Tuesday 30 April 2013

Marriage: Leading or Controlling?


"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."
(Colossians 3: 18-19, NIV)


There is a difference between the terms "lead" and "control" as follows. To lead is "to direct or guide the operations, activity, or performance of." To control is "to have the power to restrain one self, someone, or something; to reserve, control the outcome of a situation." The difference between a man leading his family correctly and incorrectly can be seen in: (1.) those men who lead to influence and guide their families for God's glory, and (2.) those men who lead in a forceful and controlling manner their families for their own selfish means. Because man had brought sin into the world, there will always be a measure of conflict in a marital relationship between a man and a woman. When it comes to where the battle of the sexes began. I believe this Scripture passage says it best. "Your desire shall be for[or against] your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3: 16, ESV). As you can see, the words "or against" are written in the margin by the translators of the ESV Bible. I personally find the word "for" adds confusion to the text, whereas the word "against" better expresses the meaning and intent of the judgment God was pronouncing upon Eve. I am uncertain as to the original author of the blog article entitled: "How is a Woman's Desire for her Husband a Curse (Genesis 3:16)?" However, I enjoyed what he had to say about Genesis 3:16. His quote is as follows:

"As God pronounces judgment on Eve for her part of the transgression in Eden, He says, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). This verse causes some puzzlement. It would seem that a woman desiring her husband would be a good thing, and not a curse.

The Hebrew phrase in question does not include a verb and is literally translated “toward your husband your desire.” Since this judgment is predictive, the future tense verb “will be” is added for clarity: “Your desire will be for your husband.” The most basic and straightforward understanding of this verse is that woman and man would now have ongoing conflict. In contrast to the ideal conditions in the Garden of Eden and the harmony between Adam and Eve, their relationship, from that point on, would include a power struggle. The NLT translation makes it more evident: “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

God is saying that Eve would desire to rule over her husband, but her husband would instead rule over her. Replacing the mutually interdependent relationship the Lord had created was a desire for one spouse to lead the other. Sin had wrought discord. The battle of the sexes had begun. Both man and woman would now seek the upper hand in marriage. The man who was to lovingly care for and nurture his wife would now seek to rule her, and the wife would desire to wrest control from her husband.

It is important to note that this judgment only states what will take place. God says that man and woman will live in conflict and their relationship will become problematic. The statement “he shall rule over you” is not a biblical command for men to dominate women."

Over the past couple decades there has been much misunderstanding in today's society in regards to the role of leadership in a family. There has been much debate about the role of men and women in the home. The traditional role of a man is to lead his family. Unfortunately feminism equate this to suppressing a woman's equal rights. They see this as a form of a man's way of having power and control over a woman in the family, while the woman is to be subservient to the man. In other words, feminists see this as men exerting their superiority over women. They fail to see the distinct difference between a man fulfilling his responsibility in "leading" his family as opposed to him "controlling" his family with an iron fist, as some would say.

However, a man's role as a leader in the home is not about "control," but rather about guiding, protecting, providing, and leading by example. It is sad that some men have used "control" in the context of forcing his family to submit to his will. Even using mental, verbal, and physical abuse to make his family fall in line with what he wants, instead of properly leading them in a loving and sacrificial way. Concerning the marital relationship, Paul tells the Christian men at Ephesus,"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband" (Eph. 5: 33, KJV). This kind of "love" the man was to demonstrate to his wife is a patient and kind love, a love that is not jealous, nor does it brag and is not arrogant, an unselfish love, a love not easily provoked, and does not hold grudges when wronged, and does no evil, etc. In essence it is an unconditional kind of love that a man is required to show his wife (see 1 Cor. 13: 4-5). In other words, the husband does not love his wife based on conditions or convenience, but loves his wife just like Christ loved the Church (see Eph. 5: 25). Now as for the wife, she is to "respect" her husband as is good and right in the eyes of the Lord. That means she is not required to cater to his every whim.

Women who are feminists need to understand that the role of "leadership" has been given to men not to suppress, control, abuse, degrade, or to show superiority over women; no, it is the God ordained responsibility that God has given strictly to the man at the beginning of creation to be the head of the woman (see 1 Cor. 11: 3). Let is consider a list I have borrowed extensively from Mr. Alexander Strauch of what the Scriptures say about how the man and woman are equal, yet different in their roles:

(1.) The Lord created Adam as the central character in His creation. This central role was not given to the woman; just as Christ is the central figure as the bridegroom, while men and women make up the bride of Christ, the Church.(see Eph. 5: 31-32). "Jack Cottrell, professor of theology at Cincinnati Bible Seminary, correctly states, "All the action and events revolve around the man....he occupies center stage. Everything else, including the woman, has a supporting role." Cottrell goes on to demonstrate this critical point:

“The male, not the female, is given the name--the generic name--borne by the human race as a whole: Adam, or Man (2:5; see 1:26 and 5:2). The male is the one to whom God speaks in the narrative (2:16); he is the first to receive divine revelation and instruction. The animals are brought for naming to the male, not the female (2:19, 20). The woman is made from the man, not the man from the woman (2:22). The woman is also made for the man and brought to him, not vice versa (2:18, 22). Afterward it is the man who speaks and makes a theological comment upon the woman's creation, not vice versa (2:23). It is the male who names the female, not vice versa (2:23).

Thus viewed from every possible angle, the whole narrative in Genesis 2 is the story of how God created the man and provided in every way for his well-being.... The other activities recorded in Genesis 2 are all relative to the man's existence, nature, and needs. This includes the creation of the woman. This chapter simply cannot be read in any other way."[1]

(2.) The Lord our Creator made Adam first, not the woman (Gen. 2:15-20). "God created the man before He created the woman. Before Eve was formed, God placed Adam in the garden to take care of it (2:15). Before Eve was formed, God brought the animals to Adam to be named (2:19). Before Eve was formed, God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest he die (2:16, 17; most likely Adam taught Eve about Goid's command not to eat from the forbidden tree).

Adam was lord of the earth. Indeed, Adam was the human race, the first human. He represented the human race and it was embodied in him. The creation priority of the man is not an incidental fact. Adam's prior creation has fundamental significance. WE don't have to guess at this significance because the New Testament provides a divinely inspired commentary of Genesis 2. According to the principles of Bible interpretation, the Bible is its own best commentary. Scripture interprets Scripture. Thus, the same God who breathed out the words of Genesis 2 inspired Paul to comment on the true meaning of the words. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul commented on Genesis 2 by writing, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created" (1 Tim. 2:12, 13a; italics added).

Thus, the New Testament uses the fact of Adam's prior creation to demonstrate that God designed the man to be the primary leader and teacher of the family of God. The leadership model provided in both the Old and New Testaments is that men primarily lead the people of God.

The same model is demonstrated historically on the worldwide level as well. Since the dawn of human civilization men, not women, have primarily ruled society. Is this by chance? Or is it by design? Why are women seeking liberation and not vice versa? Genesis 2 provides the answer: from the beginning the Creator shaped the human clay in patriarchal form, not matriarchal or egalitarian form. Adam was the first patriarch."[2]

(3.) The man does not originate from the woman, but the woman originated from the man (see Gen. 2: 21-22; 1 Cor. 11: 8). "According to the New Testament use of Genesis 2:22, the woman's origin from the man demonstrates the legitimacy of maintaining role differences between Christian men and women. In 1 Corinthians 11:8, Paul, citing Genesis 2:22, writes, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man." The points he seeks to prove from Genesis 2:22are that the man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man," and also that "the man is the head of a woman" (1 Cor. 11:7, 3). The doctrine of headship and submission is rooted in the Genesis 2 story. The role distinctions Paul insists upon in his letters are based on Genesis 2."[3]Since man originated from God's hand, this same truth applies to all mankind.

(4.) The woman was created for the man to be his "helpmate" [a partner who compliments him], the man was not created for the woman (see Gen. 2: 18; 1 Cor. 11: 9). "If the first three points offend the modern sensibilities of equality, point four is totally unacceptable. Verse 18 reads: "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.'"God declared that Adam's singleness was not good. So God rectified the situation. He hand made "a helper suitable for him." Eve was not another male; she was not a clone of Adam nor was she a twin. She was similar but different. She had her own biology, physiology, and psychology. She was made to complement the man, to help him populate and rule the earth, and to unite with him as a loving companion-partner. This is the first statement in the Bible concerning the woman's role; she is to be a help to the man.

The New Testament commentary on Genesis 2:18 is 1 Corinthians 11:9: "for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." Again Paul uses Genesis 2to maintain sexual role distinctions. The fact that the woman was made for the sake of the man is proof that the man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man," and also that "the man is the head of a woman" (1 Cor. 11:7, 3)."[4]

(5.) God gave man the right and authority to name the woman, whereas the woman was not given this authority (see Gen. 2: 23; 3: 20). "Before the Fall, Adam named his new companion. When Adam saw her, he said, "she shall be called woman" (Gen. 2:23). This is a generic name, not a personal name. After the Fall, Adam "called" his wife "Eve," a personal name (Gen. 3:20).

The one who names a thing or person has the authority and power to name (Gen. 1:5, 8, 10, 2:19, 20). For example, parents have the authority to name their children. The fact that Adam names the woman further suggests Adam's special authority role within the first couple's relationship."[5]This of course was never repeated, for when a man enters into the bonds of marriage with a woman, she already has a name given to her by her parents.

(6.) The Lord God made the man and woman equal in nature. Neither the man is superior over the woman, nor the woman over the man (see Gen. 1:27; 2:23; 29: 14; Eph. 5: 28-29). God created the woman out of the rib of Adam. This in every sense shows their equality in nature. Adam recognize the woman shared his same nature. So he proclaimed, "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (2: 23). This same truth is echoed again in Laban's words to Jacob, "Surely you are my bone and my flesh" (see 29: 14, NASB). Then lastly in Paul's words, "So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church" (Eph. 5: 28-29, NASB). As you can see from the above verses that the woman was never considered inferior to the man. She was never to be placed on the lower level with animals that Adam named (2: 19, 20). The woman also bears the image of God with man (1: 27).

As you can see from the six points above that the Scriptures argues for the truth that the man is to fulfill the role as the leader in the home. The man’s role in the marital relationship is more about leading than about controlling in the negative context. It in no way implies that the woman is inferior to the man, but rather confirms that she both shares the same nature as the man as well as bears the image of God with the man as well. They are equal, yet different. Their roles are different as well, while at the same time complementing each other. In closing, consider some of these Scriptures (See 1 Cor. 7: 2-4; 11: 3-14; Eph. 5: 25, 33; 1 Tim. 2: 11-15; 1 Pet. 3: 7).




[1]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, (Lewis & Roth Publishers, Littleton, CO. Ninth Printing 2010), pg. 20-21.
[2]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pg. 21-22.
[3]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pg. 22.
[4]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pgs. 22-23.
[5]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pgs. 23-24.

No comments:

Post a Comment