Browsed by
Day: January 22, 2008

The husband as king over the wife

The husband as king over the wife

Comments 145 comments

In part two of this discussion we asked whether God has ordained that a woman must have a priest in the home to represent her to God and God to her. Today we continue our discussion about whether a husband is to have the position of king over his wife in their marriage. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) supports the claim that the husband is to be king over his wife and this view is taught in an on-line book on their web site. The book is called “Building Strong Families” by Dennis Rainey (Dennis is on CBMW’s board of reference) and we are focusing on chapter 4 of this book called “The Husband as Prophet, Priest and King” this chapter authored by Bob Lepine.

Mr. Lepine admits that the teaching about the husband as King has been abused by many well-meaning Bible teachers. Because of this he says that we need to “proceed with caution”. Although a king is thought to be someone who wields power and enjoys privilege and position, Lepine says that the husband needs to go beyond that to be the kind of kingly husband his wife ultimately wants and needs him to be. Lepine then focuses on the king as a warrior and a representative of “his wife and his family in the culture”.

I personally found this part of the chapter to be the most alarming. This patriarchal teaching about the husband as “representative” of his wife and family is lived out by a group called Vision Forum and their leader Doug Phillips. Taking the husband as “representative” teaching to a position of “law”, Doug Phillips teaches that “God does not allow women to vote”. Quoting from Mr. Phillips:

“In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.”

So if the husband is “federal head” then he makes all the decisions and she is forbidden by God to vote. Do you see the problem here? This type of “federal head” concept of the husband as King and representative of the family taken to its logical conclusion makes the husband’s rule in his family virtually unchallenged by anyone. Who then can decide if the husband is being unkind to his wife?

Going back to chapter 4 of “Building Strong Families” Lepine suggests that there will be attacks on the husband’s way of leadership from all kinds of directions. He says that “(attacks) will come from friends and coworkers who, thinking themselves to be wise, have become as fools (Rom. 1:22)” Under the heading Know your enemy Lepine also identifies the wife as someone who will attack the man’s leadership. He says:

There will also be attacks from your closest ally, your wife. While her spirit will welcome the leadership, protection, and provision of a wise king, her flesh will war against her spirit and will seek to thwart your authority. Over time, there will be showdowns as you wrestle with whether to compromise and gain her approval or to stand fast and face her wrath. There will be times when you’ll have to decide whether to serve her or to serve God.”

The advice then is for the husband to stand against his wife. When a wife doesn’t want her husband to vote for her as her “representative” and she doesn’t want his leadership, the husband is to take control of his kingdom and stand up to her anger. He is to lead whether she wants him to take control or not.

Is this really what scripture says? Does the Bible ever tell a husband to take control of his wife or to have a showdown with her wrestling her to force her to a place of submission?

The Bible never once instructs the husband to “lead” his wife. The Bible also never once tells him that he is to be her king or her priest or her prophet. The position of her King is already taken. Jesus is her King and her High Priest and her Prophet. The husband is never granted a place to usurp Jesus’ role. The husband’s role in the marriage is to take the initiative to bond with his wife so that they can have a one-flesh union. In Genesis we find Adam identifying his wife as flesh of his flesh.

Gen 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

In Genesis 2:24, the Bible says “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” For what reason? The reason is because she was taken out of him and he is to initiate a joining of himself with her to be that one flesh union again.

When a husband loves his wife and treats her tenderly and with affection and he sacrifices himself for her, a woman will respond willingly to that kind of love. That is why a husband is not to take authority over her but he is instead to love her and this will bring her willingness to submit to his love.

Right now I am hard at work on our new DVD on the Trinity but when I get a chance to do another post, I would like to respond to some of the questions that were posted on my original 2006 blog article about the husband as priest of the home. There were questions about the wife obeying the husband that I didn’t get to at the time so it should be interesting.

Equal but different deteriorates to an unequal Trinity

Equal but different deteriorates to an unequal Trinity

Comments 32 comments

The term “equal but different” has become a catch phrase in marriage and “women in ministry” issues as it has replaced the pre-1970’s common view of the inferiority of women. In complementarian circles the thought is that women are equal in person but different in role. In the same way the Trinity is defined as equality in essence and status but different in roles. We are told that “different” is not “unequal”, it is just different. For example see this definition of the Trinity (below) that assures us that the status of men and women are equal just as the status of the persons of the Trinity are equal:

In the Trinity we see a pattern of relationships that shows us how it’s possible for equality of being to co-exist with diversity of function. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are equal in status but each has a different function.

But has this new definition of “equal but different” found a way to downgrade Jesus to an unequal place in the Trinity? Apparently so and some are actually using the very passage that affirms the equality of Jesus to make him unequal with God. Let’s see what the bible actually says. In Philippians 2:6 it says about Jesus –

(ALT) who existing in the nature of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be held onto,

In the Amplified Bible, the full meaning is retained:

Philippians 2:6 (AMP) Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,

So Jesus had complete equality with God right from the beginning but he did not think that this equality was a thing to be retained, or held onto, but instead he emptied himself of his rights (to an equal position) so that he could become human. Verse 7 and 8 goes on to explain why Jesus did not retain or hold onto his equality with God:

Philippians 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Philippians 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

In order for Jesus to be fully human and therefore able to die as a man, Jesus emptied himself of his equal position and the equal glory that he had with God so that he could become man. These verses have been used by apologists to prove to Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus did have full equality with God and it is only in his humanity that he is in a position of humility. Jesus voluntarily gave up his equal rights in order to live as a man in an unequal position. Yet these verses are now being used by those who claim to be evangelicals to prove that Jesus did not have equality with God to begin with.

In 2003 at the Evangelical Theological Society, Denny Burk gave a talk in which he set out to prove that in the Trinity, Jesus was not equal with God even though he was in the form of God.

Listen to these three audio files.

Denny Burk #1 Jesus did not want to become equal with God in every respect

Denny Burk #2 Jesus possessed the form of God but not equality with God

Denny Burk #3 In his pre-existent Trinitarian fellowship with the Father, Jesus decided not to go after equality but to go after incarnation

So Jesus did not have equality with the Father before the incarnation and he didn’t want to attain to an equality with the Father? This sounds to me like he is saying that Jesus is not equal but different with the Father, but unequal and different.

The complete audio file was downloaded a year ago from CBMW’s web site. CBMW’s web site has since taken off the 2003 ETS audio files, presumably because they don’t have any ETS audio files older than 2004. Denny Burk serves as the editor of CBMW’s The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

What we have is a full-blown demotion of the Word of God to a position of inequality in the Trinity.