Husbands Authority

[Tom Sawyer]

The matter of man’s biblical headship is not a very complex question biblically. It is simple. All you have to do is read the text and you will get a basic understanding of it. This is why ancient Jews understood headship that way, and also why Christians MUCH closer to the time of the New Testament also recognized man’s headship and woman’s submission. It is EVEN why non-believers can pick up the Bible and then call God a mean, sexists patriarchal pig because they TOO know how to read a text.


Some have actually had the gall to make the claim that biblical headship is simply modern people inserting their own ideas into the Bible, but this is absurd. It is the opposite that is true. To claim anything BUT man’s headship it to grossly twist an easy-to-read text because you want to insert your personal worldview into it.


We can know plainly what it says, not just because that is how people have always generally understood it, but because that is what the words mean in context. The word “submit” for a wife toward her husband is the same word submit for a citizen to the government, slave to master and man to God. Similar thing goes for the Hebrew words used in the OT.


The word used for Sarah obeying Abraham is also the SAME word used for children obeying parents, weather obeying Jesus, man obeying God, etc.


Therefore, to claim that woman is actually NOT subject to her husband, would also logically mean that citizens are not subject to governments, we are not subject to our bosses, children need not obey their parents, weather never really obeyed Jesus and mankind need not obey God. That would be the logical conclusion.


However, if you read a text normally, and do not invent oddball rules to escape man’s headship, then this is the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Holy Bible.


Below, I have listed some, but not all of the uses of the Greek word for submit. Then I have included some, though not all, of two related words for obey. I encourage you to look up ALL of them in your free time, as well as the various Hebrew words in the OT meanins submit or subject to. Tradition has been right for thousands of years, because this is what the Bible teaches:


Word for Submit (HYPOTASSO) to those above you:


Therefore HYPOSTASSO yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme,



Let every soul be HYPOTASSO to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.



Therefore HYPOTASSO to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.



And He HYPOTASSO all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,


Wives, likewise, HYPOTASSO your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives,


For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being HYPOTASSO to their own husbands,


Wives, HYPOTASSO to your own husbands, as to the Lord.


Therefore, just as the church is HYPOTASSO to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.


Wives, HYPTASSO to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.







Word/s for Obey (HYPAKOUO/HYPAKOE) those above you:


Bondservants HYAKOUO in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eye service, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God.


Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to HYPAKOE, you are that one’s slaves whom you HYPAKOUO, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?


Children, HYPAKOUO your parents in the Lord, for this is right.


And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who HYPAKOUO Him,


So the men marveled, saying, “Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea HYPAKOUO Him?”


By faith Abraham HYPAKOUO when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.


as Sarah HYPAKOUO Abraham, calling him KYRIOS (Lord/God), whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Again, I have to remind you that some have claimed that because there are rare uses of the word submit used in a general sense – such as we all submit to one another – that somehow marital submission is two ways. This is false. It is plainly false because the common use of submit is in a vertical relationship, obeying one above you. This is plain by the context also in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3. Wives submit to husbands as to Christ. Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord (same word for God).

There ARE rare uses of the word used to mean generally caring for the good of other people, but context also makes clear that this is the usage. In fact, the appearance of the general usage of submit in Ephesians 5 is BEFORE it begins to speak of husband and wife, and is clearly still in the context of the overall congregation.

In fact, if we had no way of knowing if “submit” just means people submit equally to all others, then we would not know if government and citizens simply submit to one another, rather than the citizens obeying the law. We should have no idea if we need to submit to our bosses, but might rather go into his office and make his decisions for him on alternate days. We would have no idea if we need to submit to God, or whether it was God’s turn to submit to OUR commandments and OUR sovereign will. See, it would get silly. Submit means to follow the will of those above you, except in rare usages obvious by context.

I would love to go into a feminist church where they claim submit just means to submit to one another, and tell them this Sunday I am coming to their church and I am preaching patriarchy from the pulpit. If they try and stop me, I’ll remind them they have to SUBMIT to me, as we must submit to each other. Then I’ll show up next Sunday and preach patriarchy from the pulpit. Hm. Let’s see how that works!

If you find yourself doing odd word games wherever the Bible speaks of a woman’s submission, consider you are trying to escape from the truth. One should not have to do odd word games to get one’s philosophy to fit into the Bible. One only needs to read normally. When you attack the headship of the man, you attack the headship of Christ. The husband is the representative of Christ in the home. He is, according to the Bible, the lord.

New Christians: do not let feminists rob you of your authority. It is yours to use. They will call you all kinds of names for using it, but you have just as much right to use your authority as the government, as an employer and as a parent. You are the boss.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

.....and Abraham listened to God (thankfully) when God instructed Abraham to "obey Sarah" (Genesis 21:12).

That is absurd. Abraham listened to her counsel, as a wise husband does. He did not "obey" her as she did not have the authority to command him what to do. The Bible says that wives submit and obey, as Sarah obeyed.

Don't you think it's intellectually dishonest to throw out an example of a husband listening to his wife's advice (as I do too) to try and deny that? If you can't do better than that, you should just accept what the Bible teaches in plain language. My goodness.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You did (they're what I striked through). And TW is correct, it's nothing about the gender of who is posting......I destest comments like that (no matter WHO makes them). Assigning motive to people for their interpretations of Scripture is exactly what caused a LOT of problems around here years ago. We can disagree without getting insulting to each other (in fact....that's just what the rules are for).

If you need an example of how to do that (disagree without getting nasty and insulting)....take note of Tall's posts.

It is not ad hominem to suggest that changing your rules of interpretation to suit the occasion is intellectually dishonest. That is a fiar remark. And others indeed made ad hominem remarks, such as calling the view I communicated "despicable" albeit on a different post.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

It is not ad hominem to suggest that changing your rules of interpretation to suit the occasion is intellectually dishonest. That is a fiar remark. And others indeed made ad hominem remarks, such as calling the view I communicated "despicable" albeit on a different post.

Yes, yes... TL;DR is you have a penis and thus you are grand. Those who disagree with you are women or not as smart as you (or both) because, again, penis.

I’m very glad you’ve found a version of interpretation that makes you happy and I’m especially glad you found somebody willing to buy what you were selling. Meanwhile, I’m infinitely more delighted for a series of threads that remind me why my man is basically one of the best husbands on earth. He just ran out to get the boy from school because I was taking a nap, now he’s making dinner and watering my flowers because despite working 14 hours yesterday, he said he was scared I was pushing myself too hard and he wanted me to relax. And after this I’m getting a leg rub, which is my crack.

All this even after I said no to having sex yesterday, LoL.

 

[mkgal1]

That is absurd. Abraham listened to her counsel, as a wise husband does. He did not "obey" her as she did not have the authority to command him what to do. The Bible says that wives submit and obey, as Sarah obeyed.

Don't you think it's intellectually dishonest to throw out an example of a husband listening to his wife's advice (as I do too) to try and deny that? If you can't do better than that, you should just accept what the Bible teaches in plain language. My goodness.

That passage has God instructing Abraham to do more than just "listen" to Sarah (it says for him to do what Sarah tells him to do--when Abraham was reluctant). I could use your same words back to you: "just accept what the Bible teaches in plain language. My goodness". It's right there.

And about authority? I offer this quote:

------>The only time authority between a husband and wife is specifically mentioned is in 1 Corinthians 7:4: “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

The Bible clearly commands mutual authority to both the husband and wife. Philip Payne comments on this passage: “The strikingly egalitarian understanding of the dynamics of marital relations expressed in Paul’s symmetry throughout this passage is without parallel in the literature of the ancient world”.²

2.Man and Woman: One in Christ. Philip Payne.
Co-Leadership in Marriage: Who's in Authority? - The Junia Project

 

[mkgal1]

That is absurd. Abraham listened to her counsel, as a wise husband does.

Maybe a refresher of the text is in order.

The Bible says this:

8And the child grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. 9But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, laughing.b 10So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” 11And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. 12But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named.

.....it seems to me that, if God had given husbands authority, this would be the time for an explanation of that (instead---He demonstrates that women can be desiring something that's God's will.....and husbands can be blinded by their own displeasure and their own agenda...IOW...their own ego).

 

[mkgal1]

It is not ad hominem to suggest that changing your rules of interpretation to suit the occasion is intellectually dishonest. That is a fiar remark. And others indeed made ad hominem remarks, such as calling the view I communicated "despicable" albeit on a different post.

But it IS ad hominem when that's a false accusation (as yours was). It does nothing to strengthen your argument.

I missed the "despicable" comment. You're going to have to cite that for me.

 

[mkgal1]

Therefore, just as the church is HYPOTASSO to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

......and Christ gave the church life. Biblical "headship" is a metaphor for life (there's not much of a life to a body when the head is chopped off). When body and head are in unity.....there is life.

 

[tall73]

.....it seems to me that, if God had given husbands authority, this would be the time for an explanation of that (instead---He demonstrates that women can be desiring something that's God's will.....and husbands can be blinded by their own displeasure and their own agenda...IOW...their own ego).

Putting on hold the discussion of authority for a moment, because I am not sure this text speaks to it either way, I think they were both acting out of displeasure and their own agenda because of the situation. They had both played a role in putting themselves in the situation:

In Genesis 16 Sarai suggested that Abram have children through her maid servant.

16 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. 2 So Sarai said to Abram, “See now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing children. Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall a]">[a]obtain children by her.” And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai.

Here Abram listens to his wife's suggestion, but it strains their relationship considerably.

3 Then Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. 4 So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her b]">[b]eyes.
5 Then Sarai said to Abram, c]">[c]“My wrong be upon you! I gave my maid into your embrace; and when she saw that she had conceived, I became despised in her eyes. The Lord judge between you and me.”
6 So Abram said to Sarai, “Indeed your maid is in your hand; do to her as you please.” And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her presence.

So Sarai suggested this so she could have children. Then she resented that the servant was now feeling more important, and blamed Abram. Then Abram said she is your servant, handle it. And Sarai mistreated the servant.

While God said Abram would be the father of many nations, and this was part of the fulfillment, you can hardly say Sarai was acting only out of dispassionate obedience and foresight here.

She had a grudge. It kept going for some time.

Now in chapter 21:
9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing.c]">[c] 10 Therefore she said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac.” 11 And the matter was very d]">[d]displeasing in Abraham’s sight because of his son.

She was upset at the scoffing. He was upset because he didn't want to send away his son whom he loved. Both are understandable. But they didn't completely understand that this was God's sovereignty and He would bring about His goal.

12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called. 13 Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your e]">[e]seed.”

Sarah was talking out of her pain, but she was right in that God had promised that it was through Isaac that the promises were to be fulfilled.

So God said to listen to what she said to do here because it was in accord with His plan.

 

[mkgal1]

I think they were both acting out of displeasure and their own agenda because of the situation.

Sarah was talking out of her pain, but she was right in that God had promised that it was through Isaac that the promises were to be fulfilled.

So God said to listen to what she said to do here because it was in accord with His plan.

Fair enough. I do agree with you.

My point was, though, since we don't have God to audibly speak to us (although we have the Holy Spirit) and interject and say to husbands, "do what your wife tells you"....then we need to recognize that unless TWO are in agreement, there's a good chance that the decisions are being made out of ego....and not out of love. All through the OT there's a theme of needing a witness of TWO....and decisions are not made unilaterally.

 

[tall73]

The story in Genesis 16 and 21 does however point out that Abraham by no means just discounted his wife's counsel.

......and Christ gave the church life. Biblical "headship" is a metaphor for life (there's not much of a life to a body when the head is chopped off). When body and head are in unity.....there is life.

We have had this conversation before, but there is a pretty clear usage of the term head in relation to authority in Ephesians, having nothing to do with marriage. Since it is in the same book, and using the same word, it is helpful to look at to show that head was at times used to indicate authority.

Ephesians 1:
19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principalityg]">[g] and h]">[h]power and i]">[i]might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. 22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Verse 22 is important for a few reasons. First of all it is a sentence where we see both the word translated submit, and the word translated head in tight conjunction, just as in Ephesians 5. It is in the same book, same author, so it does inform us of one possibility of the meaning of the term by that author.

22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Here He put all things under His feet is actually literally He subjected all things under His feet. And here Head is certainly speaking of authority as part of that process of subjecting all things UNDER his feet, because He is head OVER all things.

So we have in the same book a clear case of the use of both terms in the sense of submission to authority. Also they are in relation to Christ's use of power in behalf of the church. So when Paul later then compares the relation of husband and wife to Christ and the church, and also uses submit and head, we might want to be really sure before we change the meaning.

 

[tall73]

Fair enough. I do agree with you.

My point was, though, since we don't have God to audibly speak to us (although we have the Holy Spirit) and interject and say to husbands, "do what your wife tells you"....then we need to recognize that unless TWO are in agreement, there's a good chance that the decisions are being made out of ego....and not out of love. All through the OT there's a theme of needing a witness of TWO....and decisions are not made unilaterally.

Well we do see from the story that, even with what I Peter tells us, Abraham did not disregard everything his wife said. It was actually her suggestion to take the servant (I am sure they both regretted it later, but that again is not a commentary on women's decisions or authority per se, but just what happened).

And even when she complained he said, she is your servant, you handle it. So it was not a case where he just dictated everything.

Nor have I suggested that it would be if the husband does have authority. It still is in conjunction with the wife.

 

[tall73]

All through the OT there's a theme of needing a witness of TWO....and decisions are not made unilaterally.

Both Sarai and Abram agreed to the plan of having children through the servant. I don't think Sarai was thrilled with it in the long run, however.

Either way God used it for His glory. We can't assume we will always get things right even if we agree, but we can try to glorify God, listen to what He says, and when He clarifies, believe it.

 

[tall73]

......and Christ gave the church life. Biblical "headship" is a metaphor for life (there's not much of a life to a body when the head is chopped off). When body and head are in unity.....there is life.

The head analogy is a biological one, no doubt, and even in the text I noted above, which is clearly about authority, it is still also a biological analogy. He is the head over the body.

But the head is what directs the body, and He is said to be over all things, and all things are subjected to Him.

 

[mkgal1]

So it was not a case where he just dictated everything.

I have never gotten the impression (from the Bible) that Abraham dictated everything. Actually.....when I think of it...there aren't any marital relationships in the Bible that come immediately to mind where the husband dictated everything. What DOES come to mind are marriages like Nabel and Abigail.....and King Ahasuerus and Esther.

Nor have I suggested that it would be if the husband does have authority. It still is in conjunction with the wife.

I realize that. That's probably why I feel you're fair and balanced when discussing this topic.

 

[mkgal1]

We can't assume we will always get things right even if we agree, but we can try to glorify God, listen to what He says, and when He clarifies, believe it.

True. Agreeing with each other isn't the key.....it's agreeing with God that's key (think of Annanais and Sapphira). Aligning ourselves with greed is going to bring consequences (death of some sort)......eventually.

 

[mkgal1]

But the head is what directs the body, and He is said to be over all things, and all things are subjected to Him.

That's one interpretation I believe differently however (emphasis is on LIFE not authority).

 

[tall73]

------>The only time authority between a husband and wife is specifically mentioned is in 1 Corinthians 7:4: “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

I agree that this is the only time that I see that word or one of its several cognates is used in conjunction with marriage.

However, I would note that in this case the scope is pretty clear--they each have rights to sex.

If you wish to take it further to apply to all aspects of the body you still have to make sense of the other passages where terms associated with authority are used.

 

[tall73]

True. Agreeing with each other isn't the key.....it's agreeing with God that's key (think of Annanais and Sapphira). Aligning ourselves with greed is going to bring consequences (death of some sort)......eventually.

Good example. Ironically given the situation....I agree!