pinklight

Since Paul explicitly gives no such equivalent instruction to the husband the relationship logically must be hierarchical.

This logic is not necessary. The husbands of his day already had authority over their wives, so the logic doesn’t and wouldn’t matter.
The question is did Paul reveal somekind of authority? And why would he? They alreayd had authority. But if your speaking in terms of “spiritual authority” the logic still wouldn’t matter, cause it still doesn’t follow.

There is no “the relationship therefore logically must be hierarchal.” Must be my foot. There is no solid connection whatsoever that forces that conclusion. It’s just “belief” that cannot be proven.

Just because Jesus is Lord in some contexts doesn’t mean His lordship is being addressed by Paul in this passage. Such a universal approach to Jesus puts Jesus in a box. It says “Jesus always and only acts in this mode” or “Jesus is only capable of one relational paradigm”. Jesus, in fact, in the bible, when being spoken of in a marital context, and especially when head/body metaphors are in use, never exercises authority over the church. He does as High Priest and as brother, and God certainly does also as father, but never as husband. The marital paradigm in Jesus’ relationship with believers has a unique dynamic which does not mirror His relationship to believers (or the world) in other paradigms.

And this is why he is not “head” of the world, but only his “body” the church!

Is a husband really to exercise “lordship” over his wife? Are you really going there? Can he establish commandments? Can he force her obedience? Can he bring about her salvation? These are all aspects of Jesus’ lordship. Do you really believe husbands are even remotely qualified, let alone ordained, toperform such actions within the marriage?

Great questions on “lordship”!

(220)

To Gengwall (219)

“Authoritarian agape love is utterly paradoxical.”

Both our proper love toward God and His love toward us is described by the word “agape” – yet He is in authority over us. Whether you think it paradoxical or not it clearly is possible.

This is weird fundamentaly. It’s struck out at me. It’s possible of humans because it’s possible for God?

NN cannot prove his thesis for it is not in the Bible, neither can Mark, wherefore they use the scientific principle of a hypothesis: they begin with the assumption that the man’s authority exists in the Bible and set out to prove it. This works in science, but not in theology.

Ain’t that something.

Kay, thank you!!

I’m still behind at like 203 and trying to catch up )))aahh(((( lol

Hi everyone,

I’ve “a problem” in my life that needs to be “removed”. God knows what it is that I am refering to. Can anyone or everyone please pray for this matter to be removed! Please!! Thank you! Had to ask here cause I come here all the time and I love this place…

(Sorry, Cheryl)
Okay, please continue… 🙂

What women need is not a boss or a decision maker making her decisions for her. What women need is truth.

Amen

The understanding that a male knows better than the woman knows what is “for her good” and can stop her from doing what she desires to do “for her own good” because he has a godlike responsibility for another adult human being to make sure that she always remains under his authority to decide what is “good for her” is actually an evil thing.

It is. So much so, that for the longest time, I couldn’t “get it”, that is why such things were a part of the church. It was unfathomable for me for yeears.

Yes, just how much of a smidgeon of His “All authority” did Jesus hand over husbands? And which verse shows Him doing that? How much of “All” is not ‘all’?

This is a great question. When all authority has been given to Jesus, how much of it did he give to husbands?

The modern man tries to squeeze all of these from the one wife he marries and no wonder it is a disaster.

Oh dear……….

Not only does Paul never say that the head commands the body, he explicitely states that the head cannot command the body.

Always thought that was interesting.

You have not addressed the issue I raised at all, which is this: How is any authority based on the flesh (accident of birth) compatible with Christianity at all? Are we a kingdom of priests? Or are we a kingdom of priests and their wives?

Interesting! Like how you’ve worded this.

I’m the ear right now! ;P

The fact that we have a meaning of authority in the English word “head” is irrelevant. The fact that we have authority structures in human relationships is irrelevant. What must be demonstrated is that there is authority of the literal anatomical head over the anatomical body. Without that, it can not be proven that Christ as the metaphorical head over the body has any authority over that body.

This is ))))))gooood(((((((( *Eyes wide* 🙂

Therefore Ephesians 5:21 is compatible with a hierarchical understanding of marriage.

At the time of the writing husbands had legal authority therefore v21 was compatible withing hierarchal marriage.

…but in all of them authority legitimately exists and is not in conflict with right Christian behavior.

The authority is worldy.
Christ (the head) and the Church (the body) the union is not worldy.

This isn’t the pr3vious info I was refering to, but…

http://www.jesuswalk.com/ephesians/13_husbands_wives.htm

Hmm… 🙂

I agree TL. When Paul uses head/body metaphors, the picture is always of symbiosis and equality. The important point is that head and body do not form a hierarchy, they form a unity.

Think I had read somewhere quite a while ago someone giving the meaning of “source of unity”, er something like that…I might be able to find the info…

One thing I might add. There always seems to be this need to make “head”=”source” in Egalitarian circles. We should not forget that the head/body metaphor is in use here. In this context, “head” means the anatomical head in its relationship to the anatomical body. Metaphorically, it could have the sense of “source”, but I am not so sure there aren’t better interpretations.

I agree. There is the meaning of source in 1 Co 11 according to the context but kephale in this passage is used in a metaphor. Therefore I think it has a different though similar meaning to “source”.

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.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

You sound turned around to me, NN.

Paul gives instruction that wives are to “hupotassoe” their husbands in Eph 5:22, Col 3:18 & Titus 2:5. Just after this last passage, in Titus 3:1, Paul again instructs his audience to “hupatassoe” the governing authorities. Similarly, just before his instruction to wives, Peter uses this same term to describe the relationship of believers to “ordinances of men” and of servants toward their masters.

Husbands
governing authorities
ordinances of men
masters

How does Paul’s use prove that the husband had spiritual authority over his wife? What is common and apparent to each in the list is legal authority. But where does the spiritual authority then come in at?

NN:
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?

From your perspective, what am I to be informed of then, NN?

NN:
We are each told our own responsibilities, when we worry about this then the rest is for God to handle.

Cheryl:
It matters not that God didn’t talk to her about His plan for authority of the man. It does matter whether He assigned that authority over the wife to the man. God did not do that so for anyone to claim an authority that has not been God-given is usurping what belongs to God alone.

NN, where is the husband told his responsibility is authority over his wife?

However if the future is fixed then it is not free.

This is not correct. It does not follow.
The future is fixed based on the choices or decisions that people will make making the furture free. God knows what choice(s) someone is going to make therefore the furture is free and fixed by the choice(s).

At what point did Eve become a rebel like Adam, Mark?
Was it when she blamed the deceving serpent for deceving her? How come you consider that a rebellious when it’s not blame shifting?

That should have read:
A rebel is going to shift blame but what reason does a once deceived person have to shift blame when they are not a rebel and no longer deceived?

A rebel is going to shift blame but what reason does a deceived person have to shift blame when they are not a rebel?

Mark,

Seems to me that you are trying to make Eve guilty of being a rebel like Adam. One was deceived, one was a rebel. You cannot just assign a rebellion to Eve who was deceived and who blamed her deceiver. Just because she blamed her deceiver for deceving her doesn’t make her a rebel. It makes her right, since God then cursed the deceivng beast.

Imagine had he said “the woman was deceived and she gave me the fruit and I ate.” That would have been an out right confession of his rebellion because a deceived person cannot be blamed for one’s act of rebellion. But since he left out the fact that she was deceived it shows that he’s shifting blame onto her which is what a rebellious person would do.

And Eve wasn’t rebellious like Adam so why would she have to shift blame anyway?!