-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes, my post felt a bit long so I didn't add any disclaimer.
For example if a woman or her kids are being physically abused by her spouse, or if there is infidelity, etc... to that woman I would not put out the same message, because if she has tolerated that she might already be submitting to something demonic. That is different from submitting in the Holy Spirit. There are times when personal healing must come first before you can do anything for the spouse or the relationship. And personal healing can mean not submitting, in those cases.
However submission does have power to transform people as a form of service when it is done God's way in the Holy Spirit. So maybe it is conditional upon God's will... but not conditional on the husband being perfect and being the best servant first? In heaven some women will have greater rewards than their earthly husbands, but it seems to me, that it will be the ones that exemplified Christ's nature and God's heart, not the ones that demanded equality or operated out of fear.
Imagine if Christ said 'I and my disciples are equal'... would he have died on the cross, or would he have followed Peter's wishes and fought back? Where would we be if Christ was too afraid of offending his disciples, to do the right thing? If two married people have found a balance, I wouldn't stuff this message down their throats, because God's will doesn't always look the same. But there are times when no matter how good everyone's intentions are, -one person must lead- because the family can only take -one path- together.
Christ did not sit down with the disciples and wait for them to agree about whether he should die on the Cross. Now why would women ask men to lay down their lives like Christ did... while at the same time expecting them to act like equals, which Christ certainly did not?
Christ acted out his love and that made them One -- it did not make them equal. In God's math, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; in the world's math, the parts are so concerned with their own value they can never be a whole.
For example if a woman or her kids are being physically abused by her spouse, or if there is infidelity, etc... to that woman I would not put out the same message, because if she has tolerated that she might already be submitting to something demonic. That is different from submitting in the Holy Spirit. There are times when personal healing must come first before you can do anything for the spouse or the relationship. And personal healing can mean not submitting, in those cases.
However submission does have power to transform people as a form of service when it is done God's way in the Holy Spirit. So maybe it is conditional upon God's will... but not conditional on the husband being perfect and being the best servant first? In heaven some women will have greater rewards than their earthly husbands, but it seems to me, that it will be the ones that exemplified Christ's nature and God's heart, not the ones that demanded equality or operated out of fear.
Imagine if Christ said 'I and my disciples are equal'... would he have died on the cross, or would he have followed Peter's wishes and fought back? Where would we be if Christ was too afraid of offending his disciples, to do the right thing? If two married people have found a balance, I wouldn't stuff this message down their throats, because God's will doesn't always look the same. But there are times when no matter how good everyone's intentions are, -one person must lead- because the family can only take -one path- together.
Christ did not sit down with the disciples and wait for them to agree about whether he should die on the Cross. Now why would women ask men to lay down their lives like Christ did... while at the same time expecting them to act like equals, which Christ certainly did not?
Christ acted out his love and that made them One -- it did not make them equal. In God's math, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; in the world's math, the parts are so concerned with their own value they can never be a whole.
Being "special" is probably the term used first time in rising up children for "millenials" and making us (25-35, cca) so unsuccessful 
We are not special, we have similar problems, plans, wishes an bad habits as many other people.
As some American TV series says in the song "If everybody is special, then nobody is special"
We are not special, we have similar problems, plans, wishes an bad habits as many other people.
As some American TV series says in the song "If everybody is special, then nobody is special"
I didn't reference equality in my post. My post was about submission and how wives are not obligated to submit (obey) sinful commands given to them by their husbands. From your post, I believe we agree on that point. However, since you brought up the issue of equality:
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Genesis 2:18
he old testament was originally written in Hebrew. The Hebrew phrase for "helper suitable" or "help meet" depending on the Bible translation is ezer kenegdo.
One of the definitions listed for kenegdo (Strong's 5048 neged):
I will make him עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֺ a help CORRESPONDING to him i.e. EQUAL and adequate to himself,
Source: Brown-Driver-Briggs
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5048.htm
Corresponding is defined as
- to be similar or EQUAL to something
- to be equivalent or parallel
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correspond
So yes, according to the original Hebrew language of the Bible, God created Eve to be a helper corresponding (EQUAL) to Adam.
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper [C in the sense of a partner or ally; the word does not imply subordinate status; see Ps. 79:9] who ·is right for[is suitable for; CORRESPONDS with] him.” (Gen 2:18 Expanded Bible Translation)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:17-19&version=EXB
The ISV and the NET Bible translations also use the word CORRESPONDING (which means equal) in Gen 2:18.
In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your EQUAL partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered (1 Pe 3:7 NLT).
Several other translations use the word Equal in 1Pe 3:7: WYC, Voice, TLV, MSG, Phillips.
Men and women are equal in value, worth and God's gift of new life. Does that mean that men and women will FUNCTION the exact same way? No! However, that doesn't negate or void the fact that God created women to be equal to men in value, worth and the gift of new life.
A
Being "special" is probably the term used first time in rising up children for "millenials" and making us (25-35, cca) so unsuccessful
We are not special, we have similar problems, plans, wishes an bad habits as many other people.
As some American TV series says in the song "If everybody is special, then nobody is special"
We are not special, we have similar problems, plans, wishes an bad habits as many other people.
As some American TV series says in the song "If everybody is special, then nobody is special"
What you seem to be against is people who feel entitled to better things as if the world owes them something.
We do have a problem with most people feeling entitled.
However my statement stands. Everyone is special because of the love of God and that we are His bleobed children.
However that doesn't mean that God or the world owes us anything because God does not spoil his children and create brats who are only concerned with their comforts and ignoring the needs of Their brothers and sisters around them and call this love.
God doesn't play favorites with His children.
That's unimaginable simply because there would be absolutely no reason for the perfect, sinless, infallible deity Christ to say such a thing to imperfect, sinful and fallible men. Some take the analogy between Christ and the church and husbands and wives too far. The analogy between Christ's relationship with the church and the husband and wife relationship is a limited one. There are some things that take place in Christ's relationship with his church that do not take place in the husband and wife relationship, and vice versa.
For example, a christian wife might need to go to her husband and RESPECTFULLY point out his sin if or when he sins against her. If her husband doesn't listen to her, she may have to employ the help of others depending on the sin (Mt 18:5, Luke 17:3). However, the church NEVER has to go to Christ and point out his sin because Christ is sinless - perfect, but the same is not true of husbands (or wives).
That's a reasonable expectation too. Wives should be treated like equals because that's part of God's original design for creation and marriage. God created EVE to be Ezer Kenegdo (Strong's 5048 neged) - a helper Corresponding (corresponding means equal) to Adam - not inferior or superior but equal. Women and men are also equal partners in God's gift of new life. Men and women are equal in value, worth and God's gift of new life AND husbands are instructed to lay down their lives for their wives. It's not one or the other; both facts are true, and one does not negate the other.
Husbands should also expect their wives to lay down their lives for them. Dying is a mutual responsibility. Christians are instructed to die for each other (1 John 3:16) and die to sin (Rom 6:11-12). That's part of the Christian lifestyle. A Christian woman's responsibility to die doesn't end when she gets married, but it flows into marriage.
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters (1 John 3:16).
Looking at the exact words used in the verses you mention, such as ezer, neged, and sygkleronomos, none of them solely mean equal. All of those words are also used to describe something between God and man, and you would not argue that God and man are equal. God is often described as an ezer to man. Evil man are in one verse put before (neged) God. An NT verse says we are joint heirs (sygkleronomos) with Christ. Therefore these words do not necessarily mean equal. They certainly mean together, close to, compatible or part of the same group, but this does not mean equal. And it is a crucial distinction to make that oneness does not mean equality. We are one with God, but we are not equal with God. Equality is always a response to someone's value being diminished, but Oneness existed before the world's concept of equality and is restored when people forgive whatever or whomever did not value them.
Our gender does not determine our value, God measures our hearts and that is how our value is determined. Therefore we do not need to defend the value of one gender or the other. We do not need to defend the value of the organs in the body, they are generally all vital, but they are not -the same- and if you were transplanting someone's heart, you wouldn't say a brain is equal to a heart and therefore we will just put a brain in their chest. What I am talking about is that our roles are not equal, regardless of what our values are.
Another example: the best president you can imagine. Is he more valuable than any of his citizens, as a person before God? Maybe not. Maybe there are people that are much more valuable than him (or her). Maybe there is a homeless person with a precious spirit and a huge heart that is actually more valuable in the spirit realm. But the roles are different. That homeless person is not -as valuable- to the administration and defense of the nation, as the president is. If all the citizens had -equal power- to the president, -his role- would be useless.
It is a modern worldly teaching to equate gender with value, and to equate role with value, and that is why there is striving in the workplace and striving in the marriage for -status- which is egotistical and divisive. Our value is in our hearts and our spirits that God gave us, we don't know our exact value yet, it is hidden in Christ. A woman may have a greater value and a greater heart than her husband but if -her role- is equal to his, then the home is vulnerable to division, because no one is ready to truly submit and no one is ready to truly lead.
Our gender does not determine our value, God measures our hearts and that is how our value is determined. Therefore we do not need to defend the value of one gender or the other. We do not need to defend the value of the organs in the body, they are generally all vital, but they are not -the same- and if you were transplanting someone's heart, you wouldn't say a brain is equal to a heart and therefore we will just put a brain in their chest. What I am talking about is that our roles are not equal, regardless of what our values are.
Another example: the best president you can imagine. Is he more valuable than any of his citizens, as a person before God? Maybe not. Maybe there are people that are much more valuable than him (or her). Maybe there is a homeless person with a precious spirit and a huge heart that is actually more valuable in the spirit realm. But the roles are different. That homeless person is not -as valuable- to the administration and defense of the nation, as the president is. If all the citizens had -equal power- to the president, -his role- would be useless.
It is a modern worldly teaching to equate gender with value, and to equate role with value, and that is why there is striving in the workplace and striving in the marriage for -status- which is egotistical and divisive. Our value is in our hearts and our spirits that God gave us, we don't know our exact value yet, it is hidden in Christ. A woman may have a greater value and a greater heart than her husband but if -her role- is equal to his, then the home is vulnerable to division, because no one is ready to truly submit and no one is ready to truly lead.
It seems you are essentially arguing that a man cannot be the head of a woman because he is not Christ. That renders the scripture completely pointless. Tell me, why would the bible prescribe -different roles for men and women- if they are equal as you say? Why wouldn't it just say 'men and women are equal, therefore you should all decide for yourselves how to divide responsibility and if you don't agree on something, just talk until you agree'?
Okay, so say a situation arises where one parent must risk dying while the other takes the children someplace safe. This is the only way the children will survive. In your division of roles, both parents sit and talk about who will stay and who will go, and they cannot do anything until they both agree, so potentially, they will argue until everyone dies. Or, the woman will instinctively rely on the man to do what he will instinctively do based on biology and tradition (neurological affinity for risk-taking), while the woman does the same in her form. But in the process they will be throwing out your secular gender equality.
When it comes to sacrificial love, both partners have an example of Christ, both in leading the disciples, and in submitting to God. There are many ways to lay your life down. There are many ways to be valuable and to serve. But if everyone thinks that only leading is the way, and everyone tries to lead, the result is paralysis and fracturing of the group.
Once again I do not mean to say that the role of a man makes men superior to women. A man's service in his role will be measured in heaven, and a woman's service in her role will be measured in heaven, based on what God called them to, and any given woman might have served better than any given man, and in heaven she might have a greater role than her husband does.
But the roles themselves on earth are instructional and symbolic. Since we all must submit to God and we all must serve those under us, we are given instructional roles, to practice those things, -regardless of our true value-. These roles are not equal, because they are not the same, in the same sense that the brain and the heart are not the same, and it doesn't even matter which one is more valuable, what matters is what they are together.
I know this is a lot to read through, and I threw it together quickly so it's not completely organized, but thanks for the discussion in any case.
Last edited:
The word MEET ( kenegdo, neged - Strong's 5048) used in Gen 2:18 may not solely mean equal, but that’s true about numerous words in the Hebrew, Greek and English languages. However, that doesn't negate or diminish the fact that 1 of the definitions listed for MEET is equal.
Theologians and scholars, Adam Clarke and Dr. Thomas Constable, both authors of widely used Bible commentaries define MEET (kenegdo, neged - Strong's. 5048) as EQUAL just like the Bible lexicon does.
Quote from Adam Clarke Commentary - I will make him a help meet for him;
עזר כנגדו ezer kenegdo, a help, a counterpart of himself, one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or
before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man, possessing neither inferiority nor superiority, but being in all things like and EQUAL to himself.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/genesis-2.html#18
Quote from Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable - "Suitable to him" or
"CORRESPONDING to him" means "EQUAL and adequate." What was true of Adam (cf. Genesis 2:7) was also true of Eve. They both had the same nature.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dcc/genesis-2.html#18
Definition from Brown - Drivers - Briggs lexicon - a. כְּנֶגֶד according to what is in front of = corresponding to, Genesis 2:18 I will make him עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֺ a help corresponding to him i.e. EQUAL and adequate to himself, Genesis 2:20 among the animals there was no עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֺ. **Note that in Late Hebrew מכנגד = in front of, Ber 4:5; 9:5; Ab 2:10, מכנגד פני Git 7:7 and elsewhere.
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/5048.html
The term joint-heir (sygkleronomos,Strong’s 4789) used in 1 Peter 3:7
may not solely mean equal, but that’s also true about numerous words in the Hebrew, Greek and English languages. One of the definitions listed for joint-heir
is Fellow-heir. Strong's Greek: 4789. συγκληρονόμος (sugkléronomos) -- a co-inheritor
Fellow can mean equal.
http://www.kingjamesbibledictionary.com/Dictionary/fellow
Therefore, while joint-heir (sygkleronomos,Strong’s 4789) may not solely mean equal, that doesn’t negate or diminish the fact that 1 of its definitions “fellow” means equal. According to the law of Moses, there was no inheritance for sisters with living brothers. That’s not so under the new covenant. Under the new covenant, women (sisters in Christ) will get the exact same inheritance as their brothers in Christ: God’s gift of new life.
I just want those who may be interested to be able to fact check the definitions for themselves rather than take your word or my word for it.
That's a very heartwarming sentiment, but that has not been the reality for countless women throughout history and around the world. A few examples come to mind, although history is full of examples of women being undervalued and deemed worthless by the men around them:
That hasn't been the reality for countless Chinese women have traditionally been considered dispensable. According to Chinese history, the birth of a son brought great fortune to the family, while the birth of a daughter was seen as a terrible burden. Families wept when a girl was born, because she was an unnecessary expense. When China instituted the 1 child law, the overwhelming majority wanted a boy. Sons give back to the family in wages and would take care of the aging parents, while daughters were seen as a liability that was expensive to marry off. Extreme measures were taken to have a son. Gender-selective abortions became commonplace, female infanticide skyrocketed, baby girls were abandoned by the MILLIONS, and parents sold unwanted daughters to traffickers for a profit.
http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/women/what-s-a-woman-worth.html
That’s not true in Cambodia where the prostitution of young girls is an epidemic. The sex trade there is sustained by severe poverty and ingrained gender inequality.
Cambodia is not the only place where females are treated as commodities. But in this country of 15 million people, the demand for virgins is big business.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/virginity-for-sale-cambodia-sex-trade
It's not reality for wives in Pakistani where it's legal for men to beat their wives, and they are encouraged to do so.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-blasts-pakistan-law-allowing-men-beat-their-wives-164717/
That wasn't the reality for at least one third of all female homicide victims in the U.S. who were killed by male intimate partners — husbands and ex-husbands, boyfriends and estranged lovers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/men-killing-women-domesti_n_5927140.html
http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2014_deadlyaffection/part8/
Evidently, former Southern Baptist minister, Pat Robertson, doesn't believe that gender does not determine value considering that he publicly told a husband that he become Muslim so he could beat his wife. Robertson told another husband that it was okay for him to divorce his ailing wife.
https://youtu.be/DoHdO2rwGwE
https://youtu.be/_qt_JCnRdCQ
There’s a thread on CC
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/151763-oppression-women.html
and someone posted graphic pics of women who have been disfigured (acid thrown in their faces) because they did something that a man found offensive, so that’s not the reality for those women either.
The idea that "gender doesn’t determine value ... therefore we do not need to defend the value of one gender or the other" is very heartwarming. However, that’s not a reality for countless women around the world.
That hasn't been the reality for countless Chinese women have traditionally been considered dispensable. According to Chinese history, the birth of a son brought great fortune to the family, while the birth of a daughter was seen as a terrible burden. Families wept when a girl was born, because she was an unnecessary expense. When China instituted the 1 child law, the overwhelming majority wanted a boy. Sons give back to the family in wages and would take care of the aging parents, while daughters were seen as a liability that was expensive to marry off. Extreme measures were taken to have a son. Gender-selective abortions became commonplace, female infanticide skyrocketed, baby girls were abandoned by the MILLIONS, and parents sold unwanted daughters to traffickers for a profit.
http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/women/what-s-a-woman-worth.html
That’s not true in Cambodia where the prostitution of young girls is an epidemic. The sex trade there is sustained by severe poverty and ingrained gender inequality.
Cambodia is not the only place where females are treated as commodities. But in this country of 15 million people, the demand for virgins is big business.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/virginity-for-sale-cambodia-sex-trade
It's not reality for wives in Pakistani where it's legal for men to beat their wives, and they are encouraged to do so.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-blasts-pakistan-law-allowing-men-beat-their-wives-164717/
That wasn't the reality for at least one third of all female homicide victims in the U.S. who were killed by male intimate partners — husbands and ex-husbands, boyfriends and estranged lovers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/men-killing-women-domesti_n_5927140.html
http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2014_deadlyaffection/part8/
Evidently, former Southern Baptist minister, Pat Robertson, doesn't believe that gender does not determine value considering that he publicly told a husband that he become Muslim so he could beat his wife. Robertson told another husband that it was okay for him to divorce his ailing wife.
https://youtu.be/DoHdO2rwGwE
https://youtu.be/_qt_JCnRdCQ
There’s a thread on CC
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/151763-oppression-women.html
and someone posted graphic pics of women who have been disfigured (acid thrown in their faces) because they did something that a man found offensive, so that’s not the reality for those women either.
The idea that "gender doesn’t determine value ... therefore we do not need to defend the value of one gender or the other" is very heartwarming. However, that’s not a reality for countless women around the world.
No. It's not modern at all. Equating gender with value is an ancient evil. I talked how Chinese culture views women as inferior. There is an ANCIENT Chinese proverb that says, “it is more profitable to raise geese than daughters.” Geese were considered more valuable than daughters. In ANCIENT China, the sale of wives and daughters was legal. It was common for families to sell their daughters to support the family.
http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/women/what-s-a-woman-worth.html
Woman, among the Hebrews, as among most nations of ANTIQUITY, occupied a subordinate position. Though the Hebrew wife and mother was treated with more consideration than her sister in other lands, even in other Semitic countries, her position nevertheless was one of INFERIORITY and subjection. The marriage relation from the standpoint of Hebrew legislation was looked upon very largely as a business affair, a mere question of property … The husband's rights and prerogatives were priority. In the matter of divorce, according to the laws of Moses a husband could divorce his wife; on the other hand, if at all possible, it was very difficult for a wife to put away her husband. Unfortunately a double standard of morality in matters pertaining to the sexes is, at least, as old as Moses (see Exodus 7-11).
http://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/divorce-in-the-old-testament.html
Concubine [a female sex slave] in the Bible denotes a female conjugally united to a man, but in a relation INFERIOR to that of a wife. The immediate cause of concubinage might be gathered from the conjugal histories of Abraham and Jacob. In the process of time the custom of concubinage degenerated, and laws were made to restrain and regulate it ( Exodus 21:7-9 ). Christianity has restored the sacred institution of marriage to its original character, and concubinage is ranked with the sins of fornication and adultery
( Matthew 19:5-9 ; 1 Corinthians 7:2 ).
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/eastons-bible-dictionary/concubine.html
Ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato (6th century BC - Hellenistic period, 323 BC-30 BC) believed that women were inferior to men.
Quote from Aristotle - “The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled."
Quote from Plato - “All the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is inferior to a man.”
Therefore, it’s not historically accurate to suggest that equating gender with value is modern; it’s an ancient evil.
Men are risk takers. There’s a lot of science behind that. However, just because a man is willing to engage in risky behaviors does not mean that he is instinctively willing to physically die for his wife and/or family. A recent news story comes to mind:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/manhunt-missouri-crime-couple-ends-florida-article-1.2521102
Although Blake Fitzgerald was willing to engage in risky behaviors, he was not willing to risk his life for his girlfriend. This same man who engaged in risky behaviors used his girlfriend as a human shield to protect himself during a shootout with cops. He wasn’t instinctively willing to die for her.
Even in the Bible, there are not a lot examples of men risking their lives and/or physically dying for their women and families outside of a military setting. Abraham certainly wasn’t willing to risk his life for Sarah.
Of course, there are a some brave men who have been willing to risk their lives for their women and families, but those men are rare. They are the exception to the rule not the standard. The average man will never be put in a situation where he has to risk his life (physical death) for his wife and/or family. On the other hand, there will be daily, weekly, monthly and yearly opportunities for husbands to die to sins like sexual immorality (Colossians 3:5) for God and their wives, and countless husbands are unwilling to die to sin (sexual immorality) for their wives. That’s a problem even in the church. There are plenty of examples of husbands who weren’t willing to die to sin (sexual immorality) for their wives: Thomas Kincaid, Israel Houghton, Michael Braxton, Detrick Haddon, Zachary Tims, the pastors with Ashley Madison accounts, Tullian Tchividjian, Andre Landers, Jack Schaap, Jermaine Simmons and a long list of others.
The husbands listed have probably never been in a position where they had to risk their lives (physical death) for their wives, but they had ample opportunity to die to sin (sexual immorality) for their wives, yet they were unwilling to die to sexual sin for their wives. Make no mistake, I fully recognize that dying (to sin - sexual immorality, etc) is a mutual instruction. Wives should do it too. I addressed that in an earlier post.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/manhunt-missouri-crime-couple-ends-florida-article-1.2521102
Although Blake Fitzgerald was willing to engage in risky behaviors, he was not willing to risk his life for his girlfriend. This same man who engaged in risky behaviors used his girlfriend as a human shield to protect himself during a shootout with cops. He wasn’t instinctively willing to die for her.
Even in the Bible, there are not a lot examples of men risking their lives and/or physically dying for their women and families outside of a military setting. Abraham certainly wasn’t willing to risk his life for Sarah.
Of course, there are a some brave men who have been willing to risk their lives for their women and families, but those men are rare. They are the exception to the rule not the standard. The average man will never be put in a situation where he has to risk his life (physical death) for his wife and/or family. On the other hand, there will be daily, weekly, monthly and yearly opportunities for husbands to die to sins like sexual immorality (Colossians 3:5) for God and their wives, and countless husbands are unwilling to die to sin (sexual immorality) for their wives. That’s a problem even in the church. There are plenty of examples of husbands who weren’t willing to die to sin (sexual immorality) for their wives: Thomas Kincaid, Israel Houghton, Michael Braxton, Detrick Haddon, Zachary Tims, the pastors with Ashley Madison accounts, Tullian Tchividjian, Andre Landers, Jack Schaap, Jermaine Simmons and a long list of others.
The husbands listed have probably never been in a position where they had to risk their lives (physical death) for their wives, but they had ample opportunity to die to sin (sexual immorality) for their wives, yet they were unwilling to die to sexual sin for their wives. Make no mistake, I fully recognize that dying (to sin - sexual immorality, etc) is a mutual instruction. Wives should do it too. I addressed that in an earlier post.
No. I’m not arguing that at all. I understand that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If the Bible says it, it’s true, and the Bible says that, “a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church.” Eph 5:23
That still doesn’t negate the fact that a LOT of folk take the analogy between Christ’s headship over his church and a husband's headship over his wife too far. Christ, unlike man, is a perfect, sinless and infallible deity. On the other hand, man is less than perfect, sinful and fallible. Countless husbands have misused their headship in order to abuse and mislead their wives. There are well-documented examples of that in the Bible and throughout the rest of history. On the other hand, Christ never abuses or misleads his church.
That’s why it's so important that wives understand how the Bible defines sin, and that they are not obligated to obey sinful demands given to them by their husbands. Husbands have absolutely no right or authority to command their wives to sin, which is what I was addressing in my 1st post on this thread.
That still doesn’t negate the fact that a LOT of folk take the analogy between Christ’s headship over his church and a husband's headship over his wife too far. Christ, unlike man, is a perfect, sinless and infallible deity. On the other hand, man is less than perfect, sinful and fallible. Countless husbands have misused their headship in order to abuse and mislead their wives. There are well-documented examples of that in the Bible and throughout the rest of history. On the other hand, Christ never abuses or misleads his church.
That’s why it's so important that wives understand how the Bible defines sin, and that they are not obligated to obey sinful demands given to them by their husbands. Husbands have absolutely no right or authority to command their wives to sin, which is what I was addressing in my 1st post on this thread.
A
The Bible speaks of EQUALITY of authority in marriage as well as submission...
1 Corinthians 7:4 ►
New International Version
The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
New Living Translation
The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.
English Standard Version
For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Berean Study Bible
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.
Berean Literal Bible
The wife does not have authority over the own body, but the husband; and likewise also, the husband does not have authority over the own body, but the wife.
New American Standard Bible
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
King James Bible
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1 Corinthians 7:4 ►
New International Version
The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
New Living Translation
The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.
English Standard Version
For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Berean Study Bible
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.
Berean Literal Bible
The wife does not have authority over the own body, but the husband; and likewise also, the husband does not have authority over the own body, but the wife.
New American Standard Bible
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
King James Bible
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.