It is interesting that the ONLY place in the New Testament where the word "authority" (Gr. exousia) is used with reference to marriage is in a verse found in 1 Corinthians 7 [verse 25] where Paul is addressing the abstaining from sex between a married couple. There he says such a decision is to be a mutually agreed thing and one made in "symphony" with each other. [In other words, the man's not the boss here.]
Passages like Ephesians 5:21-33, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Colossians 3:18-18, and 1 Peter 3:1-7 certainly all speak to several aspects of men and women relationships, in marriage and in the Church to mention a couple, but the Greek word for "authority" in never used BECAUSE AUTHORITY IS NEVER ADDRESSED in these verses. Terms such as "head" may be interpreted to mean "authority" but that is reading into the text rather than interpreting from the text. I repeat...The ONLY text in the Bible that actually uses the word "authority" (Gr. exousia) in the context of MARRIAGE is, in fact, 1 Corinthians 7:25.
This ought, it seems to me, to give pause to anyone holding to the commonly held position that "the husband has authority and the wife is to submit to it because the man has the final say or word in any decision." [The man's the boss.] Is that biblical? Is that actually found IN THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE?
Not according to my good friend Jon Zens who has done a remarkable study on ALL the texts about men and women to be found in scripture. let me give you just a bit of what he says about it all.
Jon says it this way...
"First, 1 Cor.7:1-5 is the only place in the NT where the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) is used with reference to marriage. But it is neither the authority of the husband over the wife, nor vice versa, that is in view, but rather a mutual authority over each other’s body. 1 Corinthians 7:4 states that the wife has authority over her husband’s body. One would think that this would be a hard pill to swallow for those who see “authority” as resting only in the husband’s headship.
Second, Paul states that a couple cannot separate from one another physically unless there is mutual consent (Greek, symphonou). Both parties must agree to the separation or it doesn’t happen. The husband cannot override the wife’s differing viewpoint."
Jon Zens goes on to address this statement by John Piper who is a great preacher [IMHO] and has quite a following among those who hold to the "The man's the boss" mentality.
"John Piper suggests that “mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance” (p.32). But 1 Corinthians 7:5 contradicts Piper’s maxim. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husband cannot overrule his wife with the “final choice” (p.33). Such separation can occur only if both husband and wife are in “symphony” (unity) about such an action."
Jon Zens then has a personal conclusion he makes...
"Now, if mutual consent applies in an important issue like physical separation [sexually] from one another for a period of time, wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage? In light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 I would suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years good ideas, solutions to problems and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and the wife together as they seek the Lord in “symphony” (unity)" as a couple."
Mary and I have for several years now lived with the understanding Jon Zens is articulating here about decision making as a couple. Paul teaches that unless the couple can agree on a course of action, it cannot be executed. So our goal has been to come to some agreed course of action as a couple. How is that done? That will take another post. But that it CAN be done and SHOULD be done according to scripture is the point of this post. I'm convinced that from the bible TEXTUALLY one CANNOT support a "The man is the boss" mentality in marriage. It seems to me that is decidedly more cultic than Christian at it's heart
Paul B.
28 comments:
I don't differ with the conclusion, but I get there via a different route. But I do feel it's proper to point out that the statement "...wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage?" is in fact "reading into the text".
I prefer to lean on the description of the "headship" of the husband being "...as Christ is head of the church". His "headship" was 100% sacrificial, yet He certainly retains the responsibility for the "success" of the church which He said He would build; i.e: it's not going to be ME that gets me into heaven, it'll be Him and Him alone.
So .. how does that work? How can a husband be sacrificial in his relationship with his wife, and still maintain responsibility?
Only by the grace of God.
My mother had a philosophy I believe has merit: “The one that loves most; gives in first.”
Hi REX RAY,
It's me, L's
Have missed you and the others muchly.
Having read your comment, I am off to see if I can prove whether or not my spouse 'loves me best'.
He doesn't know it yet, but we are going to have lunch by the seaside, if I get my way, er, I mean, if he loves me best. :)
Thanks for sharing that.
(We may end up with me cooking his favorite sausage and peppers and us eating lunch in front of the fire-place in the family room.)
As always, your comments are never dull, and we are all the better for them.
Bob,
I THINK it could be that the word "Kephale" [head] has a different meaning than authority in Eph.5. When speaking of Christ's authority, in Eph.1:22-23, Paul uses the phrase "head" but adds to it the phrase "and he put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church..."
I'm thinking the word "head" [Kephale] there in 1:22 may mean "source" which He certainly is the beginnings of the Church and uses that meaning in Eph 5:25 because the man was the "source" [beginnings] of the woman at creation too.
But the woman is NOT under the feet of the husband which would metaphorically mean "authority" .
Just my thoughts.. but I'm aware we all see through a glass darkly and maybe ESPECIALLY on this one. You may be seeing something I'm not. But if I make a mistake [I hope I'm not.] I want to do it on the side of Him being "head" over us all and Him being "Lord" over us all and me being a servant to all and to my wife. I hear that in you too.
You said..."But I do feel it's proper to point out that the statement "...wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage?" is in fact "reading into the text".
The one- mindedness decision making about abstaining from sex for a time IS the point of that text. Jon then offered his assumption wondering if it might not be wise to use it in all decision making. But he's not saying the text says we are SUPPOSE to do so. That would be, as you say, reading into the text.
Paul,
You sly fox. Returning when I was out of commission.
So pleased to see you back and punching that keyboard. You're a good medicine in what has been a difficult few days of illness.
How I agree with your words in this article. I have found it interesting, as no doubt you have, that the most difficult "sacrifice" for men to make, especially those from some cultures, is to recognize their wives as equal partners in life.
In response to what Bob has mentioned, I think we can talk in circles when discussing these terms, as I understand it:
Responsibility = a form of trustworthiness where we are answerable to someone for some task or personal conduct.
Responsibility does not automatically mean authority = exercising administrative control over others.
Please check my latest blog!
It just seems to me that Paul wasn't talking about Adam and Eve, or Jesus Himself, when he was talking about husbands and wives. But I place great emphasis on the fact that, immediately following that instruction, comes the instruction to the husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.
The original of the Ephesians passage doesn't seem to include the word "submit", but Colossians 3:!8 certainly does. In my mind, those two paint the picture I tried to explain in my prior comment.
Ah well. The dark glass deal. Some sweet day ....
Also, apologies for making you type so much. (insert evil laughter)
:)
Aussie J,
I kid you not..my wife just asked a few minutes ago how we're going to find out if Aussie John and his wife are well!!. The flooding is big news here and big trouble there. It is a sheer delight to read your comment and I'm telling you...I heard a distinct Aussie accent as I read it. ;) Welcome.
Bob,
I'd rather "look through a glass darkly" with you than anyone else I know. We're doing it hugging each other it seems to me. I'll take that anytime.
Aussie J,
I got so excited reading your comment I forgot to comment in response. You said...
"Responsibility = a form of trustworthiness where we are answerable to someone for some task or personal conduct.
Responsibility does not automatically mean authority = exercising administrative control over others.
I could not agree more and think that may be the key point in all those passages
Christine,
You said...(We may end up with me cooking his favorite sausage and peppers and us eating lunch in front of the fire-place in the family room.) Did you? ;)
Sounds great.
Ahhhhh---All is right with the world---everyone is back in their places. Thank goodness!!
I don't know about you, but after 30+ years of marriage, don't most of us just seem to find this comfortable give-and-take aspect of marriage? Maybe it's through the struggle that we've found it. Of course, I can't speak to most 30+ years of marriage...but it's been our experience.
Oh! And might I add...30+ (35)years ago, Bro. Paul both married and counseled us. How DID you counsel us 30+ years ago??? Of course, you were just a kid yourself! ;)
Becky,
I think it is the give and take that is VERY profitable for any marriage or any relationship for that matter.
By the way...how old were you when I performed that ceremony? Ten years old is way too young to be getting married. I should have stopped it. What WAS I thinking??
Paul,
Good to read your words again. May your healing continue.
Aussie John, although I know there is much recovery to achieve in Queensland it was good to see your words as well.
As to the post, Paul, I believe the general issue of the women's role in marriage and in the church will be one of, if not the most, discussed topic over the next decade. It also may be the most important topic. While I fully understand there is more than one way to interpret some of the scriptures on this topic, the more I read and learn the more I am convinced that God intended for women and men to be equal partners in all aspects of life, including marriage and the church.
Jon Zens is a very creditable and insightful writer on these topics. But I must admit the single best volume that I have found on this topic is "Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters" by Philip B. Payne. This nearly 500 page volume actually starts in Genesis with creation. It is heavily footnoted and scholarly but worth the read.
One point in the discussion I would like to make a small contribution toward is the reference to Paul talking of Jesus giving himself up for the church and husbands should do the same for their wives. We often only think of this as Jesus' willingness to die on the cross. But it seems one of the best passages describing Jesus' sacrifice is Philippians 2. Of course, his death is mentioned there as well but much of that passage concerns other things Jesus gave up. Basically, Jesus gave up all claim to authority to take on human form. Since Paul in Ephesians 5 is taking a form of the Greek and Roman household codes and modifying them to conform it to God's design he intentionally is contrasting those codes which would have clearly stated the husband was the boss and authority by indicating that culture and society may give men/husbands authority over women but that in keeping with Jesus' example men should give up the "right" to that authority.
There are a number of other contrasts between Paul's household code and that of the secular culture of his day. All of them are the contrast between authority (the secular) and the giving up of authority in one way or another.
During the fall of 2009 the university students that I taught at my church went through all of these various scriptures. At the end I offered an apology to both the men and the women. To the women I apologized that in limiting their roles in marriage and the church we had done a great disservice to them and to God's work in the world. To the men I apologized that we had placed a burden on them that God never intended to "lead" when what God intended was for women and men to work together as equal partners in marriage and in the church.
As I have reflected on the centuries of error in our understanding my heart breaks at how much pain has been caused and how much ministry has been hindered. But I do believe a new day is dawning and pray it may come to full brightness soon.
All..Traveller, who comments occasionally here, left a comment that came via e-mail. But it is so good I want all to see it. I'm taking the liberty of posting it myself and hope you, Traveller, don't mind.
Please read it in it's entirety. It's well worth it.
TRAVELLER said this....:
Paul,
Good to read your words again. May your healing continue.
Aussie John, although I know there is much recovery to achieve in Queensland it was good to see your words as well.
As to the post, Paul, I believe the general issue of the women's role in marriage and in the church will be one of, if not the most, discussed topic over the next decade. It also may be the most important topic. While I fully understand there is more than one way to interpret some of the scriptures on this topic, the more I read and learn the more I am convinced that God intended for women and men to be equal partners in all aspects of life, including marriage and the church.
Jon Zens is a very creditable and insightful writer on these topics. But I must admit the single best volume that I have found on this topic is "Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters" by Philip B. Payne. This nearly 500 page volume actually starts in Genesis with creation. It is heavily footnoted and scholarly but worth the read.
One point in the discussion I would like to make a small contribution toward is the reference to Paul talking of Jesus giving himself up for the church and husbands should do the same for their wives. We often only think of this as Jesus' willingness to die on the cross. But it seems one of the best passages describing Jesus' sacrifice is Philippians 2. Of course, his death is mentioned there as well but much of that passage concerns other things Jesus gave up. Basically, Jesus gave up all claim to authority to take on human form. Since Paul in Ephesians 5 is taking a form of the Greek and Roman household codes and modifying them to conform it to God's design he intentionally is contrasting those codes which would have clearly stated the husband was the boss and authority by indicating that culture and society may give men/husbands authority over women but that in keeping with Jesus' example men should give up the "right" to that authority.
There are a number of other contrasts between Paul's household code and that of the secular culture of his day. All of them are the contrast between authority (the secular) and the giving up of authority in one way or another.
During the fall of 2009 the university students that I taught at my church went through all of these various scriptures. At the end I offered an apology to both the men and the women. To the women I apologized that in limiting their roles in marriage and the church we had done a great disservice to them and to God's work in the world. To the men I apologized that we had placed a burden on them that God never intended to "lead" when what God intended was for women and men to work together as equal partners in marriage and in the church.
As I have reflected on the centuries of error in our understanding my heart breaks at how much pain has been caused and how much ministry has been hindered. But I do believe a new day is dawning and pray it may come to full brightness soon
Hi PAUL,
It's me, Christiane,
Yes, we stayed home and I cooked my husband's favorite lunch.
And yes, it WAS delicious:
onions quartered, green peppers cut up, Italian hot sausages: potatoes peeled and quartered, all placed
in a covered casserole and roasted in the oven. Served with hot bread, buttered.
It's simple and quite good, really.
No fuss. Just plain cooking.
He LOVED it! :)
P.S. Next week, maybe it's lunch by the seaside, if I get my way.
(I will.)
P.S. So glad to hear Aussie John and family are safe. The pictures coming in from Australia are frightening, Paul. Those people need prayers big-time. My Dad spent a part of WWII in Australia, in the US Navy.
Paul,
My girlfriend and I have been having these kinds of conversation recently, and we've been coming to the same sorts of conclusions. Not authority over, but mutual submission. Give and take. That seems so natural to EVERY other relationship, so why does should this one be different? And as Traveller note, we've both found some degree of freedom in not having impossible expectations of the other, but instead learning to lean more on each other and on God.
Glad that you're back.
Traveller,
The world needs more Sunday School classes like that one.
Chris,
Now I have only one question about your comment.
Since I assume it was NOT for the development of theological acume that you and your girlfriend were talking about this...was the reason, in fact, hinted at here..." so why does should THIS one be different?" Were you really discussing the "THIS one?"
Also, It appears to me that the sentence should say "so why should this one be different?" OR "so why does this one have to be different?" But the mixing of the two might indicate a state of nervousness in talking with said girlfriend about the "THIS.'
Are my perceptive powers correct at all? ;0
Paul,
I must cry, "Amen!" to Traveller's
comment re Philippians 2.
My word! I am blessed, and agree entirely, with his words regarding Paul "taking a form of the Greek and Roman household codes and modifying them to conform it to God's design"
The sinful heart of man naturally conforms to those Greek and Roman pagan oriented codes.
Haven't we sinners been expert in seeking to integrate those sinful tendencies into our theologies?
It's easy to get ensnared as to our own preferences in the "submit/sacrifice" discussion, and to what extent Jesus was sacrificial, but I always go back to the same question:
What was Jesus' favorite anything?
If He had favorites in anything, I don't know what they were, other than drawing away by Himself to commune with His Father. But whenever, wherever, and whoever, He was always available to, and for, others. The only time I recall He delayed His response, it seems to have been to make a huge point with Lazarus.
That speaks to not only a sacrificial attitude, but a conscious effort to avoid setting forth His own wants. His life truly was one of feeding on His Father's will, which He described as His "meat". His food. What sustained Him.
All our lives ought to be thusly, I guess, but I know mine must be such, in relation to my wife.
Bob,
I agree when Jesus was alone, he did his favorite “anything”; that was being in contact with his Father.
Once he delayed his final response by saying (“It isn’t right to take the children’s bread and throw it to their dogs”) in order to teach/admonish the thinking of Jews they were better than Gentiles.
On the topic of “Whose Boss”, those that quote Ephesians 5:22 (Wives submit to husbands) seem to skip verse 21 (“Submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.”)
The question may arise: ‘who is to submit most?’ Men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church so much he gave his life.
With that in mind, who would submit most, a paid ‘hired-hand’ or a paid ‘body-guard’? I’m thinking a ‘body-guard’ who is willing to take a bullet for his employer would go farther in submitting.
Once a pastor said, “The word ‘submit’ has more of a meaning of ‘partnership’ than it does in ‘taking orders’.
Christine, your lunch sounds so good, I wouldn’t mind a crumb or two.
Paul,
A freudian slip it may be.
More likely the case is this: this morning I shut the window before seeing that the comment had not saved. I hurriedly dashed off the repeat and forgot to check for grammar.
All,
Great discussion. I think we've discussed, maybe even disagreed, but with a spirirt that I appreciate. Thanks.
I have only one other thought to throw into the pot.
The point of the post was actually to point out that the only time Paul used the Greek word for "authority" between husbands and wives it was in the 1 Corinthians 7 verse and it was a mutual authority thing there. The word "head" in Eph 5 and other places does not generally mean "authority" to the NT writers. .
One writer I read said this...." When Paul does use exousia (“authority”) in a husband-wife context, it is definitely in a mutual sense (1 Cor. 7:4). “If Paul did use kephale with the meaning ‘leader,’ he is the only New Testament writer to do so, even though most of the New Testament writers use more Hebraic Greek than he did. For example, “head of the house” is a very common expression throughout the Gospels, but kephale [head] is never used to convey this meaning.”[8] (See Matthew 10:25; 13:52; 24:43; Luke 12:39; 13:25; 14:21. The Greek word oikodespotes is used. This word comes from two words meaning “master” and “house.”). In addition, the term for the “head of the synagogue” (which was the leading office) did not employ kephale, but was called the archisynagogus."
So my point in the post was that "serving" was not in question. "Bossing" was. That was not addressed at all by the writer in Eph.5.
Paul, I am shocked that you overlooked this Biblical teaching on the man being the ruler [aka "BOSS"] of the household:
"every man should be ruler over his own household" Esther 1:22 NIV
The verse is truly in there but my tongue is firmly in my cheek since it's the rule of a pagan king whose wife refused to appear before a drunken party wearing (only?) her crown. Ideally, I would hope we would stop confusing such a paradigm with GOD's plan for a marriage which brings honor and glory to His image.
Paul said 5:58am For example, “head of the house” is a very common expression throughout the Gospels, but kephale [head] is never used to convey this meaning.”[8] (See Matthew 10:25; 13:52; 24:43; Luke 12:39; 13:25; 14:21. The Greek word oikodespotes is used. This word comes from two words meaning “master” and “house.”) -Paul Burleson
Paul,
Oops, you overlooked oikodespoteō here:
1 Tim 5:14 "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house/ οἰκοδεσποτεῖν, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully."
Interesting how "rule the household" is softened in translation to "guide" (KJV) or "manage" (NIV) or "keep house" (NASB) when its women Paul is addressing.
after 30+ years of marriage, don't most of us just seem to find this comfortable give-and-take aspect of marriage? Becky Dietz
Becky,
After 28 1/2 years of marriage,
No
There he says such a decision is to be a mutually agreed thing and one made in "symphony" with each other. -Paul Burleson
At the risk of being a troublemaker and wearing out my welcome, may I point out that in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, a huge component of Sapphira's DEATH was her AGREEMENT from the same Greek "Symphony" word.
"Then Peter said unto her How is it that ye have agreed together [sumphóneó] to tempt the Spirit of the Lord behold the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door and shall carry thee out" Acts 5:9
Depending on her ezer [lifesaving "help meet"] assignment an a wife will sometimes need to oppose her husband's decisions. Eg Abigail and Esther come to mind. Sapphira was foolish not to do so.
Gem,
You can't wear out your welcome with me. Good points and I will need a little time to do some rereading in order to respond. But GOOD STUFF.
Thank you, Paul for posting my note. It turned out when I tried to post the comment it was too long. (Most people who know may say I have that problem.) But it was all lost in the comment section and I did not have the time to rewrite it. Glad to know it was sent by email.
Post a Comment