C
cmarieh
Guest
Have I ever mentioned that I would like to be an updated version of June Cleaver? What I mean by updated is more vocal and work from home, but I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
-
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.
- Status
Well I think the head of the house , should be the head of the house...I can quote a lot of scripture to make my point but that only seems to hinder the discussion
I'd love to see you quote scripture. Please find the one where the man is called the "head of the house."
As Prophet35 aptly pointed out on another thread, a man is never called to be the "head of the house" (as even myself erroneously said). A man is called to be the "head of the WIFE."
Eph 5: 21-23 (RSV)[SUP]
21 [/SUP]Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. [SUP]23 [/SUP]For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. [SUP]2[/SUP]
Further research has revealed to me that the Greek word "kephale" (translated HEAD) did not mean "chief" or "leader" at the time that the scripture was written. It was "head" meaning more like "the starting point." We have some similar usage in English--the beginning of a river is called the "headwaters".
Additionally, in the original Greek, there is no use of the word "submit" in verse 22 of Ephesians--this was an addition added by translators due to the use of the word in verse 21. If you look at the NASB version of the verses, you'll see that they put "be subject" in italics to show that it was indeed a translational insertion.
Eph 5:21-23 (NASB)
[SUP]21 [/SUP][SUP][o][/SUP]and be subject to one another in the [SUP][p][/SUP]fear of Christ. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. [SUP]23 [/SUP]For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
The implications in terms of right interpretation are significant. It seems to make the idea of mutual submission more compelling than the typically rendered "man is boss" interpretation.
We are intelligent women who seek God. We'll gladly look at any scriptures that you'd desire to post.
There's nothing wrong with it, so long as it's understood that the "June Cleaver" model was based on idealized version of womanhood that didn't even really exist significantly in its own time period. Plus, it's not what scripture demands of wives.
R
Rosesrock
Guest
M
Mitspa
Guest
Come on Mary...so Christ is the head of the church and that just means He is first or the starting point? By the way I am quiet able in the Greek and currently writing a book on basic biblical Greek...but we don't need to go there...Me and you can just discuss this issue like a brother and sister should
I think being "subject" to the Lord is more than just a mutual agreement, it seems you may be avoiding the clear and evident reading of these passages to kinda excuse your own desires? Maybe Im wrong
C
cmarieh
Guest
Thus my life
And its a good life and one I am looking forward to. Btw you can PM me anytime
Come on Mary...so Christ is the head of the church and that just means He is first or the starting point? By the way I am quiet able in the Greek and currently writing a book on basic biblical Greek...but we don't need to go there...Me and you can just discuss this issue like a brother and sister should
I think being "subject" to the Lord is more than just a mutual agreement, it seems you may be avoiding the clear and evident reading of these passages to kinda excuse your own desires? Maybe Im wrong
You didn't address my argument. Instead you engaged in ad hominem and made the discussion about my personhood instead of the topic at hand. This is irrational and self-serving. It allows you to pretend that you have a superior understanding while offering no actual proof from the bible.
Feel free to present any scholarship that you have available to support your view of scripture.
Please stop pretending that implying I'm meeting a personal agenda is "scholarship" or "academic" or even decent.
P
purgedconscience
Guest
I Timothy chapter 3 verses 1 thru 5
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
M
Mitspa
Guest
No... its me telling you that you just ignored the clear and evident reading of these scriptures, and putting your own logic above the value of those words and the evident context they are being used. Your clearly rejecting the meaning of these words and its evident.
No... its me telling you that you just ignored the clear and evident reading of these scriptures, and putting your own logic above the value of those words and the evident context they are being used. Your clearly rejecting the meaning of these words and its evident.
Actually, that's a misrepresentation. I presented an alternate view based on the research I'm doing. I made no definitive statements regarding a rendering of the piece.
If you had something scholarly to offer instead of just patronizing ad hominems and the "you ignored the evident reading" pat on the head, I'd have read and engaged with that scholarship.
If the reading is so evident and your rendering so compelling, why not simply offer some proof to support your ideas. Is it threatening for you to engage in intellectual discourse with a woman?
Thanks for posting this. I'll begin looking into this reference to a man ruling his house.
M
Mitspa
Guest
Just some strait talk Mary...im not trying to sound or appear scholarly...when the bible reads so clear on certain issues....there is no reason to add or take away, just stand on what the bible clearly says
K
kenthomas27
Guest
Just some strait talk Mary...im not trying to sound or appear scholarly...when the bible reads so clear on certain issues....there is no reason to add or take away, just stand on what the bible clearly says
I'm no scholar but this is one thing that actually does confuse me about protestants. It seems like folks say that scripture is the written Word of God and the truth in all things and then they argue over what the greek and hebrew really meant all day long? I don't get that.
Poet Mary - you're beating a dead horse here. Scripture goes all the way back to Genesis 3:16 on this topic. Also, I didn't read anything into Mitspa's responses that suggests he was disrespecting your view or afraid to have intellectual discourse with a woman. That's crazy. You have a very large place at the table of Christ and here at CC and a man's respect and honor for you as a woman and sister in Christ is not altered by any teaching in the bible that i'm aware of.
There are interpretations that go back to Genesis 3:16. But Gen 3:16 is part of the curse, so I can't see how it's an accurate interpretation of God's desires for a marital relationship. Basically what I'm hearing is a lot of "this is how it is" with an expectation that I should just take your word for it.
K
kenthomas27
Guest
poetmary, i too am a bit confused as to exactly what you care to establish through the supportive use of your study.
i too, am in agreement that "head of the house" is an inappropriate term for God's designation for man, and as you clarified, he is to be the head of the wife, rather than the "head of the house". for some, this may be semantics, but i view this more as recognition of the fact that God allows each couple the freedom to designate how they will operate within their home, with the understanding that ultimately, husband is held accountable as headship over the wife, with both submitting to each other, and to God.
i'm gathering we're on the same page thus far, correct?
much of how women are painted (simply by misconception) that, as under authority, the role of wife/helper is an inferior one of subservient and diminished both value and spectrum (which i recognize was your intention to illustrate).
i love the full implication of the hebrew term ezer (from ezer-kenegdo) which is utilized throughout the old testament in at least three different contexts.
1) as 'suitable helper' in woman
2) military use
3) God's own reference for Himself, when He refers to Himself as our Ezer
in all of these, there is reference to strength and assistance supplied (such as in battle) in times of need. one scholar used the phrase, "co-warrior", not unlike we view a "the wing man" in a battle who lends strength, defense and additional (in)sight, such as a trusted adviser or resource. of course, this is only one term of description but i find it to be useful.
as to your comment about labels predating the fall: while you may consider labels prior to that as unrelated or flawed, many (myself included) do not find them to be rendered less relevant, because further exegesis of other similar scriptural labels (i.e. gynaikos in OT) supplies a fairly consistent picture that lacks contradiction.
so let me ask this. were you simply in disagreement about "head of the house"? or is your assertion that there is a more egalitarian interpretation than established "head of wife" language i used above?
while there are certainly exceptions, the guys here in singles aren't the ones typically pushing an extreme, "diminished female" agenda. far from it. but there are always a few bdf forum stragglers. : )
further, traditional will always be as worthless a term as any other than cannot be nailed down to a single, agreed upon concept. for example, my paternal grandparents are folks i'd definitely call, "traditional". and yet, they absolutely operated under the belief that while my grandfather was the head of the wife, they operated in a manner that was unique, and befitting their personalities, likes, strengths and weaknesses. she wasn't a downtrodden or silenced woman, and yet, my grandfather was a tender, loving husband who discussed matters and viewed his role as one of ultimate accountability (above his wife), he was a loving, servant leader, not dictatorial ruler.
the reason why "traditional" will always have negative connotations to some is because this is to be expected anytime we use the "worst case" or unfit/not ideal examples of what those roles could be. just as "modern" or "updated", applied to couples (or women) would summon the worst examples of what those words could mean.
putting those highly subjective labels away, we can use a biblical standard that lacks the arguments that are centered around what those terms mean to each person. : )
i'm sorry i didn't see this earlier. i appreciated your sharing your information and study of kephale. i'm not sure what your sources or background is, and i surely don't want to offend. : )
i have studied kephale fairly extensively, including the use of it to infer end points, or mouth of a river. all of my research left me with a clear (and widely accepted) conclusion that this remains a fairly weak connotation. further, this context/definition use is excluded from the extreme majority of greek literature. in fact, the usage surprisingly scant. however, you are absolutely right in the fact that it does exit, if even the connection is tenuous.
the most common usage of this word is primary as head, chief (as in chief corner), a building reference that maintains the inference as hierarchy/authority, head (body part), the head, as in as in authority or at the very least, a hierarchical inference.
if you need some assistance with establishing this, please feel free to message me. : )
You've gotta read each part of Scripture in light of the whole Male headship is a biblical thing, but when you look at the way the Bible talks about and values women--the place that it gives women--you see that women should flourish under a man's headship, not wither.
This is my favorite take on it
[video=youtube;sh5dWRMCu6A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh5dWRMCu6A[/video]
Male headship is a biblical thing, but when you look at the way the Bible talks about and values women--the place that it gives women--you see that women should flourish under a man's headship, not wither. This is my favorite take on it
[video=youtube;sh5dWRMCu6A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh5dWRMCu6A[/video]
- Status