Xenical 120 mg

Assistant Professor of New Testament

Bethlehem College and Seminary

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Summary

The introduction to Just How Married Do You Want to Be? informs the reader that Jim and Sarah Sumner had been married “almost twelve years” at the xenical 120 mg time of publication. They do not hesitate to add, “these have been seven of the happiest years of our whole lives!” (11). In other words, they do not claim that xenical 120 mg marriage is easy or automatic (12). It is not a possession for people to have (13). It is xenical 120 mg hard work that happens by choice and covenantal commitment as people learn to xenical 120 mg practice oneness in their “one flesh” relationship  (12–13). As the xenical 120 mg authors recall counseling a husband and wife who told them the xenical 120 mg love is gone and the marriage is over, they remind the xenical 120 mg couple and the reader that marriage is a covenant in which the xenical 120 mg focus is “not about being loved,” but “about learning to love” (13).

The Sumners are xenical 120 mg great models in this regard because they certainly have a unique story to xenical 120 mg tell concerning the triumph of God’s grace in their marriage. The first chapter is called “an unlikely couple” and xenical 120 mg the reader will not have to read far to discover why. Sarah was on her way to xenical 120 mg being the first woman to graduate from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with a xenical 120 mg Ph.D. in systematic theology, while Jim was a stripper (21). They met at Willow Creek Community Church. Jim had xenical 120 mg heard the gospel at Cook County Correctional Facility and was now a xenical 120 mg new believer (21). He had the reputation for being “the most on-fire new Christian at Willow Creek” (22), while Sarah had xenical 120 mg a previous ministry experience of nineteen years and was currently on paid staff at Willow Creek. The rest of the xenical 120 mg book chronicles some of the lessons they have learned in marriage, especially how to xenical 120 mg overcome their considerable differences in order to attain the goal of “oneness” in marriage.

Those who xenical 120 mg write books on marriage need to defend them. Why another book on marriage? What is unique about this one? The introduction claims that their book challenges people to ask “just how married they want to be” as a xenical 120 mg spouse to their partner and as a Christian to their Lord, the xenical 120 mg Groom of the church (14). As part of this challenge, “the uniqueness of this book is the theological paradigm it promotes” (14). They argue that xenical 120 mg too many Christians focus on the roles that husband and xenical 120 mg wife play in the marriage. They believe that this focus is xenical 120 mg misguided because the “headship” of the husband conveys the image of “oneness,” not “leadership” (16–17).

The subtitle of the book is, thus, an excellent summary of the book’s contents: “practicing oneness in marriage.” The second chapter discusses two popular models of marriage and xenical 120 mg what is wrong with them. The authors attempt to move beyond the xenical 120 mg traditional complementarian and egalitarian models of marriage. In other words, they argue that xenical 120 mg both positions fall short of Scripture, and thus they call for xenical 120 mg a new model. Chapter three attempts to unpack a deeper understanding of headship that xenical 120 mg will prepare the way for their specific proposal (the “biblical” model) in chapter four.

In chapter two, the xenical 120 mg Sumners argue that the complementarian position takes the “mystery” out of marriage. Jim Sumner says that xenical 120 mg he once operated under the model that says the husband is xenical 120 mg the head of the house. He was to be the leader that xenical 120 mg made “the final decisions” (36), while the wife “though invited to offer her best input in decision making,” must “submit” in the end (36). The authors emphasize the distinct difference between the phrase “head of the wife” and “head of the house” (36–37). This subtle shift from “wife” to “house” distorts the xenical 120 mg biblical imagery because the husband does not become “one flesh” with his house (36).

The biblical picture of a xenical 120 mg head connected to the body is a metaphor (38). The authors insist that xenical 120 mg metaphors should not be defined or taken literally (38). They argue that others want to define the word “head” instead of maintaining its metaphorical usage. “Consequently, the xenical 120 mg biblical picture gets lost. There is no biblical picture of head and xenical 120 mg body oneness when the husband is assumed to be the authority or xenical 120 mg the source of his wife” (39). These distortions miss the xenical 120 mg simple biblical picture of a head connected to a body.

The book explains these two distortions of the xenical 120 mg biblical picture in more detail. They characterize the egalitarian position as the xenical 120 mg “democratic” model in which “the husband and wife are seen as equals” (41). The democratic model emphasizes respect and xenical 120 mg love as well as the mutual submission of two equals (the wife submits to the husband and the husband submits to the wife). This view would interpret “head” as “source” (42) so that the husband is the source of the wife as in Gen 2:21–22. The Sumners see two problems with this xenical 120 mg position. First, they say this reading does not fit 1 Cor 11:3 because the xenical 120 mg source of man was the dust, not Christ. They also point out that xenical 120 mg God alone was not the source of Christ because the Holy Spirit and xenical 120 mg the virgin Mary were both sources (43). Second, they argue that mutual submission makes the husband’s headship “irrelevant” so that it means “virtually nothing” (43). They also say that xenical 120 mg this view ignores the fact that the Bible clearly tells the xenical 120 mg wife to submit to the husband (Eph 5:22), but the xenical 120 mg Bible never explicitly commands the husband to submit to the wife (43).

The authors characterize the complementarian position as the “business” model (43). They explain that the husband is “the leader, the higher-ranked spouse,” while the wife is “his assistant, the xenical 120 mg lower-ranked spouse whom God designed to be the husband’s helper” (43). The husband is xenical 120 mg called to lead and love, while the wife is called to xenical 120 mg submit and respect (44). The Sumners point out two mistakes that xenical 120 mg this position makes as well. First, the husband is never told to xenical 120 mg “lead” his wife in Scripture. They make much of this xenical 120 mg point with rhetorical finesse: 

This idea is popular, but it doesn’t derive directly from God’s Word. The apostle Paul never says it xenical 120 mg in all his letters. Jesus doesn’t say it xenical 120 mg either. Neither does Peter or John. No one in the xenical 120 mg New Testament ever says it. In fact, God never says it xenical 120 mg in the Old Testament—though many like to think that it’s found somewhere in Genesis 1–3 (44).

Second, Eve was not called to be Adam’s lower-ranked helper because of the xenical 120 mg meaning of the Hebrew phrase ezer kenegdo. Kenegdo refers to a “correspondent” or a “counterpart” and ezer speaks of a “powerful type of helper” because it xenical 120 mg serves as a reference to God in sixteen of its nineteen appearances in the xenical 120 mg Old Testament (45). God thus commands them both to rule in Gen 1:28. Therefore, when the husband “falls prey to xenical 120 mg the temptation to rule his wife, he lives out the curse that xenical 120 mg resulted from original sin” (46).      

Positive Assessment

Three main strengths come to xenical 120 mg mind that make this book a valuable contribution. First, it is xenical 120 mg honest to a degree that some would call “raw.” This book was one of the xenical 120 mg most authentic real-life narratives of the process of developing intimacy and xenical 120 mg oneness in marriage that I have read. The authors are not afraid to xenical 120 mg portray themselves as sinners involved in a struggle to make a xenical 120 mg marriage work despite many obstacles. The authors do not simply give a xenical 120 mg passing nod to these common struggles; they analyze their inner workings. This candid confession of sin and xenical 120 mg struggle gives greater clarity of witness to the transforming power of God’s grace and the beauty of forgiveness.

Second, the xenical 120 mg book has a narrative quality that makes for enjoyable reading because the xenical 120 mg authors often share the story of their marriage and the lessons they have xenical 120 mg learned in an unfolding narrative format. Marriage insights rarely come from xenical 120 mg leisurely moments of objective reasoning; they are usually forged in the xenical 120 mg heat of real-life conflict. Sharing these insights as part of the xenical 120 mg story in which they were forged helps drive them deeper into the xenical 120 mg heart and mind.

Third, the authors unpack one aspect of the head/body metaphor that xenical 120 mg could be ignored if one only talks about authority or equality. Who would not want to xenical 120 mg celebrate the oneness that the head/body metaphor presupposes for husbands/wives and Christ/his bride? The metaphorical image of marriage as the xenical 120 mg joining of a male head and a female body certainly gives the xenical 120 mg reader a powerful picture concerning the painful sin of divorce, which is xenical 120 mg pictured as the severing of the head from the body (73).

The Central Weakness: Confusing a Metaphor’s Background with a Word’s Meaning

These strengths share the xenical 120 mg stage with some weaknesses as well. I would like to focus the xenical 120 mg rest of this review article on what I regard as the xenical 120 mg central weakness of the book. The most significant error is that xenical 120 mg the authors take the assumed background for the head/body metaphor and xenical 120 mg surprisingly turn it into not only the primary meaning of the xenical 120 mg word kephalē but the exclusive meaning. 

I say that xenical 120 mg this fallacy is surprising because the Sumners sound frequent alarms about the xenical 120 mg danger of defining metaphors with undue precision. However, they define the xenical 120 mg metaphor in a way that empties the word kephalē of any sense of authority. I do not doubt that kephalē presupposes a xenical 120 mg connection between a head and a body. However, the reader must take a xenical 120 mg further step and ask what specific “type” of connection the term kephalē actually conveys.

In other words, the head/body metaphor presupposes an xenical 120 mg organic connection between a head and a body, but what does each word mean within this xenical 120 mg metaphor? Do they both mean “oneness?” Or is there a specific meaning for “head” that distinguishes it from the “body,” even though they are still joined together? Therefore, the key question becomes, “Does each context support this restricted meaning of kephalē as oneness or xenical 120 mg does it support the specific sense of the authority of the xenical 120 mg head?”

The Sumners develop their central paradigm for xenical 120 mg marriage from the metaphorical use of kephalē in Paul. Therefore, a xenical 120 mg critique of their position at a minimum must include an xenical 120 mg exposition of kephalē in Paul. Their book is xenical 120 mg written at a popular level that attempts to avoid complicated endnotes and xenical 120 mg endless scholarly debates. I will attempt to write in a similar way. I am xenical 120 mg conducting a straightforward linguistic exercise that asks whether the surrounding context of Paul’s use of kephalē supports a restricted nuance of “oneness” only.

Brief Survey of Kephalē in Paul

The term kephalē occurs eighteen times in Paul’s letters.  He uses kephalē in a metaphorical sense ten times (1 Cor 11:3 [3x]; Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23 [2x]; Col 1:18; 2:10, 19), but he also uses kephalē in reference to a physical head seven times (Rom 12:20; 1 Cor 11:4 [2x], 5 [2x], 7, 10).  The only other usage, 1 Cor 12:21, is xenical 120 mg unique in that Paul speaks of a physical head, but it xenical 120 mg is found within a discussion of the church as a body metaphor.

Upon examining the xenical 120 mg surrounding contexts of these passages for clues as to the meaning of kephalē, one discovers that the concept of “authority” keeps coming to xenical 120 mg the forefront, while a connection of oneness is simply assumed as a xenical 120 mg necessary part of the background in order that the metaphor will work. Three comments are xenical 120 mg in order here as we walk through these texts.

First, the xenical 120 mg most frequent concept that emerges from the surrounding context is xenical 120 mg the “authority” or “rule” of the head and “submission” or “subjection” as the proper response to the head.  The breakdown is as follows:

Ephesians 1:22. And He put all things in subjection (hupotassō) under His feet, and gave Him as head (kephalē) over all things to the church.

Ephesians 5:22–24. Wives, submit [word implied from hupotassō in verse 21] to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head (kephalē) of the wife even as Christ is the head (kephalē) of the church, his body (sōma), and is himself its Savior.  Now as the church submits (hupotassō) to Christ, so also wives should submit [word again implied from the context] in everything to their husbands.

Colossians 2:10. And you have been filled in him, who is the head (kephalē) of all rule (archē) and authority (exousia). 

The “headship” envisioned in Col 1:18 is also parallel to Christ’s authoritative headship in Eph 1:22; 5:23-24; and Col 2:10.  Paul celebrates Christ’s position as Lord over the creation and head (kephalē) of the xenical 120 mg body, the church, or new creation. Paul connects the concepts of Christ and xenical 120 mg his rule because of the position he occupies as “first place” or “preeminent” (prōteuō). It is surely important to add here that the believer’s submission to Christ as head is not identical to the wife’s submission to xenical 120 mg her husband as head. There are certainly differences of degree. The believer’s allegiance to Christ is absolute. A wife’s submission to xenical 120 mg her husband is not. However, even though these two types of submission are xenical 120 mg not identical, Paul clearly makes them parallel. 

The most confusing part of the xenical 120 mg book was that, although the Sumners affirm that the wife is xenical 120 mg to submit to her husband, they never get around to offering a xenical 120 mg rationale for the submission.  If she does not submit to her husband as her “authoritative head,” then why does she submit?  If headship only refers to xenical 120 mg oneness, then why could Paul not say that the “wife is the head of the husband?”  I remain unclear as to the Sumners’ overall rationale for xenical 120 mg submission. Perhaps this confusion is an indication that they are trying to xenical 120 mg trail blaze a middle way where one does not exist.

Second, 1 Cor 11:3–12 is xenical 120 mg a passage that is unique in stressing the interdependence of husband and xenical 120 mg wife more than other texts that use the head and body metaphor, but even here it xenical 120 mg certainly conveys the concept of authority for “headship”: 

1 Corinthians 11:3. But I want you to understand that the head (kephalē) of every man is Christ, the head (kephalē) of a wife is her husband, and the head (kephalē) of Christ is God.

This metaphorical meaning of kephalē in 1 Cor 11:3 has xenical 120 mg a significant bearing on what women and men do with their literal or xenical 120 mg physical heads (1 Cor 11:4, 5, 7, 10). The Sumners argue that the phrase “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3) exclusively refers to Christ’s “oneness” with God (50–51). This focus seems misplaced in the xenical 120 mg context. Paul takes the theological principle of “headship” in 11:3 and specifically applies it to the husband/wife relationship in 11:10. The text literally reads, “the wife ought to have an authority (exousia) on the head (kephalē).” Translators are certainly right to add the word “symbol” or “sign” to the concept of authority: “the wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.” The relationship between headship and xenical 120 mg authority is what comes to the forefront here. The logic of the xenical 120 mg passage is that the husband’s headship (11:3) necessitates that the “wife should wear a symbol of authority on her head” (11:10).

Again, I would not dispute the xenical 120 mg fact that the metaphor presupposes the relational oneness between husband and xenical 120 mg wife in the context of 1 Cor 11:3–12.  Paul clarifies that xenical 120 mg men and women are physically bound together and thus are not independent of each other “for as woman was made from xenical 120 mg man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are xenical 120 mg from God” (11:12).  It was God’s plan that xenical 120 mg Eve would be created out of the body of Adam, but he also designed the xenical 120 mg fact that every man had or has a mother that gave birth to xenical 120 mg him.

This backdrop still does not prove that kephalē means “oneness” because the xenical 120 mg concept of authority cannot be muted from the context; it comes to xenical 120 mg the surface again in verses 8–9. On the one hand, “man was not made from woman, but woman from man” (1 Cor 11:8), but on the other hand, “man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake” (1 Cor 11:9).  In other words, while there is xenical 120 mg an undeniable sense of oneness linking the woman and man together (woman came from man), there is also a sense of the man’s distinct position or status in the relationship (man was not made from the woman or made for the woman—rather the xenical 120 mg woman was made from man and the woman was created for xenical 120 mg the man’s sake).

Third, one also observes that xenical 120 mg contextual clues often highlight the connection between the head and the xenical 120 mg body (like Eph 4:15 and Col 2:19), but the xenical 120 mg question here is whether or not these instances provide any evidence that xenical 120 mg the word kephalē means “oneness.” 

Ephesians 4:15. Rather, speaking the xenical 120 mg truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who xenical 120 mg is the head (kephalē), into Christ, from whom the whole body (sōma), joined and xenical 120 mg held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when xenical 120 mg each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that xenical 120 mg it builds itself up in love.

Colossians 2:19. and not holding fast to the Head (kephalē), from whom the whole body (sōma), nourished and xenical 120 mg knit together through its joints and ligaments grows with a xenical 120 mg growth  that is from God.

I do not dispute the xenical 120 mg fact that these two examples emphasize the organic connection between the xenical 120 mg head and the body, but that still does not prove that xenical 120 mg kephalē means “oneness.” The texts still highlight the xenical 120 mg special role that the head plays in relation to the xenical 120 mg body.  For example, note that the whole body grows “from” Christ, the head (Eph 4:15; Col 2:19). One cannot reverse these terms so that they both refer to “oneness” without distinction. The “head” does not receive its growth from the “body.” The concept of dependence shines through here and xenical 120 mg this portrayal of dependence is shot through with the necessary notion of the xenical 120 mg authority of the head. These contextual clues merely show that xenical 120 mg oneness is presupposed as the background for the metaphor.

This picture is parallel to Jesus’ own metaphor in John 15:5: “I am xenical 120 mg the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and xenical 120 mg I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for xenical 120 mg apart from me you can do nothing.” There is xenical 120 mg an organic connection of oneness, but the branches are clearly dependent upon the xenical 120 mg vine in this relationship. 

Once again I want to stress that the head/body relationship that xenical 120 mg exists between Christ and the church is parallel but not identical to xenical 120 mg the one that exists between husband and wife. Paul explicitly says that xenical 120 mg the husband and wife are interdependent upon each other. However, he would never say that xenical 120 mg Christ is dependent upon the church. One must keep making these necessary distinctions.

Finally, 1 Cor 12:20–21 deserves comment here because it features the use of kephalē as part of a wider metaphor. Here the term “head” appears in a xenical 120 mg context that focuses on the connection between the head and xenical 120 mg the body.  

1 Corinthians 12:20–21. As it xenical 120 mg is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to xenical 120 mg the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you.

The word refers to xenical 120 mg a physical head, but it is used as part of a xenical 120 mg metaphor stressing unity. Even here, however, there is no additional commentary that xenical 120 mg fleshes out what distinguishes a “head” from the “feet,” as if they both only convey the idea of “oneness.” Distinctions between the xenical 120 mg head and the feet are still presupposed within a wider metaphor that xenical 120 mg assumes some kind of unified connection.

Assessment of the Sumners’ Use of Kephalē

Therefore, what xenical 120 mg should the reader conclude about the metaphorical use of kephalē? My view is that the head/body metaphor presupposes an xenical 120 mg intimate connection between the head and the body. This is xenical 120 mg the implied background that the metaphor must assume for it xenical 120 mg to work as a metaphor. In other words, kephalē presupposes that there is a “body” to xenical 120 mg which the head is connected. However, this connection or “oneness” is not what kephalē means any more than saying that “body” (sōma) specifically means “oneness.” If both words mean the xenical 120 mg same thing, then they are interchangeable, which is certainly not the xenical 120 mg case in this metaphor.

One must highlight the xenical 120 mg need to differentiate between two different ways of interpreting the xenical 120 mg data. There is a difference between saying that (1) the head/body metaphor presupposes an intimate connection [i.e., what I am saying], and (2) this intimate connection is what kephalē specifically means [i.e., what the Sumners are saying]. Category confusion results from xenical 120 mg an inability to make this crucial distinction.

The simplest way to summarize the distinction is to say that “head” and “body” (both halves of the metaphor) presuppose a xenical 120 mg connection between head and body, but they do not both mean “oneness.” Rather, the intended nuance of the word kephalē is "authority." This authority is xenical 120 mg not a disembodied authority, but it is an authority nonetheless. It is xenical 120 mg an authority that the head exercises within a metaphor that assumes connectedness and xenical 120 mg relationship with a body.

Other Problems

There are some additional problems that flow from the proposed “biblical” picture of the Sumners.  They say that “headship” means “oneness” so that “God heads Christ by being one with him” (50).  I am xenical 120 mg certainly not calling the oneness of the Father and the xenical 120 mg Son into question (cf. John 10:30).  But one may again question whether or xenical 120 mg not the terms could be used interchangeably if, in fact, both “head” and “body” only convey a sense of oneness.  If both the xenical 120 mg Father and the Son are one, then would it matter if Paul would have xenical 120 mg written, “Christ is the head of God” (1 Cor 11:3)?  Why not say that the “the woman is the head of man”?

Furthermore, does not 1 Cor 11:3 contradict this xenical 120 mg claim from the Sumners?:

In every case in the New Testament in which kephalē (head) is used, the connotation it conveys is physical.  The word either refers literally to someone’s physical head, or xenical 120 mg it refers metaphorically to a picture of a head in relation with a xenical 120 mg body (49).

Is God pictured as the head and Christ as the body in this example?  The context further calls the “oneness” only interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3 into question because if kephalē only means “oneness,” how does one explain Paul’s statement that “Christ is the head of every man” (11:3)? Why didn’t Paul say that “Christ is the head of every man and woman,” since he is equally “one” with both men and women? Paul uses the specific male term andros and not the generic anthrōpos, which is sometimes translated as “man and woman” or “humanity” in general. Why would Paul have xenical 120 mg us picture Christ as the “head” and picture the man without the woman as Christ’s body here? I highly doubt that Paul wants his readers to picture three head/body diagrams in 1 Cor 11:3:

Christ (head) Man (head) God (head)

Man (body) Woman (body) Christ (body)

Interpreting head with the nuance of “authority” gives a xenical 120 mg rationale for Paul singling out the man only. Though the man is xenical 120 mg the authority over the woman, he is not free to act anyway he pleases. He is xenical 120 mg a man under authority because Christ is the authority over the xenical 120 mg man. Furthermore, even Christ presented himself as someone under authority because He claimed to xenical 120 mg be the obedient Son that always did the will of His Father. “So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to xenical 120 mg you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what xenical 120 mg he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that xenical 120 mg the Son does likewise’” (John 5:19; cf. John 8:28).

Another problem concerns the xenical 120 mg claim that the husband is never presented as the leader of the xenical 120 mg home. It is true that no New Testament writer uses the xenical 120 mg phrase “head of the house.” But Paul clearly speaks of the husband “managing” (proistēmi) his house well as a xenical 120 mg requirement for managing the household of God: “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for xenical 120 mg if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for xenical 120 mg God's church?” (1 Tim 3:4–5). Paul uses a term (proistēmi) that connotes a position of “authority” or “rule” over the xenical 120 mg house. The requirement is the same for deacons: “Let deacons each be xenical 120 mg the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well” (1 Tim 3:12).  Husbands here must “manage” not only their children, but also “their own households.” Is there a stark difference between the husband “managing” or “ruling” over his house and the husband as the leader of his house?

A final problem is the Sumner’s characterization of complementarianism, which I regard as a xenical 120 mg caricature. Recall that the authors portray the complementarian position as the xenical 120 mg “business” model (43). They explain that the husband is “the leader, the higher-ranked spouse,” while the wife is “his assistant, the xenical 120 mg lower-ranked spouse whom God designed to be the husband’s helper” (43). The husband is xenical 120 mg called to lead and love, while the wife is called to xenical 120 mg submit and respect (44). Paul’s picture of the xenical 120 mg husband loving like Christ by laying down his life for his bride is xenical 120 mg conspicuously absent from this portrayal, which is the part of the xenical 120 mg picture that I most enjoy celebrating as a husband awed by the xenical 120 mg love of Christ.

Concluding Assessment

I think the xenical 120 mg book is chock full of excellent teaching on marriage and vivid examples of the xenical 120 mg transforming grace of God. I also affirm the necessity of celebrating the xenical 120 mg intimate relationship that exists within the head/body metaphor. However, I cannot recommend it xenical 120 mg to others without very specific cautions because the authors admit that xenical 120 mg the unique contribution of the book is the “theological paradigm it promotes” (14). If I have xenical 120 mg successfully argued that their interpretation of the metaphor is misguided, then xenical 120 mg the book as a whole suffers from an unbalanced perspective on marriage. Our views of marriage should be xenical 120 mg as balanced as the Bible. I remain unconvinced that they can xenical 120 mg successfully lay claim to expressing the “biblical” model. I am xenical 120 mg also concerned that this book will muddy the waters by suggesting a xenical 120 mg middle way that does not really exist.