Tiffany

My quote from #412

Cheryl- re: 100/100 vs 100/0 split.
You can not have a “100-100? split. You can have two separate entities that are both individually at 100. Or you can have a unified group of two individuals which make up “one”. If we are saying Church/Christ and Husband/Wife are to be one, they can be 50-50 if you want to convey equality but 100-100 is nonsensical. (I mean nothing mean by that word, or insulting, simply that it is a concept that doesn’t make sense – all basic percentages must add up to 100) Let’s just discuss this before I address your questions. Although let me say (for I have no idea how many times now) I have not now, nor in the past ever said the husband has a God given right to take authority over his wife. Stop asking me to defend the concept or give an example of it. It is not what I am saying, it is not what I believe. If for some reason you think I do I suggest you go back and re-read my comments.

My guess is you missed this paragraph as it was sandwiched between two about different topics. I am indeed saying that Christ has 100% of the authority and we have none in the sense that we (even as His bride) won’t be defining (going back to the judging angels) what the judgment will be. Will be giving the same judgement as Christ, it will be impossible to do other wise. A much better way to define it (or at least more descriptive) however it that we will be fully submitted, not just in action, but in every aspect of our being.

You say in #476

This is indeed confusing because you never define what a husband’s authority is. You speak a lot about submission and then skip over authority as if it doesn’t really exist if you are fully submitted. The problem for egalitarians who really want to be Biblical, is that we do not believe that a husband has been given a place of authority concerning his wife and so when we meet a complementarian who believes in the husband authority we want to get answers from them that we don’t see in the Scriptures. When you don’t define the authority or the extend of the authority that God has given the man, it just doesn’t help us understand your position.

Both NN and I have repeatedly said that Biblical authority is loving, self- sacrifice, nourishing, cherishing, my-life-for yours. However we have been repeatedly told that this definition isn’t authority. I am going to once again state that this is what Biblical authority is. It isn’t was wordly authority is. And it isn’t what is often enacted in the name of Biblical authority. That doesn’t change the fact though that that is what Biblical authority is.

So no, I won’t interact with the idea of husbands “taking authority”. It isn’t what I (or NN for that matter) has been saying. Rather I have pointed out repeatedly the nature of the Husband/Wife relationship- which is to reflect the truth of the Church/Christ relationship (both now and after the marriage supper). Is it going to be a direct one to one corollary? Absolutely not, nothing which we see in the mirror dimly is going to be. It is however still to contain truth. I have avoided using the word authority because of the unwillingness of those in this discussion to see Biblical authority as loving, self sacrificing, nourishing, cherishing, etc. Indeed it has been stated by some (not sure where to find the exact quotes) but that Christ isn’t really in authority over the church because they will be one. What I have tried to explain multiple times is that the idea that authority is only something used to take charge, solve disagreements, punish evil, etc isn’t a complete Biblical picture of what authority is to be when we are in Christ.

None of this is counter to eph 5:21. The relationship between husband and wife however is characterized not only by their relation as fellow Christians, but also by being husband and wife. The nature of the submission discussed for the wife to have doesn’t stop at vs 22 in eph 5. rather it goes on to tie it all in with the Church and Christ. The discussion of the uniqueness of the wife’s submission and the husbands sacrifice and the nature of his relationship to the wife is more than just cultural commentary for it is representing something eternal, not jut dealing with changing cultural attitudes of the day.