Bible Study The wickedness of a man is better than the good of a woman

[cyberjosh]

Cyber
This is very true and very right.
Indeed the man is the priest of his home and is held to a much higher standard than the women. Great post

Thank you.

 

[jgredline]

Quath and Gen
I have been reading your exchanges and what I see is this.
Both of you are coming at this from an earthly point of view and Cyber is coming at this from a spiritual point of view.

Its kind like when The apostle Paul speaks of the flesh, he is speaking of the spirit and when the Apostle john speaks of the flesh, he is speaking of flesh.
Paul is speaking primarily to the believer, while John is speaking primarily to the unbeliever. Thats you guys as you have both stated your not christians.

Ok, so now that we have that established, can you see where you guys would come at this from a differant point of view. Ok; Now if you take cybers point of view and I think I know where he is coming from based on his OP, God did establish a higharchy.. Since God created Adam first and Eve second, that was the beginning. When Eve bit the fruit, It was Adam who was held accountable.

Now its true that in OT times women were considered Second class citizens. When Jesus came, he changed all that. He brought women up to a level that was unheard of at the time.

In the Gospels you will not find one women who ever did any harm to Jesus.
It was women who supported Jesus finacially.
It was a women who he first revealed himself as the messiah.
It was a women who showed him the greatest form of worship while he walked this earth. (mary with the expensive perfume)
It was women who he revealed himself after the resurrection

Now did this change the higharchy of the Home? NO The man is still head of the home as it should be, because it still goes back to the garden. It is I who God will hold accountable if my wife strays because I am not being the spiritual leader in my home, not her. I am the priest of my house, not her.

 

[Quath]

I agree with you. It is a secular versus religious view.

So I am curious. Say the next election is coming and you have looked at the two candidates and determined which one is a better leader for the country and spiritually. Should your wife vote exactly as you do?

If you say yes, then married women don't need the right to vote. If you say no, then you are allowing for women to spiritually strayt from their husbands. Just curious as to which way you see this.

 

[jgredline]

I agree with you. It is a secular versus religious view.

So I am curious. Say the next election is coming and you have looked at the two candidates and determined which one is a better leader for the country and spiritually. Should your wife vote exactly as you do?

If you say yes, then married women don't need the right to vote. If you say no, then you are allowing for women to spiritually strayt from their husbands. Just curious as to which way you see this.

Quath
Nice trick question :wink: My answer will dissapoint you, but here is how we do it. We have been voting together for 21 years. In those 21 years we not disagreed once in regards to voting. Why? Because we are both 1 as husband and husband and wife and we both think like minded when it comes to politics. Now lets say we disagree on a candidate.
We can follow the moral path, or the immoral path. Voting is made easy today.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Quath
Nice trick question My answer will dissapoint you, but here is how we do it. We have been voting together for 21 years. In those 21 years we not disagreed once in regards to voting. Why? Because we are both 1 as husband and husband and wife and we both think like minded when it comes to politics. Now lets say we disagree on a candidate.
We can follow the moral path, or the immoral path. Voting is made easy today.

It may have been a trick question, but you dodged the question. For the sake of argument, assume your wife has different view than you do.

 

[jgredline]

It may have been a trick question, but you dodged the question. For the sake of argument, assume your wife has different view than you do.

I did not dodge a question.
I answered it. Now if you want to ask a specific hypethetical question, go ahead and ask one.

 

[cyberjosh]

Quath, I'm not sure how effective my arguements will be to you since I am using a spiritual perspective, but here goes:

I thinking of earthly power.

First off, ask yourself why is earthly power important. What intrinsic value does it hold? Cannot not power be abused, especially if used competitively? Cannot power also be exercised in good manner though, with no harm or degredation to other people? Why then is power the issue?

A slave and a master may be "equal" to Jesus, but they are very unequal on Earth.

Same response as above, and life is what you make of it. Power even in a slave-master relationship can be exercised with goodness and love with no personal (spiritual) disadvantage to the other, and also without emotional harm.

I would say let the best person be higher up. Or if the couple is capable, let them share the authority.

The question is one of responsibility though, rather than sheer ability. And from a Biblical perspective the "better person" would be willing to yeild their power at times and be humble. "Many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first." (Matthew 19:30) Jesus taught humbleness in leadership like that.

This doesn't mean that a man can yeild his responsibility over to his wife, but by not parading his power of that position he can work cooperatively with his wife to work things out before he makes a final decision and listen to her.

Do men have spiritually superior abilities?

Like I said above its not a matter of ability, but responsibility. They have more responsibility because they are ordained by God to lead their household.

 

[Quath]

First off, ask yourself why is earthly power important. What intrinsic value does it hold?

From a spiritual perspective, nothing in this life really matters if it is finite and your life in heaven is infinite. So in a sense, this may be where we disagree.

Since I see earthly life as the only one, power is a very big issue.

Like I said above its not a matter of ability, but responsibility. They have more responsibility because they are ordained by God to lead their household.

Why didn't God maye women the responsible one then? Are they too incompetent to do so?

 

[cyberjosh]

From a spiritual perspective, nothing in this life really matters if it is finite and your life in heaven is infinite. So in a sense, this may be where we disagree.

I never said that. I'm not a Gnostic you know, I don't abhor our physical life. I would like you to elaborate on why power is such a big issue, and to give examples because I can use those and make a point out of it. I want your perspective on what power(s) that women should have that they don't under a Christian household and why you think that it is important that they do. You can even make attainment of power seem not so important from a purely earthly perspective, it just depends on the person's personality and life-view. My overall question is: which powers do you think necessary to life the kind of life you think you "should" be able to live, and why is that certain power necessary for it?

Why didn't God maye women the responsible one then? Are they too incompetent to do so?

The question is circumstancial. If it was the opposite we would be complaining about men right now instead of women.

God had to ordain some sort of heiarchy, because it would be almost anarchy if each spouse was supposed to decide between themselves who was to be in charge, they would fight over it constantly because the flesh is naturally and sometimes even subconsiously selfish and will almost always want control. This is why I emphasized humbleness, even for leaders.

We could also beg the question of why God made men and women so different from a scientific and functionality perspective. Why give male the aggressive drive to accomplish things and tough with testosterone? Why make women petite, sweet, emotional, and relationship sensitive (as are the general sterotypes for male and female anyway)? If these specific functions were created for a purpose, and if God wanted humans to prosper, then whose to say he didn't pick the best arrangment for male-female cooperation (if done in humbleness, love and consideration for one another) by making the male the head of the house, so that the functions would interact at maximum performance (almost as in a computational or mathematical sense as applied to Sociological interactions). Try to step back and contemplate about the "big picture". You could almost think of it as trying to optimize a computer network to get all the components to work together for maximum advantage and performance (while each component depends on the other, and each is crucial if the whole is going to work correctly), though lucky for us the components don't have any (touchy) emotions or we might get a mess of mood swings like we do among people in real life and it would crash often.

You could also make a list of all your vital organs in your body and rank them from most important (relatively) to least, yet it seems each is necessary anyways so why bother with debating over the rank? So why bother debate about heiarchy if women are not being oppressed or mistreated? I'd hold the same view if it were the other way around, if it works right then why bother changing heirarchy? Sure, you might have disagreements about decisions, and the man of the house may make the wrong decisions sometimes, but God designed it to where it would be best for men to do it (for some overall reason I can't give you - only God could tell you) whether they make a good or bad decision. It would be the same the other way around had God made it that way. So why argue about it? What lasting value would a higher position achieve anyway? Especially if you don't believe in eternity...it would just be vain wouldn't it, if it didn't last?

But if you actually look at the eternal perspective, some men (if they weren't short-sighted) might rather want to give the women their responsibility (if possible - though it's not) once they realized how much more accountable (responsible) they will be for what goes on in their households than their wife will be. So its almost a catch22 when it comes to a percieved "advantage" of position because then if looked at from an extremely pessemistic view (and while I don't believe it, I'll indulge in this extremity to make a point) one could say: "Women get the shaft on earth, but men get the shaft in eternity (because of their elevated responsibility)". So you would have to weigh one against the other (see what I'm pointing out here?). Although as I've already pointed out if the relationship is excercised with love and proper treatement no one is really "getting the shaft" because there would be no wrong doing or guilt on either person's side, and it doesn't matter from an earthly perspective anyway if God designed it that way for maximum functionality and benefit for the family and society. Everyone would choose the more beneficial arrangement automatically if they knew of it.

I know my analogies aren't perfect but you should see my point.

 

[Quath]

I would like you to elaborate on why power is such a big issue, and to give examples because I can use those and make a point out of it. I want your perspective on what power(s) that women should have that they don't under a Christian household and why you think that it is important that they do. You can even make attainment of power seem not so important from a purely earthly perspective, it just depends on the person's personality and life-view. My overall question is: which powers do you think necessary to life the kind of life you think you "should" be able to live, and why is that certain power necessary for it?

Here are some places where issues of power come up in marriage: How should the kids be raised (spanked, what school, what extracirrucular activities)? How should money be spent (education, vacation, household items, insurance, savings)? Which church should the family attend? Should the family own a pet? How are arguments to be handled (who gets last word, how is anger dealt with)? What politics should be supported (who to vote for, who to donate to)? I guess it keeps going on and on.

If a man just has to point out to Gensis and decide all of these and remind the woman that she is to submit, then she is a second class citizen.

You also may be going against desires. I know men that are submissive and dominant women. Why should they alter their behavior?

The question is circumstancial. If it was the opposite we would be complaining about men right now instead of women.

That is correct, but I would also be more inclined to believe it. It is way too convient that men wrote the Bible and also said they were to be the dominant ones.

God had to ordain some sort of heiarchy, because it would be almost anarchy if each spouse was supposed to decide between themselves who was to be in charge, they would fight over it constantly because the flesh is naturally and sometimes even subconsiously selfish and will almost always want control. This is why I emphasized humbleness, even for leaders.

In small units, people can share power. I have friends in which no one is dominant. However, if the freiends get too large in number, one usually starts to lead. I have been in many relationships. In some, the woman was submissive. However in the ones I preferred, we were equals. We decided on everything and tried to reason stuff out. We compromised.

Try to step back and contemplate about the "big picture".

So another way is if we could figure out "why" then we could conduct our own tests to make it more efficient. For example, if God wanted the most agrresssive one to lead, then we could do a test to see which of the couple is the most aggressive and declare them the leader.

I'll indulge in this extremity to make a point[/i]) one could say: "Women get the shaft on earth, but men get the shaft in eternity (because of their elevated responsibility)". So you would have to weigh one against the other (see what I'm pointing out here?).

Let me compare this to slavery. We could say the slave owners suffer from increased responsibility of caring for slaves. So slaves and slave owners are equal.

However, we know that this is not the case. I assume you do not support slavery. And for whatever reasons you do not support slavery, I do not support making women to submit to the husbands just because a book says it should be done.

 

[D46]

I wouldn't mind my wife working as long as supper was done when I got home!! :-D

 

[cyberjosh]

Here are some places where issues of power come up in marriage: How should the kids be raised (spanked, what school, what extracirrucular activities)? How should money be spent (education, vacation, household items, insurance, savings)?

These two particular issues are actually dealt with in the Bible, so if each partner is willing to submit to the Bible (appeal to the 3rd authority - God & his Word) then they should be able to work things out reasonably and agree together on the final decision. And that's another thing I didn't mention before. The man of the house must be subject to God and his word. If he does any wrong the wife can always appeal to the Bible to try to set things right, provided it is done in a loving manner. Marriage is still very much a cooperative effort and the women are not without rights. And to show you an extreme (special case) of when the wife should not obey the Husband, would be if he tells her to do something contrary to God's Word. This would be similar to how the Bible commands man to obey the Government set in place and their laws, but not if it is blatantly contrary to God's commands for them. This is why in a special circumstance in which the Apostles were commanded not to speak of Jesus they replied: "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29)

You should be able to start seeing how God set His priorities in the organization of the family with this additional exception to the husband-wife relationship, with reguard to obedience to God at all costs. Primarily it is God's will (and design) for God's purpose to be excercised for/through the family by the final decision of the man, up until the man goes contrary to God's will. If the man tells her (his wife) to deny God, to kill someone, to steal, to cheat on their taxes for them, to lie, or anything else contrary to God's word the wife must not obey in the interests of obeying God supremely.

Which church should the family attend?Should the family own a pet? How are arguments to be handled (who gets last word, how is anger dealt with)?

Such things as this can always be discussed between the man and wife. And compromises can always be made. The man doesn't have to be a nazi. He could say "Honey why don't you pick out a Church to go to this week, and we'll talk about joining if we like it." The wife in a family isn't a dog on a leash. The man, if anything is supposed to be God's own tool to yeild how He (God) wishes. So the man is only to take firm action on serious matters if they seem like they may get out of hand (like trying to cheat on taxes for example).

As for the pet situation, my dad let me get a cat when I was 3 years old (hey the Dad yeilded to even his CHILD'S wishes ) and he's still alive at a happy, fat, fluffy, ripe old age of 15 years. But my Dad wouldn't (later on when I was older) let us get a dog for reasons of the level of care-taking required and the level of finances required to achieve it. My Mom wanted one more than I did, but still my Dad said 'no'. She never got angry, but my Dad explained the financial situation to her and she understood. We really were in a financial tight-spot and it would have been unwise for us to have gotten a dog at that time. Even now we're not really in the best position to get one. So my Dad made the right financial decision (despite some whining and protests :D) so that he could provide for his family (Priorities, priorities, priorities!).

The Bible tells us to be shrewd with our finances, and that's what my Dad did. When the man of the house submits to God's authority like he is supposed to everyone's best interests will win out in the end. But sacrifices must be made sometimes because of priorities. Because of such wise management I learned years ago not to spend $300 on an X-box when I needed that money for car insurance. For 4 years I never had an X-box and now further on down the road, because of wise money management decisions I have a surplus of money saved up and I was able to buy an X-box this year.

The man and wife can always discuss things and look out for both their families and their own interests, and make compromises, but in the end the man is to manage the household.

If a man just has to point out to Gensis and decide all of these and remind the woman that she is to submit, then she is a second class citizen.

No I told you, the woman can always appeal to the Bible for correct treatment and I've also been presenting you this heiarchy in the way it was meant to be handled and executed (with love and obedience to God), thus any abuse of power is outside the bounds of what is right given that such an appeal to Genesis is for selfish reasons or evil motives. A man though can most certainly appeal to the Bible if the wife is rebelling against her husband and he seeks to show her (lovingly - always do it with love, it's a Bible commandment) the proper place that God wills her to be in.

You also may be going against desires. I know men that are submissive and dominant women. Why should they alter their behavior?

Men being submissive is ok as long as they don't step down their responsibility for the important decisions of the household. In this case I view "being submissive" as being humble (as I've mentioned before) and thoughtful to other people's wishes. For example, if finances (priorities must always be looked at first though) are in a good state then the man could just say, "Well since we have the money to get a pet then I don't care what you decide, you can make the decision honey." He can hand a decision off to his wife knowing that he will be (morally) content with either choice and so gives the wife her freedom of choice. This is just one example of many though of being a humble and loving husband, though not absolving his responsibility to make important family decisions. But the man should not be passive to any evil desires of his wife and let her sin without even protesting. He cannot control her life and how she lives it but his job is to call out the things that are out of line and to the best of his ability correct them by working them out, and the Bible say to work these things out with love, and not contention.

As for the dominant women, women are not forbidden to go after their dreams and aspire to a higher position in life, but she must not deny her husband's authority over the household, lest pride (followed most likely by rebellion) occur.

A negative example of a passive husband and a dominant wife in the Bible is Ahab and Jezebel. Jezebel was one of the most wicked women in the entire Bible and Ahab let her run rampant and do as she pleased (which included killing God's righteous priests and prophets). This is unacceptable, and Ahab, God's anointed King, let himself be influenced and became wicked himself, if he wasn't already. This is an example of disorder in the family heiarchy and disobedience to God's commands.

That is correct, but I would also be more inclined to believe it. It is way too convient that men wrote the Bible and also said they were to be the dominant ones.

That's unfortunate that you think that. You must believe that the Bible was inspired by God if you are ever going to hope to understand God and how to obey him.

We decided on everything and tried to reason stuff out. We compromised.

As I said above, such things can worked out between the husband and wife within the Biblical framework for the family. This is possible without abrogating the male-female heiarchy that God created. The man can compromise when it is not damaging to the family (emotionaly, moraly, fiancially, etc.) The man is to have the whole family's best interests in mind always, not just his own. That is the elevated responsibility he holds. And it would be kind for the wife to realize that, and not think of just herself either. When both the husband and wife have that caring mindset of looking out for each other's best interests, such compromises like that will happen because they love one another.

So another way is if we could figure out "why" then we could conduct our own tests to make it more efficient. For example, if God wanted the most agrresssive one to lead, then we could do a test to see which of the couple is the most aggressive and declare them the leader.

I only gave that as a generalization. I don't know why God put man in that position in the family. But the important thing is that God can empower the man to do it, even if he is weak-willed.

Let me compare this to slavery. We could say the slave owners suffer from increased responsibility of caring for slaves. So slaves and slave owners are equal.

However, we know that this is not the case. I assume you do not support slavery. And for whatever reasons you do not support slavery, I do not support making women to submit to the husbands just because a book says it should be done.

>Eh... you make a hard case by comparing it to slavery, which I don't think you should though, because the manner of subjection is dissimmilar, but I know what you are trying to point out. All I can say is to consider everything I said above about how compromise can be done without breaking God's heiarchy for the family and how compromises can be made in the atmosphere of caring and loving, in order to look out for the entire family's best interests rather than being harmfully selfish. Surely you would agree with me that it is honorable to look out for someone other than yourself and to be a good husband and good father. No? This is how God wants it and desires it to be, and he set it up in the best way He thought possible to achieve it.


God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Quath]

So one area where I us parting views is when the couple appeals to God. From my perspective, they are talking to nothing and get whatever answer they really wanted to get. So I can easily see a husband saying "yeah, I prayed and God said you got to do it my way."

You are trying to point out a person who is not corrupted by power as an example. However, I look at everyone and notice that power corrupts. Some may resist but others give in.

My grandparents were Christian. I remember that my grandmother was very intelligent but she had to hide it. My grandfather was very opionated about politics and morality. I could tell my grandmother disagreed but she was not allowed to say anything to contradict him. It always saddened me that such intelligence could be so easily stiffled.

In my household my wife wants a dog and I don't. I don't have to appeal to the Bible to make her do as I say. I just reason with her. It works wonders and we stay on an equal footing.

I guess in the end I look at a person and try to see their abilities and what makes them happy. I have met many strong women and it would be a waste to try to make them submit, just as it would be a waste to try to get a strong man to submit unwillingly. So I see the Bible turning people away from happiness in this respect.

Overall, I do not think a penis gives a person the ability to lead, so why pretend? The Bible is full of really bad morality such as the acceptance of slavery, making women marry their rapist and killing women who have pre-maritial sex. Why not toss out submission of women as yet another example of bad morality in the Bible?

 

[cyberjosh]

You are trying to point out a person who is not corrupted by power as an example. However, I look at everyone and notice that power corrupts. Some may resist but others give in.

No one is perfect, but my Dad was never corrupted. He is in fact very humble and caring to my Mom. My Dad is my moral role model, he didn't give me much of a pattern of sin or bad habits to follow after (if any).

And I'm sorry that your Grandfather seemed to stifle your Grandmother's intelligence. I don't see that often, but that might be a product of stubornness, which is not a biblical attitutude. Please don't get a wrong idea of the Christian life by those who live it half-heartedly, you will always be disappointed.

Aside from everything I've already said, I don't know what else to say. I gave you the most Biblical approach I knew how and gave you some very long and well thought-out examples to look at, yet it seems that your disbelief in the Bible and God inhibit your ability to recieve what I'm saying with sincerity.

But you still cannot tag a banner on Christian men as being bad or evil toward their wife because many Christian men I know are outstanding husbands and fathers and it would be completely unfair for you to stereotype them by saying that the Christian life cannot produce a loving or fair relationship, which is a lie. I hope you can respect the fact that the Christian life can be lived with integrity and not corruption, and some Christians (which are not hypocritical) are some of the best moral and loving people you'll ever meet, no joke.

I'm sorry we could not have a more thorough understanding between us, but I will pray for you that God may grant you grace that one day you may see how amazing, true, and loving He is.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Quath]

No one is perfect, but my Dad was never corrupted. He is in fact very humble and caring to my Mom. My Dad is my moral role model, he didn't give me much of a pattern of sin or bad habits to follow after (if any).

Well, there have been good kings in the past as well as bad. One of the lessons in history is there needs to be some checks and balances for people that hold power. I think this applies in relationships as well.

And I'm sorry that your Grandfather seemed to stifle your Grandmother's intelligence. I don't see that often, but that might be a product of stubornness, which is not a biblical attitutude. Please don't get a wrong idea of the Christian life by those who live it half-heartedly, you will always be disappointed.

Maybe it would help if I described him better. I always knew him as a strong man with a solid set of principles (though I disagreed with many of them). He was very prejudice and valued hard work in people. He was a stickler for vitamins and table manners. He was a very tough person and was majorly influenced by the depression.

When he married, he was still wild. He stayed out late drinking and would come home drunk. He beat his wife on occasion and would also beat his kids. His oldest son left the house at a young age. And he molested his oldest daughter. He finally decided to turn a new leaf and started to go to church. He stopped drinking and wasn't as physically abusive as often. I knew he did pick up my mother when she was a child and throw her across the room.

He got lukemia at 76. I visited him in the hospital. He just had a spinal tap and said he had never been in that much pain before. he said he couldn't help crying. His nurse was a very sweet black lady and he adored her. I was glad to see that in the end, his prejudice was evaporating. His last few weeks were at my mothers house. He saw snakes under the bed and was sure aliens were going to get him.

So why do I describe him? I want to show a real person as best as I have figured out. I don't think he should have been given the power to be the head of the family. I think if society said that a woman's opinion on family matters were equal to a man's, then I don't think the family would have felt the need to hide the bad stuff that happened.

Aside from everything I've already said, I don't know what else to say. I gave you the most Biblical approach I knew how and gave you some very long and well thought-out examples to look at, yet it seems that your disbelief in the Bible and God inhibit your ability to recieve what I'm saying with sincerity.

I know and I appreciate you trying. I think that this is probably the biggest obstacle in our discussion.

I hope you can respect the fact that the Christian life can be lived with integrity and not corruption, and some Christians (which are not hypocritical) are some of the best moral and loving people you'll ever meet, no joke.

Do you feel the same about Muslims and how they treat their women?

 

[cyberjosh]

Do you feel the same about Muslims and how they treat their women?

I have to admit I'm rather ignorant on the life and society of the Islamic peoples. I know that they make their women wear shawls and hoods to cover their heads and mouth, and that they can only come out at certain times, but I'm unsure whether this is a mandate of their religion or whether it is just ancient Middle East tradition carried over into their culture because such practices were active all the way back to the time of Abraham.

As for any of their other practices you will have to fill me in. Although I would doubt that the Koran has a verse anywhere similar to the one in the Christian Bible which says, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25) Now if obeyed, that truely is an expression of love.

 

[Quath]

I have to admit I'm rather ignorant on the life and society of the Islamic peoples. I know that they make their women wear shawls and hoods to cover their heads and mouth, and that they can only come out at certain times, but I'm unsure whether this is a mandate of their religion or whether it is just ancient Middle East tradition carried over into their culture because such practices were active all the way back to the time of Abraham.

There are different extremes in this. It all depends on how much the society follows the Quran. I remember that in Afghanistan under the Taliban, women could be beaten on the street if they showed inappropriate flesh like an ankle.

Now I could say that the men must really love them enough to beat them. After all it is their responsibility to take care of them spiritually and physically. Beating someone can be loving as the Bible says about the beating of children:

Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13-14 Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Just as you compare children needing to be disciplined by their parents, women need to be disciplined since they are submit to their husband who leads her.

As for any of their other practices you will have to fill me in. Although I would doubt that the Koran has a verse anywhere similar to the one in the Christian Bible which says, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25) Now if obeyed, that truely is an expression of love.

I don't know much from the Quran, but one close one is

"And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves that you may live in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between you; Verily, in that are signs for people who reflect." (30:21)

Here is how one Muslim explains it.

Marriage is therefore not just a physical or emotional necessity, but in fact, a sign from God! It is a relationship of mutual rights and obligations based on divine guidance. God created men and women with complimentary natures, and in the Qur'an, He laid out a system of laws to support harmonious interaction between the sexes.

 

[heizsofaithful]

I need to fix something in this thread. It is a regular fault of the discussion.

1. Most of what passes for debate on this topic forgets the importance of culture on the text that we read. In fact, scholarship uses what is described shorthand as the historical-grammatical method to interpret Scripture. Culture is incredibly important to understanding Scripture.

2. We often look at the Bible from within our own context and then try to place that context onto the Bible to understand it. This will always fail.

Food for thought:

Scripture was written to reflect reality on the ground when it was written. From the perspective of those among whom the Bible was written, the Bible would have appeared quite progressive in how it treated women. From our perspective it appears regressive.

Therefore, many make the mistake of calling the husband the head of the household when the Bible says no such thing. It says that man is the "kephale." What "kephale" means is key - not "head," which ALWAYS mean to us "authority." Is this what Paul meant? Doubtful, considering he had available the word "exousia" though at times chose not to use it and preferred "kephale."

I would recommend "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" by William J. Webb for those who actually want to learn about this and don't want merely to banter back and forth their already accepted - and largely uneducated - opinions on the subject.

 

[cyberjosh]

I need to fix something in this thread. It is a regular fault of the discussion.

1. Most of what passes for debate on this topic forgets the importance of culture on the text that we read. In fact, scholarship uses what is described shorthand as the historical-grammatical method to interpret Scripture. Culture is incredibly important to understanding Scripture.

2. We often look at the Bible from within our own context and then try to place that context onto the Bible to understand it. This will always fail.

Food for thought:

Scripture was written to reflect reality on the ground when it was written. From the perspective of those among whom the Bible was written, the Bible would have appeared quite progressive in how it treated women. From our perspective it appears regressive.

Therefore, many make the mistake of calling the husband the head of the household when the Bible says no such thing. It says that man is the "kephale." What "kephale" means is key - not "head," which ALWAYS mean to us "authority." Is this what Paul meant? Doubtful, considering he had available the word "exousia" though at times chose not to use it and preferred "kephale."

I would recommend "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" by William J. Webb for those who actually want to learn about this and don't want merely to banter back and forth their already accepted - and largely uneducated - opinions on the subject.

I know the meaning of the greek word exousia but it would not be suitable when referencing family heiarchy. Paul was speaking in a Hebraic manner here and the Hebrew equivalent for "head" [in greek: kephale] would be Ro'sh [head, first, cheif, beginning, top].

Exodus 6:14 "These are the heads [ro'sh] of their fathers' households. The sons of Reuben, Israel's first-born"

Exodus 18:25 "And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads [ro'sh]over the people, leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens."

Exodus 30:23 "Take thou also unto thee principal [ro'sh] spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels."

Numbers 13:3 "So at the Lord's command Moses sent them out from the Desert of Paran. All of them were leaders [ro'sh] of the Israelites."

Numbers 14:4 So they said to one another, "Let us appoint a leader [ro'sh] and return to Egypt."

Numbers 25:4 "And the LORD said to Moses, 'Take all the leaders [ro'sh] of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.'"

Numbers 25:15 "And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head [ro'sh] over a people, and of a chief house in Midian."

Numbers 32:28 "So concerning them Moses commanded Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the chief [ro'sh] fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel"


-----------------------------------------------------------

As you can see the head of a people or house was leader and cheif who had authority. This is the same usage in which Paul is using it and is consistant with OT terminology.

Note also that kephale and ro'sh are also directly associated in a OT quote by Jesus in Matthew 21:42, "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head [kephale] of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?'" This is a quote from Psalm 118:22 which uses the Hebrew word ro'sh for head.


I do appreciate though your attention to detail. Thank you for bringing this up and pointing it out.

God Bless,

~Josh