I. Foundational Definitions and Theological Roots of
Relational Dysfunction
A. Defining Codependence: A Psycho-Spiritual Perspective
Codependency, from a clinical and theological perspective, describes a pathological relational pattern centered on finding self-worth through external validation and control. It is characterized by an excessive reliance on, or pre-occupation with, the needs of another person, often leading to a person being manipulated or controlled by the pathology of their counterpart.1 Core manifestations of codependency include the tendency to draw personal value primarily from how others esteem the individual or from the degree to extent others depend upon them.2
The internal landscape of the codependent is often marked by self-neglect, chronic anxiety, people-pleasing behaviors designed to avoid confrontation, and a marked difficulty in establishing firm personal boundaries.3 Clinically, this desire to “fix, help, or rescue others” provides a sense of purpose and the crucial feeling of being needed or lovable.3 This dynamic is often rooted in fear, driving the codependent to attempt to control the emotions and behaviors of others as a mechanism to regulate their own internal state and anxiety.2 Ultimately, the condition involves lacking a robust sense of personal identity, feelings, or needs, prioritizing external relationship maintenance above internal spiritual health.3
B. Codependence as Theological Idolatry
From a theological standpoint, codependency is correctly identified as a form of idolatry. It represents a fundamental redirection of vertical dependence (on God) toward horizontal dependence (on human relationships or outcomes).2 The core requirement for validation, peace, and purposefulness is placed upon people, places, or things, rather than upon Jesus Christ, who is the only legitimate Source for identity and affirmation.2 This displacement violates the spiritual principle articulated in the First Commandment, which mandates that God alone must be placed first in one’s life.4
The establishment of this pattern can be traced back to the moment of humanity's separation from the Divine in the Garden of Eden (The Fall). The resultant shame and spiritual vacuum create radical uncertainty. When the vertical connection is broken, humanity seeks to fill that void by attaching their sense of security, worth, and control to external sources, chiefly relationships. This shift from divine dependence to human dependence constitutes the act of idolatry that manifests as codependency—a systemic relational strategy designed to manage profound existential fear and shame.2 The pathway to cure involves aligning one’s identity in Christ, recognizing the inherent, God-given value articulated by the Psalmist, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made”.4 This divine affirmation provides the necessary stability to resist seeking validation from a constantly shifting external environment.2
C. Interdependence: The Biblical Alternative
The destructive nature of codependency stands in stark contrast to the healthy concept of Christian interdependence. Interdependence is vital to the functioning of the Body of Christ, where members exercise their distinct spiritual gifts for the mutual benefit of the whole (Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-14).5 This healthy, other-oriented activity flows from a Christ-centered focus and an "overflowing place of love," rather than manipulative intent.2
The clearest scriptural distinction between healthy help and unhealthy enabling is found in the analysis of the Greek terminology used in Galatians 6. The Apostle Paul, in the same passage, instructs Christians both to "bear one another's burdens" (Galatians 6:2) and confirms that "each will have to bear his own load" (Galatians 6:5).8 This is not a contradiction but a nuanced distinction based on the Greek words employed.
The term translated as "burdens" in verse 2 is baros (βάρος), which means "heavy weight" or "particularly oppressive," such as a major transgression, affliction, or overwhelming grief.8 Christians are commanded to help carry this baros, fulfilling the law of Christ through compassion and aid. Conversely, the term used for "load" in verse 5 is fortion (φορτίον), which refers to a necessary load for transport—an individual’s ordinary, essential responsibilities and accountability.8 Every individual is responsible for carrying their own fortion (load).
The dysfunctional relationship of codependency is precisely the violation of this boundary. Instead of assisting with a baros, the codependent attempts to assume the recipient's personal fortion (such as their financial accountability, emotional regulation, or spiritual life).9 This enabling prevents the recipient from growing in responsibility and character, while simultaneously leading the carrier toward self-neglect, resentment, and burnout.4
Table 1 illustrates the critical linguistic difference that guides healthy Christian relationships away from codependence.
Table 1: Interdependence vs. Codependence:
Key Greek Terms in Galatians 6
II. Case Study 1: The Failure of Vocation –
Adam and Eve (Genesis 3)
A. Adam’s Passive Codependence and Relational Compromise
The Genesis 3 account provides the archetypal example of codependent behavior, characterized by the failure of responsible leadership and the prioritizing of relational peace over divine command. The sin of the first man, Adam, is fundamentally attributed to his passivity and failure to fulfill his vocational responsibility.11 When the serpent approached Eve, Adam was physically present but chose silence and inaction, refusing to intervene, protect his wife, or clarify the command of God.11 He stepped back and allowed the deception to unfold.
The Bible consistently attributes the initial sin to Adam because he was the covenant head of the household and had received God’s command directly.11 His neglect of this responsibility constitutes a profound sin—a serious departure from God’s design. This failure to lead or confront the danger demonstrates the core mechanism of passive codependency: the avoidance of difficult, necessary conflict, or "the tough talk," in favor of immediate, perceived relational harmony.12 Adam’s silence was a choice to sacrifice obedience for the sake of following his wife and avoiding confrontation, which established a foundational pattern of relational compromise that continues to plague humanity.
B. The Devastating Consequence: Relational Idolatry Confirmed by God
The theological weight of this event is demonstrated in God’s subsequent interrogation. God’s question, "Where are you, Adam?" (Genesis 3:9), was not an inquiry into location but a spiritual summons, calling Adam out of his hiding place to confront his moral and spiritual passivity.12 The divine condemnation that followed explicitly links the catastrophic spiritual fall to Adam’s relational choice, highlighting the hierarchy of loyalty that was violated.
C. Scripture and Analysis: Genesis 3:17
The mechanism of Adam’s codependent failure is captured in the divine judgment:
Scripture Reference: Genesis 3:17 (ESV)
Genesis 3:17 (ESV): And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” 13
The central condemnation, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,” reveals the nature of the transgression.13 Adam knowingly prioritized the human voice—the desire to follow or agree with his relational partner—over the direct, authoritative command of God. While Eve was deceived, Adam chose to transgress, indicating that his failure was an act of willful compromise. The judgment confirms that in relational codependency, the failure to exercise responsible agency (passivity) is devastating because it sacrifices the clear divine hierarchy for human approval, resulting in profound spiritual and physical consequences.
III. Case Study 2: The Co-Dependent Power Struggle – Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 21)
A. The Dynamic: Passive-Aggressive vs. Aggressive Codependency
The relationship between King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, particularly regarding the acquisition of Naboth's vineyard, offers a powerful illustration of aggressive and passive-aggressive codependency functioning as a deadly, mutually manipulative system.1 This partnership was characterized by Ahab's dependence on Jezebel’s control and Jezebel’s dependence on Ahab’s needs for her sense of power.1
The crisis began when Naboth the Jezreelite, citing ancient Israelite law, rightfully refused to sell his ancestral vineyard to King Ahab.14 This external refusal triggered Ahab, a man accustomed to having his desires immediately fulfilled, leading to a classic passive-aggressive response.
B. Ahab's Passive Resistance and Emotional Manipulation
When denied the vineyard, Ahab retreated to textbook passive resistance. He went home "sullen and angry," lay down on his bed, turned his face to the wall, and "refused to eat".14 This behavior perfectly characterizes the clinical definition of passive-aggression: appearing to comply externally but internally displaying negative behavior and resistance.1
Ahab’s public display of sulking and refusing nourishment was not merely an expression of grief; it was a powerful, manipulative tactic.1 By retreating to victimhood and manifesting unexpressed anger, he applied pressure on Jezebel to resolve the situation, avoiding the direct confrontation or responsible use of his royal authority.1 This passivity served as an active, manipulative force that compelled the aggressor (Jezebel) to act on his behalf, ensuring the destructive outcome while maintaining Ahab’s veneer of innocence regarding Naboth’s subsequent murder. Ahab thus fulfilled the codependent role by trading his kingly responsibility (fortion) for the emotional regulation provided by his wife’s intervention.
C. Jezebel’s Aggressive Enabling
Jezebel’s response was immediate and controlling. She challenged Ahab’s identity and competence, asking, “Is this how you act as king over Israel?”.14 By questioning his ability, she created a justification for her own aggressive intervention, validating her need to control the situation and, by extension, her husband.1
She then took full responsibility off Ahab’s shoulders, providing the ultimate act of enabling: “Get up and eat! Cheer up. I’ll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.”.14 Jezebel subsequently executed a murderous plan using passive Ahab’s signature and others to eliminate Naboth.1 The codependent system was sustained because both parties achieved their dysfunctional goals: Ahab gained the vineyard without personal accountability, and Jezebel cemented her control and sense of power.1
D. Scripture and Analysis: 1 Kings 21:4-7
The dynamic exchange that defines this codependent power struggle is explicitly detailed:
Scripture Reference: 1 Kings 21:4-7 (NIV)
4 So Ahab went home, sullen and angry because Naboth the Jezreelite had said, “I will not give you the inheritance of my ancestors.” He lay on his bed sulking and refused to eat. 5 His wife Jezebel came in and asked him, “Why are you so sullen? Why won’t you eat?” 6 He answered her, “Because I said to Naboth the Jezreelite, ‘Sell me your vineyard; or if you prefer, I will give you another vineyard in its place.’ But he said, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’ ” 7 Jezebel his wife said, “Is this how you act as king over Israel? Get up and eat! Cheer up. I’ll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.” 14
This passage demonstrates the exchange of moral authority for emotional comfort. Ahab’s passive behavior compelled Jezebel to act aggressively on his behalf. His passivity was not merely inaction; it was an active form of manipulation and emotional resistance, guaranteeing that his desire would be fulfilled through Jezebel’s enabling and destructive control.1 This systemic dysfunction ultimately led to the condemnation and destruction of their entire family.16
IV. Case Study 3: The Boundary Collapse – Samson and Delilah (Judges 16)
A. Samson's Need to Be Needed and Boundary Failure
The story of Samson and Delilah provides a critical examination of boundary collapse rooted in a codependent need for external acceptance and validation. Samson was consecrated as a Nazirite from birth, with his identity and divine strength tied directly to his sacred vow, symbolized by his uncut hair.17 However, his recurring tendency to seek intimate relationships with Philistine women—enemies of Israel—suggests a fundamental compromise of identity and a pervasive need to seek approval from sources outside his divine calling.3
Samson repeatedly demonstrated the codependent trait of failing to set boundaries, sacrificing his personal calling and self-preservation to avoid upsetting or disappointing Delilah, even when her intentions were clearly malicious and life-threatening.3 He was susceptible to the manipulation disguised as flattery and desperation, displaying a need to feel wanted that superseded his spiritual and physical safety.18
B. Delilah’s Relentless, Controlling Manipulation
Delilah, motivated by large sums of Philistine silver, was determined to discover the secret of Samson's strength.19 She did not employ physical torture but used relentless psychological warfare. She employed a strategy of sustained verbal and emotional "prodding" and "nagging" to erode Samson's defenses.17
The scripture details the extreme psychological duress she inflicted. She "pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul was vexed unto death".17 This constant emotional pressure was designed to create an intolerable state of distress, forcing Samson to surrender his sacred secret simply to gain relief from the relentless conflict and anxiety created by her demands.
C. Scripture and Analysis: Judges 16:16-17
The climax of this destructive, boundary-less relationship, where Samson finally sacrifices his purpose for emotional peace, is captured in this exchange:
Scripture Reference: Judges 16:16-17 (KJV)
16 And it came to pass, when she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul was vexed unto death; 17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a rasor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man. 17
This confession represents the ultimate boundary collapse. Samson chose to exchange his consecrated, God-given identity for momentary cessation of conflict and emotional exhaustion.17 By allowing Delilah to repeatedly test his boundaries and relentlessly pressure him, Samson conditioned himself to betrayal.
The high cost of this codependent boundary failure is evident in the consequences: the loss of his physical boundary (his hair), which symbolized his sacred covenant, immediately led to the spiritual reality that "he did not know that the Lord had left him".21 This outcome demonstrates the lethal nature of codependency to one's spiritual vocation, illustrating that centering one’s identity and peace in a destructive human relationship results in spiritual blindness and the removal of divine power.
V. Conclusion: Restoration through Divine Dependence
A. Healing the Root of Idolatry and Fear
The analysis of Adam, Ahab, and Samson reveals a consistent pattern: relational dysfunction rooted in the idolatry of human acceptance and the desperate desire to control anxiety. The scriptural path to restoration requires an honest acknowledgment of denial (Psalm 34:18) and a decisive shift of reliance back to the Divine Source.4
The codependent strives ceaselessly to manage external circumstances and regulate their internal state through controlling others. The antithesis to this striving is embracing the "unforced rhythms of grace" offered by Christ.2 Healing begins with casting the oppressive weight of control and anxiety onto God, who alone is trustworthy and provides genuine care.22 This grounding allows service to others to flow genuinely "from an overflowing place of love (not codependent manipulation)".2
B. Key Scriptural Encouragement for Healing
The biblical remedy directly addresses the core drivers of codependency: fear and anxiety. The instruction is to anchor security not in human validation or relational outcome, but in divine affirmation:
Scripture Reference: 1 Peter 5:7 (ESV)
Casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. 22
Furthermore, the peace offered by Christ is inherently superior and different from the fragile peace sought through human control, directly counteracting the anxiety that drives codependent behavior:
Scripture Reference: John 14:27 (ESV)
John 14:27 (ESV): Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. 2
C. Final Integration: The Distinction Between Love and Enmeshment
The objective of Christian maturity is not isolation, but rather the pursuit of healthy, Christ-centered interdependence, acknowledging that believers are distinct members of one functional Body.6 The fundamental distinction that separates healthy love from destructive enmeshment lies in boundaries derived from divine design.
Healthy love engages compassionately with a neighbor’s baros (heavy burdens and afflictions), bearing that weight alongside them. Conversely, codependency mistakenly attempts to carry the person’s fortion (individual responsibilities and accountability). The fulfillment of the law of Christ is achieved by offering help where the burden is excessive, while maintaining the sacred truth that each individual is ultimately accountable for their own load and their obedience to God.8
Table 2 synthesizes the mechanisms of codependence across the analyzed biblical narratives:
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Biblical Codependent Dynamics
Works cited
Avoiding Jezebel's Passive-Aggressive Co-Dependency Trap ..., accessed October 24, 2025, https://jenniferleclaire.org/avoiding-jezebels-passive-aggressive-co-dependency-trap/
Codependency: A Closer Look from a Christian Perspective | Seattle ..., accessed October 24, 2025, https://seattlechristiancounseling.com/articles/codependency-a-closer-look-from-a-christian-perspective
Boundaries and Codependency, accessed October 24, 2025, https://betterboundariesworkbook.com/boundaries-codependency/
How to Heal from Codependency Biblically - Kris Reece, accessed October 24, 2025, https://krisreece.com/2021/07/14/how-to-heal-from-codependency-biblically/
We Belong to Each Other — Romans 12:4–5 | by Ed Jarrett | A Clay Jar - Medium, accessed October 24, 2025, https://medium.com/a-clay-jar/we-belong-to-each-other-romans-12-4-5-2f6be9ce24e8
Romans 12:4-5 NIV - Bible.com, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.bible.com/bible/111/ROM.12.4-5.NIV
Bible Verses about Interdependence - Church of the Great God, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/verses/id/11562/interdependence-verses.htm
Bear One Another's Burdens, or Just Bear Your Own? - Apologetics Press, accessed October 24, 2025, https://apologeticspress.org/bear-one-anothers-burdens-or-just-bear-your-own-1273/
Should We Bear One Another's Burdens? (Galatians 6:2) or Carry Our Own Load? (Galatians 6:5) - The Good Book Blog - Biola University, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2024/should-we-bear-one-another-s-burdens-galatians-6-2-or-carry-our-own-load-galatians-6-5
What does the Bible say about codependency? | GotQuestions.org, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/codependency.html
Adam's Passive Leadership and the First Sin in Genesis - Pastors.ai, accessed October 24, 2025, https://pastors.ai/bible/verse/adams-passive-leadership-and-the-first-sin-in-genesis/
Rejecting Passivity: A Call to Step Up - | Flatirons Community Church, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.flatironschurch.com/community-insights/rejecting-passivity-a-call-to-step-up/
Genesis 3 - Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the… | ESV.org, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.esv.org/Genesis+3/
1 Kings 21:4-7 NIV - So Ahab went home, sullen and angry - Bible Gateway, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2021%3A4-7&version=NIV
1 Kings 21:4-7 Share - Bible.com, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/1KI.21.4-7
1 Kings 21:1-29 - Apostolic Faith Church, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.apostolicfaith.org/daybreak-and-discovery/1-kings-21-1-29
Judges 16:16–17 ESV - And when she pressed him… - Biblia, accessed October 24, 2025, https://biblia.com/bible/esv/judges/16/16-17
Why Its So Hard to End a Codependent Relationship - Psych Central, accessed October 24, 2025, https://psychcentral.com/blog/imperfect/2020/01/why-its-so-hard-to-end-a-codependent-relationship
Judges, CHAPTER 16 | USCCB - Daily Readings, accessed October 24, 2025, https://bible.usccb.org/bible/judges/16
Judges 16:16-17 NIV - With such nagging she prodded him day - Bible Gateway, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2016%3A16-17&version=NIV
Judges 16-17 NIV - Samson and Delilah - Bible Gateway, accessed October 24, 2025, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2016-17&version=NIV
