under His authority. I agree that Christ is the perfect example of husbandly love (just as Paul said) – but realize that Christ’s serving us does not lessen His authority over us. The words and instructions of Christ are authoritative because they come from authority; from the Christ – our celestial and ultimate Bridegroom to the Church; of whom our present marriages are but shadows.

Since you repeatedly reference the matter: The word ‘hupotassoe’ appears directly in Eph 5:22 in the Textus Receptus, while it is referenced elliptically from the previous verse in the GNT Morph (Greek can do that in a way English cannot). But, in either case the idea is in the verse – Agreed? So the only question is how we are to correctly interpret it.

You say:

Secondly agape love transcends any other kind of love and so if there were a competing kind of love in a relationship it must be under agape love not forcing agape love under submission to a lesser love. Agape is God’s kind of love and it is the highest of all… Where is the proof that another kind of love will force agape love to be underneath and subordinate to a secondary kind of love?

But I have already answered that in my post which you referenced:

While this certainly refutes the standard objection posed by Egalitarian thought based on this passage, let us not lose sight of the positive understanding which we should take away from this. The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship; but, the love of Christ – agape – is of FIRST IMPORTANCE. When you are married you are FIRST a christian, then a spouse. Just as in any other aspect of life; Christ is to be central and our other actions a corollary of this most fundamental truth. It is an issue of first and second things. Submission is enjoined within marriage, true; but if this interferes with christian interaction then you have done it wrong. And you will lose not only the good of the christian interaction but will destroy the good of submission in the the marital interaction. And when this plays out is it any wonder that so many people question the apostle’s instructions.

And finally, you state:

You did say that the instructions are the same for both wives and slaves and the same word used. If you are not saying that the submission of women is the same as submission of slaves then why did you link the two? What is the sameness that you are claiming?

I simply pointed out that Paul gave parallel instructions using the same verbage. Surely this must inform our understanding of how the apostle uses this word, no?

Despite my desire to continue – this response is already too long. So I shall stop here in the interests of retaining what brevity I can.

To TL (comment #4):
Liddell & Scott can be accessed through the Perseus project (http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/PERSEUS/Reference/lsj.html) – but it is a bit more academic and less user friendly. The preferred method of searching it is directly with Greek characters.

On your comment let me ask a question: Are our religious affections for God’s “use” according to His desires? Does this make them in some way less a benefit to and for us? This is the very nature of benevolent authority – God the Son’s benevolent authority towards us was so complete that He sacrificed Himself to redeem us.

TL – You can get access to the Strong’s greek & hebrew lexicons including Thayer’s lexicon through Blueletterbible.org
here is ‘haegeomai’ http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2233&t=KJV

(Other resources are also available at other sites – I find them best used in conjunction with each other.)

Moreover, I did not say that husbands are exempt from christian submission or wives from love – but that in context of the marital relationship – out of the broad scope of all christian relationships; wives are instructed specifically to submission and husbands to love their wives.

Let me start by thanking Cheryl for her willingness to interact with an opposing idea.

A few points are necessary to clarify the content of what I said and to point out that the logical demonstration which I described regarding a biblical understanding of gender roles in marriage was not even addressed by the above discussion.

The logical argument is straightforward (and not based primarily on Eph 5):
~Both Peter & Paul explicitly instruct wives to “hupotassoe” their husbands in several places in the epistles.
~This word (“hupotassoe”) is the same word which the same apostles used when describing the proper conduct of slaves toward their masters and citizens to the governing authorities. It is clear from its apostolic usage that it refers to a command to submission on the part of the doer.
~ This command [to submit] as given explicitly to the wife in the marital relationship, while the husband is not instructed in the same way [but rather to love the wife]. This gives clear indication of hierarchy within the marital relationship is given.

The commentary on Ephesians 5:21 is a secondary issue to the logical proof given above. It is simply meant to clarify the question of “if ‘hupotassoe’ means ‘submit’ then how can it be mutual and how can there be hierarchy within marriage when all christians are instructed to ‘submit’ to each other. The simple answer of course is that within a christian marriage there are at least two distinct aspects to the relationship involved: the people are both christians and they are husband/wife. As christians the relationship is governed by love [agapaoe] and this leads to mutual ‘submission’ however in the marital relationship a second type of love also exists [eros] which is not intrinsic to all christian relationships, and this type of love is naturally hierarchical as established by God.

Two loose ends that I particularly want to address:
– I did not say that the submission of the wife was the same as a master-slave relationship.
– Cheryl notes that the cultural system of the day was patriarchically autocratic (true) and that God never tells the man “exercise authority over your wife” (also true). This raises a question of why God didn’t say that if the marital relationship contains hierarchy. The answer is the same reason that God did not tell the wife “make sure your husband shows sacrificial love for you.” We are each told our own responsibilities, when we worry about this then the rest is for God to handle. But even in our daily lives it is plain just how much trouble arises when people are more concerned about how other people aren’t living up to their end of the bargain than in living up to their own responsibilities. (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/28921.html)
-(To limit the number of tangents arising and stay on the central point I will not address other flaws either in Ryan’s argument or other argument made in response to what I said.)

Dave – because a subject has a specific right with respect to the governing authorities does not necessitate that this subject thereby has equal authority to the government over him. That is, my claim to trial does not thereby make my authority toward the US equal to the US’s authority over me. Nor does (for instance) the fact that a subsidiary company has an equal right to sue its parent company make the subsidiary company have equal authority over its parent company.

Once again, I think passage does imply that the husband does not have “absolute” authority over the wife (he is instructed specifically not to deny her conjugal rights thus limiting the possible scope of his authority), but I’ve never heard any thinking complementarian claim that anyways. However, this stricture of limitation does not thereby negate any possibility of authority.

(Thought I’d clarify for the new person commenting – consider me again bowed out)

One hundred comments in and I’m not sure that any more clarity is being reached than with the original comment that precipitated this long chain.
As such I believe I shall take my leave of this particular discussion. Best wishes

To Susanna #84 & 87
I don’t get the sense that you are understanding what I am saying, and I am afraid I don’t know how to make it clearer – so I think we drop this discussion of word origins where it is.

The only last note that I would make is that you say:
“The word “Lord” must therefore mean “an absolute Lord,” and this was how the Greek understood it, for the owner of a slave was called a “lord.” ”
Since this is a single word (kurios) which is it? Does this mean lord & sir or does it only mean “absolute lord”? You have now stated both claims.