If men got the Titus 2 Treatment…

[EnochBethany]

 

 

As to perspiring (hey now, it is against the rules to use explicit language here), the curse was lifted after the flood.

Where do you see this mentioned in Scripture?

 

It is in the start of the blessed Noahic Covenant of Gen 9

 

" And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.  21 And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s  sake, for that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done.  22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

 

I disagree.

 

This does not say the curse of Adam is lifted. Rather it states the the ground will not be cursed again. The implication is that the Flood was a new cursing of the ground, since the ground was destroyed.

 

This interpretation fits in with the rest of the passage, for God speaks of those things which the Flood affected directly.

 

And by the way, the ground still produces thorns and thistles, which was a part of Adam's land curse.

 

On this point, I tend to agree with you.  There is no way the curse was lifted, and it won't be till there is a new heaven and a new earth.  There will be some restoration in the millennial reign, but not complete restoration. 

 

Well, Butero, how canst thou vociferate as how ~"They beez no way the curse was lifted," the text verily saith, "YHWH said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake."

 

Vot der dumboozle

[EnochBethany]

 

As to perspiring (hey now, it is against the rules to use explicit language here), the curse was lifted after the flood.

Where do you see this mentioned in Scripture?

 

It is in the start of the blessed Noahic Covenant of Gen 9

 

" And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.  21 And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s  sake, for that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done.  22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

 

I disagree.

 

This does not say the curse of Adam is lifted. Rather it states the the ground will not be cursed again. The implication is that the Flood was a new cursing of the ground, since the ground was destroyed.

 

This interpretation fits in with the rest of the passage, for God speaks of those things which the Flood affected directly.

 

And by the way, the ground still produces thorns and thistles, which was a part of Adam's land curse.

 

"YHWH said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake"

 

1) I don't recall anything being said about cursing the ground when the Flood Judgment was sent.  Living beings who breathed were drowned.

 

2) The Hebrew verb is אסף  'osif = add, do again, do more. [Remember Joseph?]  The ASV 1901, as well as the Keil & Delitzsch Commentary give: "curse the ground any more."

An NASB has "I will never again curse the ground."

 

3) Word Commentary:  “I shall not curse the soil any further.” It is important to note the position of owd in this sentence, coming after lqll to “curse,” not after asP “do again” as in the parallel clause “Never again shall I smite.” This shows that God is not lifting the curse on the ground pronounced in 3:17 for man’s disobedience, but promising not to add to it. The flood was a punishment over and above that decreed in 3:17. This is further confirmed by the milder word for “curse,” qll “treat lightly, disdain,” used here as opposed to the graver term arr, used in 3:17; . . . ."

 

Evidently the commentators do not agree as to whether this refers to a lifting of the curse on the ground. But looking at the context & considering those comments, I have changed my mind.  Iron sharpens iron.  It is reasonable that water covering the ground cursed it.  And the imagination of man's heart to do evil continually was the cause of the flood.

 

Thanks for the discussion.  I have changed my mind after more investigation and now agree with the POV that this curse was the Flood itself.

[EnochBethany]

 

 

 

 

 

IMHO:

Interesting how much Bible is ignored or rejected because it advocates something not politically correct.

 

Vague objections (to clear Bible-teaching readily understandable) are put forth, like:

 

"typically extrapolated from a single biblical text without regard to literary or historical context and followed by a parenthetical string of additional unrelated and out-of-context Bible verses for support."

 

Just a wave of the hand to justify disobedience.  A little shuckin & jivin.

 

As to perspiring (hey now, it is against the rules to use explicit language here), the curse was lifted after the flood.

 

Ethics is hierarchical in the Bible. A man is not to gross out another man in a society where men kissing men is loathsome.  Now Russia is another matter.

 

Now let me tell you that there was this huge mob of persons gathered at the Pearly Gates, seeking entrance.  St. Pete came forth & told the mob:

Now I want all you men who were forced by your wives to do their will to go to my left.  All the men who did what they wanted, go to my right.

 

There was considerable hubbub & dust raised.  But when it was over every single man except one little schnook man was on the left, & schnook was on the right. 

 

St Pete said to him, "Why are you on the right?"

Schnook: "I don't know, but my wife told me to stand here."

If the curse was lifted as you claim, people wouldn't die, women wouldn't have pain in child bearing, and men wouldn't have to earn a living by the sweat of their brow.  The curse continues to effect this world and everything in it.  It is taught in the New Testament that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.  The New Testament uses the example of Abraham and Sarah, and how Sarah called Abraham Lord. 

 

I really don't believe there is any need to return to the custom of kissing each other, but there are churches that still practice it.  To me, a handshake is fine, and all of this is just the work of a woman who got an attitude because of things being taught about women she doesn't like.  You can't make one thing null and void by showing that people are ignoring other scriptures.  It doesn't work that way. 

 

"The curse continues to effect this world and everything in it. It is taught in the New Testament that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church."

 

The only curse which IMHO was lifted was the special curse on the ground.  It is not a curse on the woman that she should be under the headship of her husband, no more than it is a curse that the Church is under the headship of Christ.  It is a curse when a husband lords it over his wife (or vice versa nowadays!)  And BTW, how many women have any intention, whatsoever, of obeying their husbands today -- even in the Church?

 

The Bible actually gives Abraham and Sarah as examples, and how Sarah called Abraham Lord.  That is New Testament scripture.  The husband is Lord over his wife, whether he "lords it over her" or not.  But you do have a point.  Few women in this American culture do obey their husbands.  It is just another example of another teaching that is ignored, and excuses are made.  That is why I am saying all this complaining by women is silly, like they are somehow being mistreated and their is a double standard against them.  If anything, it is the other way around.  I gave examples of that already. 

 

The way I look at it, women aren't to blame for men's lot in life.  God set the system up as is, so I don't get mad at women that I have to earn a living by the sweat of my brow.  It is just my place to do so.  I find it silly when women want to complain about the role God gave them.  I didn't write the Bible, and I didn't set the order.  I just accept it.  When people don't follow God's order, they are in rebellion, which is as the sin of witchcraft. 

 

Of course the husband's primary job, as the head, is to be a servant to the wife.  As to the perspiration of a brrow, I use the A/C as much as possible if the situation should produce perspiration.

 

We do serve one another, in that we need to meet each other's needs.  I use the A/C as much as I can too, but they haven't found a way to keep the back of a trailer cool yet, and by the time I get done unloading in the heat of the summer, my shirt is soaking in sweat.  I am all for making things as easy as possible with today's technology, just as I am for women having as little pain as possible in child bearing.  I don't believe they are sinning if they don't opt for natural child birth. 

BTW, I just did some more study & decided that the curse on the ground was not lifted after the flood after all; I was mistaking the Adamic ground curse with the curse on the ground which consisted of the Flood.

[Guest HisG]

I really can't see Aussie men doing the cheek kissing! Unless one wants a blue black hue to the eyes.....

[nebula]

Evidently the commentators do not agree as to whether this refers to a lifting of the curse on the ground. But looking at the context & considering those comments, I have changed my mind.  Iron sharpens iron.  It is reasonable that water covering the ground cursed it.  And the imagination of man's heart to do evil continually was the cause of the flood.

 

Thanks for the discussion.  I have changed my mind after more investigation and now agree with the POV that this curse was the Flood itself.

 

You are welcome!

[nebula]

How many wives fulfill their role as a help meet and willingly obey their husbands as they would Christ?

About the same number of husbands who love their wives as they love themselves as I described above.

Since there is no way to know for sure, I will concede the point.  There will always be some obedient men and women and disobedient men and women.

 

Some serious points that get lost in all of this - what keeps men from loving their wives as they love themselves, and what keeps women from subjecting (the word used in Eph. 5) themselves to their husband? Some causes could be:

• Parents were not modeling this behavior, so we never learned how this was to be done or what it looked like - unless we make some effort to learn on our own.
• Significant hurt from key relations of the opposite sex which you subconsciously concluded "all men" or "all women" were like that - thus one subconsciously transferred this bitterness onto their spouse and are treating them accordingly.
• Personal insecurities making one feel threatened that if they do their part but the spouse does not do their part, they will feel abused.
• Either you or your spouse have a "sick" mental condition (i.e paranoia) that makes them incapable of serving the other in this way.

In terms of the last case scenario, healing from that would take a lot more work than what I propose below as a solution. But how do we recognize we are not doing our part in the love-subjecting area, and how do we change our heart to begin walking in that?

 

I know for myself, I had to take lessons and read books on healthy relationships because I never had a godly home model to teach me. This involved a mixture of cleaning up my own attitude and behaviors as well as learning what men need and how to appreciate them for what and who they are as men (books like "Men are from Mars, Woman are from Venus", by John Gray, and "Wild at Heart", by John Eldridge, helped in that area). It is amazing how just knowing and accepting - and then appreciating for what it is - the quirks of the opposite sex can aid men in being more loving (as opposed to critical) and women more respectful.

 

Coming to grips with the hurts you have received from opposite sex members of your family, making the effort to forgive those past hurts and injustices, and sharing these with your spouse will go a long way towards healing, and thus change of attitude and thus change of behavior. When a spouse understands how your past hurts are influencing your current behavior, and you have apologized  for doing things that hurt your spouse based on these things (failing to apologize would be detrimental), and you want to change, it will begin bringing healing to your spouse for areas you have hurt him/her in this way, and your spouse can work with you in the healing process to wholeness. Working together on these issues will thus bring you closer together.

 

Personal insecurities are areas you need to recognize and admit that you have before you can come to a place to be healed. Now quite often a spouse can be more discerning on your insecurities than you can. But here is one thing I have found. The more a man lays down his pride, dignity, and honor, his "rights" for his wife, serves her and ministers to her, and puts her needs and desires above his own, the more the wife will want to submit to her husband. Likewise, the more a wife subjects herself to her husband, honors him, praises him in public, etc., the more he will want to do love her in the ways listed above. But when husband "demands" submission and punishes his wife (even verbally) for her lack of subjecting, she will feel threatened and abused, and it will be harder for her to subject herself - wither she will be a slave to fear or she will become hardened. Likewise, when a woman constantly criticizes her husband, usurps him, dishonors him, etc., the more he will likewise feel abused and either shut down or take his rage out (whether verbally at home or hanging out at some recreational place).

 

So, what do you do if you realize that you are trapped in the above scenario? You first have to realize that change begins with you. If your solution is to "fix" your spouse, then you are going to continue the old pattern. Here's the thing - if you are a husband who's wife is failing in the area of subjecting to and respecting you, then you need to point the finger back at yourself and ask yourself, "Is she treating me this way because I am not loving her as I should?" and if you are a wife who's husband is failing in loving/serving you, then you need to point the finger back at yourself and ask yourself, "Is he treating me this way because I am not respecting him and subjecting myself as I should?" I can guarantee that you changing your attitude and behavior will naturally draw out of your spouse reciprocating behavior. But if you are insisting that your spouse change before you change - get marriage counseling!

[nebula]

Jesus made it clear that he was Lord over his disciples, but he showed them how their Lord was willing to wash their feet.  He never gave up his Lordship.  The disciples obeyed Jesus, and he never once told them they were wrong to do so.  As a matter of fact, he stated in John's gospel that they were his friends, if they did whatsoever he commanded them.  Jesus is our example. 

 

OK, this has been bugging me.

 

I see a contradiction between what you stated and what I see in Scripture.

 

Phil 2

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation , and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

 

Matt. 20

25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said , Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto , but to minister , and to give his life a ransom for many.

 

 

When I read your words, it sounds as if Jesus emphasized His Lordship over them. Yet when I read Scripture, I see Jesus emphasizing His humility.

 

While He invited people to Himself, and He praised those who followed Him, He never forced Himself or His authority on anyone.

[Guest Butero]

 

Jesus made it clear that he was Lord over his disciples, but he showed them how their Lord was willing to wash their feet.  He never gave up his Lordship.  The disciples obeyed Jesus, and he never once told them they were wrong to do so.  As a matter of fact, he stated in John's gospel that they were his friends, if they did whatsoever he commanded them.  Jesus is our example. 

 

OK, this has been bugging me.

 

I see a contradiction between what you stated and what I see in Scripture.

 

Phil 2

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation , and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

 

Matt. 20

25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said , Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto , but to minister , and to give his life a ransom for many.

 

 

When I read your words, it sounds as if Jesus emphasized His Lordship over them. Yet when I read Scripture, I see Jesus emphasizing His humility.

 

While He invited people to Himself, and He praised those who followed Him, He never forced Himself or His authority on anyone.

 

Here is something I have found interesting about us Nebula.  We both place our emphasis on different verses when we look at God.  We both know what is in the Bible, but I see a judgment side of God, as in Ananias and Saphira, and you see John 3:16.  In this case, you see Jesus as showing himself a minister, and I see him as Lord, and supreme in authority.  A person in a place of authority will have to minister to those he is Lord over.  Jesus is not our servant, but he will minister to our needs because he loves us. 

 

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.  John 15:14

 

Again, remember that Jesus is our example.  Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.  Here he is making it clear that he is commanding his disciples to obey him, and they are his friends if they obey him.  He never gave up his Lordship, but he cared enough about his disciples to meet their needs.  Notice what Jesus says after washing the disciples feet.

 

Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am.  If then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wask one another's feet.  For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.   John 13:13-16

 

Jesus did emphasize his Lordship, but people aren't listening to those scriptures, but they read over them and don't notice what he is really saying.  A good master and Lord cares about those he is in authority over, so he ministers to them. 

[nebula]

Here is something I have found interesting about us Nebula.  We both place our emphasis on different verses when we look at God.  We both know what is in the Bible, but I see a judgment side of God, as in Ananias and Saphira, and you see John 3:16.  In this case, you see Jesus as showing himself a minister, and I see him as Lord, and supreme in authority.  A person in a place of authority will have to minister to those he is Lord over.  Jesus is not our servant, but he will minister to our needs because he loves us.

Not exactly.

 

I do acknowledge both; however, in speaking with you I tend to emphasize the latter because you come across as presenting a God who holds a lightning bolt ready to strike us down. King David knew God better than that - and He lived in Old Testament times.

[Guest Butero]

 

Here is something I have found interesting about us Nebula.  We both place our emphasis on different verses when we look at God.  We both know what is in the Bible, but I see a judgment side of God, as in Ananias and Saphira, and you see John 3:16.  In this case, you see Jesus as showing himself a minister, and I see him as Lord, and supreme in authority.  A person in a place of authority will have to minister to those he is Lord over.  Jesus is not our servant, but he will minister to our needs because he loves us.

Not exactly.

 

I do acknowledge both; however, in speaking with you I tend to emphasize the latter because you come across as presenting a God who holds a lightning bolt ready to strike us down. King David knew God better than that - and He lived in Old Testament times.

 

How about Ananias, Saphira and Herod.  Did they know better?  Oh that's right.  God struck them all down because of sin, not with a lightening bolt, but the same result.